Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
08-22-2014, 09:41 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by EdGrimley
So, the $64,000 question. Are you making roughly $64,000 this month including retirement, per diem and intl override?
08-22-2014, 09:44 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by RockyBoy
The problem with that is say you have a really crappy 3 day and an easy as pie 4 day is in the pot. If swaps are subject to the limit then you can't swap that crappy trip for an easy one if you have a limit. I know some guys swap to higher time trips for more pay, but I like the fact the limit doesn't apply so I can swap a trip for reasons other than money. Having that limit apply to swaps will make it harder for you to improve your schedule by swapping trips.
08-22-2014, 09:48 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by Mem9guy
I have always heard on here that pickup limit does not apply to swap with the pot.
However, I did a liitle digging in the contract, and I don't think that this is still true. LOA#13 changed the contractual language in 23.H.5.h to now read: the swap will not cause a pilot to exceed, or further exceed his block hour limit.
Maybe the company is not complying with this, but I think that the language is now in the PWA, unless I am missing something.
However, I did a liitle digging in the contract, and I don't think that this is still true. LOA#13 changed the contractual language in 23.H.5.h to now read: the swap will not cause a pilot to exceed, or further exceed his block hour limit.
Maybe the company is not complying with this, but I think that the language is now in the PWA, unless I am missing something.
08-22-2014, 09:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by Jughead
This may be the worst rumor I've heard yet. Ever. Marketing loves the plane. What fuel numbers were they hoping for? 5000 lbs/hr with 110 people on average.
Having said that the company knew the fuel burn on the 717 down to the ounce before they bought them. There are no fuel burn surprises on in service jets.
08-22-2014, 11:18 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
08-23-2014, 04:10 AM
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,722
Every man named John Johnson is in trouble now!
08-23-2014, 05:59 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by chuck416
Don't dispute any of this. However, CASM is only part of the equation. What are the RASM numbers? (And, for what it's worth, I have not idea myself). I think that we operate the 717 on many of the old routes as the DC-9 last summer. And we were making a ton of money with the -9. Another issue, the 717 carries couple of dozen less pax then the -9, but also burns much less fuel, is probably at least as reliable, maybe more reliable, and significantly less costly to maintain, as the -9 was getting expensive on MTX the older it got. Hope these comments are helpful.
I've had zero issues with 717 engines, I am however seeing that parts are an issue and my understanding is we can only get our parts from SWA per the agreement.
08-23-2014, 06:32 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by sailingfun
That does not sound good. 757 moves 199 in the new config at 7000 an hour and it's supposed to be inefficient.
Having said that the company knew the fuel burn on the 717 down to the ounce before they bought them. There are no fuel burn surprises on in service jets.
Having said that the company knew the fuel burn on the 717 down to the ounce before they bought them. There are no fuel burn surprises on in service jets.
Put a 752 on a short route and it burns closer to 8400 lbs an hour. Put a 717 on it and it burns 5700 per hour. Divide it out by the seats and the 752 wins by a 10% margin. 10%? Put a 757 on a typical 717 market and you've just dumped 70 seats into that flight, poof goes that margin to save on one metric of block fuel asm.
08-23-2014, 07:04 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Question about the C Series, is that being built to 1 hour block flights ten times a day for thirty or forty years?
08-23-2014, 08:05 AM
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,722
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
What 752 do we have running 199 seats? I hope I am never on that thing.
Put a 752 on a short route and it burns closer to 8400 lbs an hour. Put a 717 on it and it burns 5700 per hour. Divide it out by the seats and the 752 wins by a 10% margin. 10%? Put a 757 on a typical 717 market and you've just dumped 70 seats into that flight, poof goes that margin to save on one metric of block fuel asm.
Put a 752 on a short route and it burns closer to 8400 lbs an hour. Put a 717 on it and it burns 5700 per hour. Divide it out by the seats and the 752 wins by a 10% margin. 10%? Put a 757 on a typical 717 market and you've just dumped 70 seats into that flight, poof goes that margin to save on one metric of block fuel asm.
The Song 752's held 199, but it was all coach seating.
I was on the jumpseat of one of our brand new 737-900's yesterday, ATL-MCO. FOB for pushback was 14,000. Flight planned block time was 1:03 with a fuel burn of 7,200. 180 passengers (20/160, plus two jumpseaters, me and a F/A in back).
A 752 holds what, about 184? (24/160?)
So, on the same one hour flight, burning 8,400, the company loses 4 F/C seats, but saves 1,200lbs. fuel burn, by replacing the 752 with the 739, which is what they are doing. They still run a lot of 753's on that route at mid day, when the loads are heavier.
Last edited by Timbo; 08-23-2014 at 08:40 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
