|
Originally Posted by TED74
(Post 2362058)
Thanks folks. Lots of ways to skin this cat. With one methodology, UAL is the clear winner in wide bodies. Of course, other approaches will yield different results. I just added up active and ordered true wide bodies (ignored 757 and ignored retirement plans), primarily because I can't guarantee the pay methodologies will be similar across brands for the next two decades.
UAL: 26% widebody DL: 17% widebody AA: 15% widebody UAL domestic feed is 40% smaller than Delta's and AA, and that' not combined. That's kind of scary for UAL and sustaining international feed. And international markets are where the current cute throat competition is with subsidized airlines. |
Originally Posted by TRZ06
(Post 2362152)
Right on target. Those initial base 777's at UA are kind of useless especially if fuel goes up. I believe they were meant to replace dc10 (10 series) flying in the past. As for running 777 across the pond unless you are hauling a lot of cargo it is not plane for the mission.
Way too much plane for capacity and range (from eastern US gateways). I'm not DAL but the 767/332 and 333 are ideal for that. If you are going long range the 787 is hard to beat. Perhaps the 359 or 10 would be the best bet for longer heavier routes, but that is what the 777-200er and LR do hence delivery postponements. Bottom line with carriers right sizing their fleets you might not see a increase in WB flying for awhile IMO and hard to see who will have the most based on today's numbers. |
I know the original poster leaned toward long-haul type operations. But, considering the metrics we are talking about ($, profits, downturn, etc), they should consider SWA. 40+ consecutive quarters of profit. Paid a profit sharing check during both 9-11, and the 08-09 meltdown. Never declared bankruptcy, never furloughed a pilot. Great culture. Something to consider.
|
Originally Posted by TED74
(Post 2361972)
He has zero interest in cargo.
|
Originally Posted by TED74
(Post 2361972)
He has zero interest in cargo.
|
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 2362215)
I think you should also ignore the 767s as they do not pay widebody rates.
The American number seems low. |
Originally Posted by BobZ
(Post 2362110)
what he might want to examine is the stats on what a career of only international flying does to health and longevity prospects.
|
I wouldn't count the 75/76 for pay purposes. They only pay a few dollars more than the 73/320 series.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by NikeBuddy
(Post 2362287)
I know the original poster leaned toward long-haul type operations. But, considering the metrics we are talking about ($, profits, downturn, etc), they should consider SWA. 40+ consecutive quarters of profit. Paid a profit sharing check during both 9-11, and the 08-09 meltdown. Never declared bankruptcy, never furloughed a pilot. Great culture. Something to consider.
You will be a first officer forever. You can only fly the 1960s cockpit 737 Guppy The cockpit is Loud! And extremely Small! Other than that, you make great points. |
25% of AA CA's are on w/b's. Includes 757's. 'Crew age by fleet' as source.
G4% is 16%. If you're only interested in n/b flying legacy n/b advancement will be faster than at SW. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:37 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands