Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-15-2010, 08:48 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
A friend of mine on the 7ER just went to Saipan for the first time and met a girl at "Chicago's" (?) who was named "Irish" and she said she "was retarded." Does Ferd know this girl?
Your Uncle Ferd <------Saipan tour operator
PS But, just did two trips to CDG.........great time, just not as warm as SPN
05-15-2010, 08:50 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by keenster
Sailing,
We are being told that FPS has a limited number of fixes in it data base, came striaght form our 744 fleet captain. Trust me on this because it is creating problems on charters as well. World flight had unlimited fixes in its data base. This gave us much more flexiblilty in creating random routes to take advantage of winds. In 23 years of flying ocean crossings, many times we were not on tracks or NAT tracks because we were random planned for fuel burn in the best winds areas. I would say that if you are landing with the amount of fuel that you need for reserves, you are doing well and no one would want less fuel. However, for right now on the 744 we are landing on average 10,000lbs over what we used to land with and sometimes much more(I had 18,000 extra on my last crossing coming to DTW). That adds up to alot of extra fuel burn overtime. Hopefully this will self correct. It is aggravating sitting in a plane for 13 hours burning extra fuel and also having longer flight plans because of limitations on random routes especially when you read all the post on here about money for pay raises and retirements. Some of that money is being wasted out the tail pipe right now.
We are being told that FPS has a limited number of fixes in it data base, came striaght form our 744 fleet captain. Trust me on this because it is creating problems on charters as well. World flight had unlimited fixes in its data base. This gave us much more flexiblilty in creating random routes to take advantage of winds. In 23 years of flying ocean crossings, many times we were not on tracks or NAT tracks because we were random planned for fuel burn in the best winds areas. I would say that if you are landing with the amount of fuel that you need for reserves, you are doing well and no one would want less fuel. However, for right now on the 744 we are landing on average 10,000lbs over what we used to land with and sometimes much more(I had 18,000 extra on my last crossing coming to DTW). That adds up to alot of extra fuel burn overtime. Hopefully this will self correct. It is aggravating sitting in a plane for 13 hours burning extra fuel and also having longer flight plans because of limitations on random routes especially when you read all the post on here about money for pay raises and retirements. Some of that money is being wasted out the tail pipe right now.
Your argument isn't logical here...sorry.
You say that Worldflight planned better routes for less fuel burn, but yet you're landing with more fuel under FPS. That can be directly attributed to limited burn history for the ship number and conservative burn planning. Your argument would not yield the same result- in fact, it would be a completely unrelated result.
If your argument were the case, you would be lugging extra fuel out of the gate... not into the gate. See where you fall short with your logic?
That being said, I wish we could patch WF and awabs together... but we've been there before.
05-15-2010, 08:57 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: FO forever
Posts: 413
Originally Posted by Nosmo King
More Worldflight fodder for those interested.
Story I heard today was that DAL originally wanted to turn it off.
Now fNW has been using Worldflight basically since its inception, so we have a GREAT contract rate. Something like $25K-$30K/month.
Contrast that to AMR which just switched to Worldflight and paid $5-6 million up front and pays monthly fees of ~$100K.
Fortunately, someone at DAL realized/was persuaded that cancelling the contract would be a really bad idea because if they ever wanted it back they would pay AMR type fees.
Extra fuel - Has anyone in a 747 or a A330 been short released since we went to FPS2? I haven't and I have not talked to anyone else that has either. That would explain some of the extra fuel we have been carrying around. Was told that FPS2 can't do short releases???
Random routes - Was told that FPS2 cannot quickly do random routes, they have to exist in some kind of database. Worldflight they could enter and compare a bunch of different routes for fuel burn in minutes.
Worldflight cannot replace FPS2 as a drop in because FPS is "attached" to too many other things.
Conclusion, Worldflight is not dead, but its not coming back in its current form. More likely it will be used as a tool by dispatch until FPS2 can be upgraded. I hope FPS3 gives us a more Worldflight-like product.
Story I heard today was that DAL originally wanted to turn it off.
Now fNW has been using Worldflight basically since its inception, so we have a GREAT contract rate. Something like $25K-$30K/month.
Contrast that to AMR which just switched to Worldflight and paid $5-6 million up front and pays monthly fees of ~$100K.
Fortunately, someone at DAL realized/was persuaded that cancelling the contract would be a really bad idea because if they ever wanted it back they would pay AMR type fees.
Extra fuel - Has anyone in a 747 or a A330 been short released since we went to FPS2? I haven't and I have not talked to anyone else that has either. That would explain some of the extra fuel we have been carrying around. Was told that FPS2 can't do short releases???
Random routes - Was told that FPS2 cannot quickly do random routes, they have to exist in some kind of database. Worldflight they could enter and compare a bunch of different routes for fuel burn in minutes.
Worldflight cannot replace FPS2 as a drop in because FPS is "attached" to too many other things.
Conclusion, Worldflight is not dead, but its not coming back in its current form. More likely it will be used as a tool by dispatch until FPS2 can be upgraded. I hope FPS3 gives us a more Worldflight-like product.
Nosomo how much extra are your guys carrying around?????
05-15-2010, 09:10 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: FO forever
Posts: 413
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
Your argument isn't logical here...sorry.
You say that Worldflight planned better routes for less fuel burn, but yet you're landing with more fuel under FPS. That can be directly attributed to limited burn history for the ship number and conservative burn planning. Your argument would not yield the same result- in fact, it would be a completely unrelated result.
If your argument were the case, you would be lugging extra fuel out of the gate... not into the gate. See where you fall short with your logic?
That being said, I wish we could patch WF and awabs together... but we've been there before.
You say that Worldflight planned better routes for less fuel burn, but yet you're landing with more fuel under FPS. That can be directly attributed to limited burn history for the ship number and conservative burn planning. Your argument would not yield the same result- in fact, it would be a completely unrelated result.
If your argument were the case, you would be lugging extra fuel out of the gate... not into the gate. See where you fall short with your logic?
That being said, I wish we could patch WF and awabs together... but we've been there before.
1. 2 airplanes fly NRT-ATL. One airplane has to fly on a track message route because of limited fixes(FPS) with and average tail wind component of 50 kts. The other airplane has unlimited fixes availabe(WORLDFLIGHT) and flight plans a random route that gives him an average tail wind component of 125 knots. Same aircraft type with same cargo and pax. Who makes it there faster and burns less fuel???? Do that hundreds of times over the year and what do you save???? Millions of bucks.
2. FPS or maybe dispatch?? has us lugging extra fuel out of the gate. That is my beef. I don't like hauling around 10000-18000lbs of extra fuel it cost money. Hopefully it learns how the 744 burns fuel and corrects this soon.
Last edited by keenster; 05-15-2010 at 09:34 PM.
05-15-2010, 09:14 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
OK then, if you're lugging the extra fuel OUT of the gate, state it as such.
You've been stating it as IN to the gate, which is completely different.
You've been stating it as IN to the gate, which is completely different.
05-15-2010, 09:26 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: FO forever
Posts: 413
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
OK then, if you're lugging the extra fuel OUT of the gate, state it as such.
You've been stating it as IN to the gate, which is completely different.
You've been stating it as IN to the gate, which is completely different.
05-15-2010, 09:28 PM
Underboob King
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Guppy Commander
Posts: 4,412
Originally Posted by keenster
Sorry to throw water on the fire but retirements are over for a while. The bulk of the above retirements were a result of the prip. Any one who was going to retire did. My prediction is that we will be lucky to see 5-10 a month or maybe less for the next couple of years. If we don't get new metal coming, stagnation is here for a while hope you like the seat you are in.
Time will tell but I think you'll be surprised. We'll see
05-15-2010, 09:40 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: FO forever
Posts: 413
Originally Posted by Superpilot92
i disagree, I think the numbers will continue to be more tha 5-10 a month. The company as well as the union feel that the avg will leave at 62.5. That point is right now since we're 2.5 years into the change. Also the increase in capacity will make it possible for upward movement and not stagnation.
Time will tell but I think you'll be surprised. We'll see
Time will tell but I think you'll be surprised. We'll see
05-15-2010, 09:41 PM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Position: Car Number 9
Posts: 57
Quick ? that has been answered a million times...
If I want to bid in the top 30% of a category....what number goes in the "Low %" box of the AE form?
The Number 30?
Thanks in advance
If I want to bid in the top 30% of a category....what number goes in the "Low %" box of the AE form?
The Number 30?
Thanks in advance
05-15-2010, 09:45 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: DL 7ER F/O
Posts: 249
yes, 30 goes in
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
