Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-11-2012 | 05:34 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
I was being sarcastic, guess it didn't come across that way even though I used a 
. Just stating that the original poster made it seem like this 717 deal is a lot better for the company than ALPA thought. Original poster implied that it will save the company $750 million next year alone. I believe the article is not written well because I have to believe, as stated by shiznit, that the savings must be from the entire refleeting project. There is no way that just 16 airplanes (717's) next year are going to save us that kind of money. My thoughts anyway.
. Just stating that the original poster made it seem like this 717 deal is a lot better for the company than ALPA thought. Original poster implied that it will save the company $750 million next year alone. I believe the article is not written well because I have to believe, as stated by shiznit, that the savings must be from the entire refleeting project. There is no way that just 16 airplanes (717's) next year are going to save us that kind of money. My thoughts anyway.Even if the 750m number is correct, it could be savings next year that we would have spent over several years. Depends on when and how they account for it I guess.
07-11-2012 | 05:38 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
07-11-2012 | 05:52 AM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
I was being sarcastic, guess it didn't come across that way even though I used a . Just stating that the original poster made it seem like this 717 deal is a lot better for the company than ALPA thought. Original poster implied that it will save the company $750 million next year alone. I believe the article is not written well because I have to believe, as stated by shiznit, that the savings must be from the entire refleeting project. There is no way that just 16 airplanes (717's) next year are going to save us that kind of money. My thoughts anyway.
. Just stating that the original poster made it seem like this 717 deal is a lot better for the company than ALPA thought. Original poster implied that it will save the company $750 million next year alone. I believe the article is not written well because I have to believe, as stated by shiznit, that the savings must be from the entire refleeting project. There is no way that just 16 airplanes (717's) next year are going to save us that kind of money. My thoughts anyway.
07-11-2012 | 05:54 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
07-11-2012 | 05:59 AM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
I think they make up what are called the second (or third?) standard deviation.
07-11-2012 | 06:20 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
You could be right about that. However its possible that the savings quoted comes from imminent savings as a result of getting the 717's. Savings such as getting out of long term high water mark real estate bubble 50 seater leases, cancellation of engine replacements and heavy checks, etc. Even savings from the juniority virus (SJS) that every RFP gives management as they watch the piranhas tear themselves up for every pound of ground round they lob into the red frothy waters of the regional industry.
Even if the 750m number is correct, it could be savings next year that we would have spent over several years. Depends on when and how they account for it I guess.
Even if the 750m number is correct, it could be savings next year that we would have spent over several years. Depends on when and how they account for it I guess.
The writer of that article is connecting incongruous pieces of information and calling it analysis, it is trash and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about this industry.
I disagree with Jerry that if we were outside Sect 6 that we would end up with a 717 rate different than what we have now. (But I do agree about the 79,999 others comment!)
We have a DC9 rate that is already in the contract, and the speed, weight, distance is almost identical to the current DC9. The "we could get the 88 rate" argument is flawed because the current 3.B.6 language doesn't allow DL pilots to refuse to fly the airplane if there is no negotiated rate. Thanks to C2K, now we have to fly it and negotiate a rate (we did in this PWA) and if that fails it goes to arbitration..... Not sure what anyone else thinks, but I bet it would be a tough sell to an arbitrator that a DC9-30 airframe with newer engines and cockpit that seats 110 pax is the equivalent of a 160 seat MD-90. The 25 seat variance between the 319/320 and 32 seat variance between the -700 and -800 would both be tossed out because of the common cockpit/category that those have.
07-11-2012 | 06:41 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Of course there is this one...
I think I have this right.
Start with the obvious,
7ER: Handsome, cocky, owns the world and really wants to be with the A330.
A330: Enjoys the trips, wants more 7ER time. Just can't figure out how to do it.
744: Think about it, stops to watch you go by. Some flat out stare. And really, who do you want to be seen with when you walk into a social setting? When people ask, what do you do, you want to say the 744.
764: You rarely see it, but you know they're making an A.
A320: Happy.
777: Solid. Boring. Money marker.
DC9: Smaller than the 88 but looks very similar.
MD88: I never study and I smile like I never study.
737: Like a maid, always there. Reliable. Frumpy.
07-11-2012 | 06:45 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
I'm with gloop, how much savings can 3-16 airplanes in 0-6 months of revenue flying create?
The writer of that article is connecting incongruous pieces of information and calling it analysis, it is trash and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about this industry.
I disagree with Jerry that if we were outside Sect 6 that we would end up with a 717 rate different than what we have now. (But I do agree about the 79,999 others comment!)
We have a DC9 rate that is already in the contract, and the speed, weight, distance is almost identical to the current DC9. The "we could get the 88 rate" argument is flawed because the current 3.B.6 language doesn't allow DL pilots to refuse to fly the airplane if there is no negotiated rate. Thanks to C2K, now we have to fly it and negotiate a rate (we did in this PWA) and if that fails it goes to arbitration..... Not sure what anyone else thinks, but I bet it would be a tough sell to an arbitrator that a DC9-30 airframe with newer engines and cockpit that seats 110 pax is the equivalent of a 160 seat MD-90. The 25 seat variance between the 319/320 and 32 seat variance between the -700 and -800 would both be tossed out because of the common cockpit/category that those have.
The writer of that article is connecting incongruous pieces of information and calling it analysis, it is trash and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about this industry.
I disagree with Jerry that if we were outside Sect 6 that we would end up with a 717 rate different than what we have now. (But I do agree about the 79,999 others comment!)
We have a DC9 rate that is already in the contract, and the speed, weight, distance is almost identical to the current DC9. The "we could get the 88 rate" argument is flawed because the current 3.B.6 language doesn't allow DL pilots to refuse to fly the airplane if there is no negotiated rate. Thanks to C2K, now we have to fly it and negotiate a rate (we did in this PWA) and if that fails it goes to arbitration..... Not sure what anyone else thinks, but I bet it would be a tough sell to an arbitrator that a DC9-30 airframe with newer engines and cockpit that seats 110 pax is the equivalent of a 160 seat MD-90. The 25 seat variance between the 319/320 and 32 seat variance between the -700 and -800 would both be tossed out because of the common cockpit/category that those have.
From wiki:
In early 1994 the MD-95 re-emerged bearing far more similarity to the DC-9-30. Indeed the aircraft's specification in terms of weight, dimensions, and fuel capacity are almost identical. The major changes included a fuselage "shrink" back to 119 ft 4 in (36.37 m) length (same as the DC-9-30), and the reversion to the original DC-9 wing of 93 ft 5 in (28.47 m) span. At the time of the redefinition, McDonnell Douglas said that it expected the MD-95 to grow into a family of aircraft with the capability of increased range and seating capacity.[4]
The MD-95 was developed to satisfy the market need to replace early DC-9 models, then approaching 30 years old. The MD-95 project was a complete overhaul of the system, going back to the original DC-9-30 design and reinventing it for modern transport with new engines, cockpit and other more modern systems.[5] Historically, aircraft shrinks have sold poorly, examples of such aircraft in addition to the MD-87 include the Boeing 747SP, Boeing 737-600, Airbus A318, and Airbus A340-200.
The MD-95 was developed to satisfy the market need to replace early DC-9 models, then approaching 30 years old. The MD-95 project was a complete overhaul of the system, going back to the original DC-9-30 design and reinventing it for modern transport with new engines, cockpit and other more modern systems.[5] Historically, aircraft shrinks have sold poorly, examples of such aircraft in addition to the MD-87 include the Boeing 747SP, Boeing 737-600, Airbus A318, and Airbus A340-200.
07-11-2012 | 06:51 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
07-11-2012 | 06:59 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,004
Likes: 0
From: MD-88 F/O
FTB.....I am thinking that Cousin Itt is more of the A320 variety...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
