Probably because they wanted the 717's (or the A319's…whatever) and were getting them anyway. Just look at how phenominal of a deal it was, and how much marketing loves the plane. They knew all this back then too. My point is they were nev-ver going to refurb the massive 50 seat fleet. And if they did they'd now be the laughing stocks of Wall Street. It doesn't matter if you have the machine shop capacity to do it or not. I'm sure they did. Its sure is nice to send the many hundreds we don't need (and never needed in the first place) to the desert without brand new engines and heavy checks though because the economics of it are pure POS and they don't have anyone to fly them anyway, isn't it?

I agree that there is a market to some limited extent for some airframes that size (heck, there's a market for big Globals/Gulfstreams…so much so we for some reason agreed to forgive a scope violation and allow non union pilots who were already violating our contract to own that flying), and its possible that a small number of the 50 fleet will at some point get new engines and maybe, just maybe a heavy check or whatever it was here or there.

But the threat to just go "all-in" with that many 50 seaters was an empty one. They were never going to do that, and they knew it then as well as they know it now.

 

Gloopy, although the C-Series does seem to go against the normal RA checklist items for airplane purchase (ie new, untested airframe), why do you think he mentioned they could be in our future? I was surprised to hear it myself. Just more posturing to get a better deal from Boeing/Airbus?

 

I'd say that's exactly why.

I guess "everything has a price" or whatever, so if they came to us with some sort of offer we couldn't refuse like say an unbelieveable price, extended warranty, guaranteed dispatch reliability with a DL friendly exit clause/compensation if it dissapointed, gold plated Cadillac AD insurance and no charge for the APU hours or something, I'm sure we'd do it.

I doubt any (re)fleeting need actively excludes something just to be stubborn. I just don't think the C is going to be remotely competitive. Their CEO has basically said many times he ain't coming off the price and he thinks he's sitting on a real gem…apparently no one else in the industry seems to agree.

Its possible I guess, but they are going to have to come hard to the paint. Right now they're standing behind the half court line under double coverage with half a second on the shot clock.

 

I give up, how does one load an animated gif?

 

Dude just give it up, it will not happen!!

 

Hey, I've already got my HNL 717 bid in!

The A/E closes tomorrow, hurry, this opportunity won't last long!

 

from dalad who took this pic in ATL...

 

How long until results are typically posted?

 

Speaking of less bizarro things then the Vegas RTO, how about this number...

Incident: United B738 and Expressjet E145 at Newark on Apr 24th 2014, near collision close to ground

By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Apr 25th 2014 14:32Z, last updated Friday, Apr 25th 2014 19:48Z
A United Boeing 737-800, registration N77520 performing flight UA-1243 from San Francisco,CA to Newark,NJ (USA), was on final approach to Newark's runway 29 descending through about 400 feet AGL at about 15:02L (19:02Z).

An Expressjet Embraer ERJ-145 on behalf of United, registration N11176 performing flight EV-4100/UA-4100 from Newark,NJ to Memphis,TN (USA), was rotating for takeoff from runway 04R at the same time.

At that point tower instructed UA-1243 to go around and instructed EV-4100 to maintain visual separation to the traffic to their right. The Embraer crew stopped the climb close to ground reporting they "took the nose down" and "he is real close" restating upon hand off to departure "it was really close".

The Boeing positioned for another approach and landed safely at Newark about 11 minutes later. The Embraer reached Memphis without further incident for a safe landing there, too.

The FAA opened an investigation into the possible loss of separation erroneously stating flight UA-29 was involved.

On Apr 25th 2014 the NTSB opened their investigation into the loss of separation incident at Newark.

 

Usually they are out in 5 or 10 minutes...

no, 5-10 hours...

no wait, I meant 5-10 days!

But seriously, since it's closing on a non-holiday Monday, they should be out sometime between Weds.-Friday, depending on how much backfilling they decide to do, and how many guys fkd up their bids and have to be called, to be asked, "Did you really mean to bid that??"

Just like with our PBS monthly bids, the computer can spit it out in about 10 minutes, then it takes a few days for the humans to look it over and tweak it, un-fk it, re-run it, etc. and then finally publish it.