|
|
Originally Posted by sinca3
(Post 1344027)
Falling behind, we've been behind and will continue to be behind as we seem to find other airlines to fly our heavy metal routes for us!!
Yeahbut...we're kicking AA's arse in JV's and Code Shares! :rolleyes: And pretty soon we'll own every MD90 ever made! :rolleyes: And every 717 ever made! :rolleyes: So we got that going for us. Who needs more wide bodies anyway? Everyone knows there's no money in International flying, might as well buy another carrier like VA. |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1344055)
Yeahbut...we're kicking AA's arse in JV's and Code Shares! :rolleyes: And pretty soon we'll own every MD90 ever made! :rolleyes: And every 717 ever made! :rolleyes: So we got that going for us. Who needs more wide bodies anyway? Everyone knows there's no money in International flying, might as well buy another carrier like VA. |
Originally Posted by badflaps
(Post 1343933)
Sayyyy.. wait a minute.. I was based in BOS.....However, they don't make 'em like Jimmy B. any more, covered a multitude of sins. He sure had a full deck up there.
Yeah, he was a real card, and needed to be dealt with! :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by SailorJerry
(Post 1344059)
Note that the 717 is now a fleet type on DLNet...
|
Dow crosses 14,000. Many predict a further 35% increase in the next 3 years. The trend is your friend.
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1344041)
Looking at the numbers I think it's clear. We're falling behind. BUT, what race are we running? If the race is to grow larger, then I'm not jumping for joy. Especially when you consider the 787 unlikely to happen.
If the race is to grow margins, I bet we're doing great... which means I probably won't jump for joy. 9000+ as in 9000 pilots on the list in case anyone forgot the connotation United has 98. American has 49 (with 17 more on order.). Delta has 34. |
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1344076)
Dow crosses 14,000. Many predict a further 35% increase in the next 3 years. The trend is your friend.
In 2009, it was below 7,000. This country, and the whole world, has a whole pile of financial problems that aren't being fixed. The problem is just being kicked down the road. As an active investor, the fact that the Dow hit 14,000 today (and its stellar performance lately) makes me very very nervous, not excited. The trend doesn't have a lot to support it and is very misleading. |
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 1344054)
The 727 was the same way. Push the power up a smidge, cruise at 82 or 83, and you'd be consistently 1.5-2.0k fat at your destination.
Of course, you were deaf when you got there. Nu Huh? Whad ya say? |
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1344065)
And yet the DC-9 is not included in "aircraft we fly" in the Delta Sky magazine. :rolleyes:
Section 22.B: CRJ-900 A > DC-9 B We outsource the CRJ-900 though. |
All the posts on fuel burn are useless unless you include the planned taxi fuel and planned flight plan weight. I have found over the years that if you subtract the unburned taxi fuel and were at the flight planned weight you burn right on the flight plan almost to the pound. If your lighter then the flight plan which is the norm then you under burn the flight plan. Fly fast and you over burn the flight plan however if you were under the flight planned weight it will mask flying fast and make you feel like there is no fuel burn increase. The 727 would go very fast but sucked fuel doing it. The 767 can also be pushed up to .83 and again burns a lot of extra fuel unless you are under the flight planned weight and under burn the taxi fuel. The flight planned weight is supposed to be the maximum you will see so generally your under that weight when the actual awabs arrives. Weight more then any other factor seems to affect fuel burn.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:44 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands