|
|
Originally Posted by Humboldt
(Post 1197797)
contrails,
thank you, my wife and I will head to LAX and enjoy our first 747 flight, sounds stupid but I feel like a kid again. Humboldt The upper deck is fantastic if there's seats open -- two flight attendants for a very small number of pax. Of course, they also have to keep Carl Spackler happy up front!! |
Originally Posted by Elvis90
(Post 1196970)
Remember our heroes who have paid the ultimate sacrifice this Memorial Day. It puts all of our contract discussions in the perspective of a bigger picture.
Tom Manion: Why They Serve—'If Not Me Then Who?' - WSJ.com Wait, is it still the Richter Lounge? It's probably the Pelosi Lounge now. :mad: |
Originally Posted by Superpilot92
(Post 1197099)
|
I was told the NC didn't go back to the company as the TA was being discussed because we didn't want to look bad after the handshake agreement.
I'm sorry, but this is business. We should have negotiated longer/more. It was what 1 or 2 days on section 3? The second most important and probably most expensive section and it took so little time? Too rushed, too many holes, too little. If it is true that RA is either going with the 717s or heavy checks on the 50s, then let em have the 50s. As the 739s come they probably will keep the fleet number up to get the 255 76s, and then dump a bunch of mainline, but by then it will be around 2014/2015 either still negotiating or have a better TA by then. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1197784)
Couple of highlights from the DTW LEC chairman:
------------------------- This is a cost neutral contract for the company and a lost opportunity for Delta pilots. “We have deep respect for the process of membership ratification. Our vote was based on the quality of the TA not on your right to vote on the agreement.” I voted no because: The TA did not satisfy the guidance and parameters as communicated by line pilots and the MEC Known money was left on the table. This one time savings is based on a change to the PWA allowing for increased 76 seat aircraft and parking of additional 50 seat aircraft and the associated maintenance costs The MEC could have modified the direction [of the negotiating committee], but that did not occur. ----------------------- Carl I read his whole letter Carl, and TT largely nailed it. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1197168)
Notice the expert placement of the non flying arm.
|
Originally Posted by boog123
(Post 1197684)
Where is the guarantee that the 88 "growth" airplanes won't be offset by parking Dc-9's, A319/320's and 757's. These are replacement planes.
|
Originally Posted by PilotFrog
(Post 1197809)
I was told the NC didn't go back to the company as the TA was being discussed because we didn't want to look bad after the handshake agreement.
I'm sorry, but this is business. We should have negotiated longer/more. It was what 1 or 2 days on section 3? The second most important and probably most expensive section and it took so little time? Too rushed, too many holes, too little. If it is true that RA is either going with the 717s or heavy checks on the 50s, then let em have the 50s. As the 739s come they probably will keep the fleet number up to get the 255 76s, and then dump a bunch of mainline, but by then it will be around 2014/2015 either still negotiating or have a better TA by then. Not sure it was a handshake or a true TA. It is apparent after reading all of the reps positions on the subject that the product(TA) and associated pay was below direction. The nc and admin should have asked direction from the MEC before TAing it. They TAed the sucker with the entire MEC in ATL at a hotel. They were assembled and could have provided direction eight hours later. That my friends is the elephant in the room. |
The B-737-900 order (100) will trigger the current 76 seat clause no matter what. The 717 is on top of that. Delta Orders 100 Boeing 737-900s to Replace Aging Aircraft From the press release: On Thursday, Delta announced plans to purchase 100 Boeing 737-900ER aircraft for delivery between 2013 and 2018 as it retires older mainline jets and upgrades its fleet. The order will enable Delta to add 100 fuel-efficient, state-of-the-art 180-seat aircraft to its fleet, replacing on a capacity-neutral basis older technology aircraft that will be retired from the fleet. The new aircraft will improve the company’s profitability while providing customers with an industry-leading on-board experience. With a range of 3,200 nautical miles, the Boeing 737-900ER can operate on any domestic route offered by Delta. As a result of maintenance efficiencies and a 15 to 20 percent improvement in fuel consumption per seat, the Boeing 737-900ER will have lower unit costs than the older technology Boeing 757 and 767 and Airbus A320 aircraft that it will replace.The aircraft will be equipped with CFM56-7B engines produced by CFM International, a joint venture of General Electric Co. of the U.S. and Snecma of France. Then the 2011 10-K says: Fleet Strategy During 2011, we entered into an agreement with The Boeing Company ("Boeing") to purchase 100 B-737-900ER aircraft with deliveries beginning in 2013 and continuing through 2018. We have obtained committed long-term financing for a substantial portion of the purchase price of these aircraft. The Boeing agreement and our plans to bring into service 30 to 40 previously owned MD-90 aircraft over the next two to three years will enable us to replace on a capacity-neutral basis older, less efficient aircraft scheduled to be retired. The majority of the MD-90 aircraft scheduled to come into service over the next two to three years were purchased or leased in 2010 and 2011. These B-737-900ER and MD-90 aircraft will have lower unit costs than the aircraft they are replacing as a result of lower maintenance costs and fuel efficiencies. This whole capacity neutral stuff seems to be the goal. The MD-90 is supposedly a DC-9 replacement, although that just might have more to do with timing than anything. I think they may make great MD-88 replacements since that's what the OEM originally made them to be. Really a 717 would make a great DC-9 replacement but the 717s won't be here til after the 9s are gone so we'll just call the 160 seat MD90 a DC9-40 and -30 replacement. The 737-900 is slated to a 767, 757 and A320 replacement. Odd isn't how a smaller aircraft can replace a much bigger one as long as it has better CASM? The 717 seems like it'd make a great MD-88 replacement in conjunction with the CRJ-900s. After all we have 117 MD-88s. Add all the 717s and 70 more CRJ-900s and you get... 160 new frames. And that's not counting the MD90s that could be added to the mix. Which I know the 76-seaters like the E175 aren't as big as an 88, but it seemed to have no problem replacing the 88s on the shuttle. Seems capacity neutral and replace with better CASM is the refleeting strategy and I bet you get that with free 717s and CRJ-900s. |
One thing I don't get, the company could order as many CRJ-200s as they want. They could replace those with more CRJ-200s.
Why not do that? Just grow that fleet? Surely it cannot be because the CRJ-200s are unwanted, right? Not ordering more makes it sound like they just don't want them. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:56 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands