![]() |
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1883233)
Couldn't agree more. Until Jesse gets back, I'll try to fill in:
http://s.likes-media.com/img/34cb0a9...be466.600x.jpg Carl |
Originally Posted by RetiredFTS
(Post 1883254)
I wonder if she has any hobbies?
So no she probably doesn't. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1883233)
Couldn't agree more. Until Jesse gets back, I'll try to fill in:
http://s.likes-media.com/img/34cb0a9...be466.600x.jpg Carl |
100 seat flying?
So, I recently flew with a guy who seemed to be pretty sure that part of our new TA involves an order for several 90-100 seat airplanes, which also meant the parking of more 50 seaters, and possibly some relief on the addition of 76 seaters.
Haven't seen anyone on here talk about that scenario much. I don't like the idea of more 76 seaters, but if we can get 100 seaters on property as growth, I think we'll come out ahead. |
Probably replacement jets for the 88-90 fleet!
And so it goes........... . . . . . . .downhill for pay purposes! |
Originally Posted by Ed Harley
(Post 1883280)
So, I recently flew with a guy who seemed to be pretty sure that part of our new TA involves an order for several 90-100 seat airplanes, which also meant the parking of more 50 seaters, and possibly some relief on the addition of 76 seaters.
Haven't seen anyone on here talk about that scenario much. I don't like the idea of more 76 seaters, but if we can get 100 seaters on property as growth, I think we'll come out ahead. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1883233)
Couldn't agree more. Until Jesse gets back, I'll try to fill in:
http://s.likes-media.com/img/34cb0a9...be466.600x.jpg Carl |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1883216)
...it sure feels like the Req side is being heavily manipulated.
|
Originally Posted by Ed Harley
(Post 1883280)
So, I recently flew with a guy who seemed to be pretty sure that part of our new TA involves an order for several 90-100 seat airplanes, which also meant the parking of more 50 seaters, and possibly some relief on the addition of 76 seaters.
Haven't seen anyone on here talk about that scenario much. I don't like the idea of more 76 seaters, but if we can get 100 seaters on property as growth, I think we'll come out ahead. http://atwairport.com/wp-atwappleton...17-763x400.jpg
Originally Posted by Piklepausepull
(Post 1883299)
Probably replacement jets for the 88-90 fleet!
And so it goes........... . . . . . . .downhill for pay purposes! http://img.planespotters.net/photo/3...Net_323904.jpg And if they need relief on 76 seaters they can have some. In fact, how many 76 seaters do they need? They can have them. As many as they want. As long as we fly them. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1883233)
Couldn't agree more. Until Jesse gets back, I'll try to fill in:
http://s.likes-media.com/img/34cb0a9...be466.600x.jpg Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:35 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands