![]() |
Originally Posted by Arado 234
(Post 2829768)
Yep!
Heard a rumor the 78 had to be replaced by the 77 out of NZ because of weight issues. |
Originally Posted by Arado 234
(Post 2829768)
Yep!
Heard a rumor the 78 had to be replaced by the 77 out of NZ because of weight issues. |
Originally Posted by Name User
(Post 2829858)
That's really surprising as it was designed for longer routes. Is there something special about New Zealand that makes it unsuitable? I really don't know much about our international operations.
|
Originally Posted by TheRaven
(Post 2829862)
It’s not weight, it’s volume....the 787 can’t carry nearly the freight that the 777 can
|
Originally Posted by Gone Flying
(Post 2829447)
there are enough 787s on order to replace every 767 and a330-300 and still replace about 15 772s, assuming a 1 for 1 swap. it has been interesting they were leaving ORD-Asia but i would guess they are gonna put the planes where they make money. the a321s are replacing 757s not 767s
|
Originally Posted by AAL24
(Post 2829950)
Sure but you are not counting all the group 3 aircraft that have already been parked since the merger. How many 767's and 757's have been parked and replaced with 321's? If you count the historical total group 3+4 aircraft of the combined US Airways and AA fleets at the merger I believe there is a significant drop. But total group 4 has increased. Win some lose some.
|
Originally Posted by Name User
(Post 2829960)
Our overall concern should be total jobs and profitability, not what type we have on property. IMO.
It would be nice if APA spent some time and energy worrying about scope on the widebody side as well. Our JBV language is lacking in regards to dividing international growth flying. By the way you shouldn’t be worrying about profitability. Parker gets $70 million for worrying about profitability. We should be worried about meeting and/or exceeding industry standard work rules and compensation. |
Originally Posted by AAL24
(Post 2830005)
I vehemently disagree with that but it’s ok to have differing opinions. The whole point of scope is defining which aircraft need to be flown by mainline. My biggest concern is that 10 years from now our massive armada of narrowbody aircraft will be feeding the 777/380/350 fleets of QANTAS, BA, China Southern and LATAM.
It would be nice if APA spent some time and energy worrying about scope on the widebody side as well. Our JBV language is lacking in regards to dividing international growth flying. By the way you shouldn’t be worrying about profitability. Parker gets $70 million for worrying about profitability. We should be worried about meeting and/or exceeding industry standard work rules and compensation. I don't care what I fly. If long haul loses money I want our JV partners to lose the money, not us. Wanting to fly big airplanes is just a form of SJS. The more money the company makes the more we can be paid. If the company doesn't make money, over a long enough time period, we will cease to get paid at all. A lot of JV stuff is compromise. The other countries want their share of the flying as well. |
Originally Posted by Name User
(Post 2830097)
Most guys have your opinion. They don't care about AA's profitability at all and their efforts at work show it. And they wonder why we aren't paid as well as Delta or United, or even SWA.
I don't care what I fly. If long haul loses money I want our JV partners to lose the money, not us. Wanting to fly big airplanes is just a form of SJS. The more money the company makes the more we can be paid. If the company doesn't make money, over a long enough time period, we will cease to get paid at all. A lot of JV stuff is compromise. The other countries want their share of the flying as well. |
Originally Posted by Name User
(Post 2829887)
Well unless the guys wife is riding inside a box I'm not sure how that is relevant to her having to make alternative plans.
I think the rumor was SYD back to the 777. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:57 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands