Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawaii50 (Post 832258)

Because NW was always last and DL pretty close to last. Two lasts make a last. :)

Really? NW was always last? You sure 'bout dat?

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 832244)

Ships...passing...in...the...night...

Carl

Make sure you flash your landing lights so I know you're there.;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TOGA LK (Post 831916)

Just like when you call it an 80, you get corrected to, "88.". Come on, bus, mini-bus, 80, guppy, 75, whale; nothing has a proper name.

It is an 80 series however. Don't call it a Super 80 like I did in ATL Ops, the room went quiet.

... and a -400 only has 2 engines. It just does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 832263)

Really? Which mission? Well if the almighty Carl said it, it must be true. Damn, and I thought I knew a little about the space program. :mad:

You're right. He just orbited the moon, he didn't walk on it. Thanks for the correction.

Carl

Copyrighted material.

Deleted.

There's no defending that... that is just stupid and needs to be corrected.

I don't care what procedures we use. I just want them to be the best... each airline had their own level of idiocy and backwardness in various areas. That is why i so vehemently fight people defending so hard all the glorious things of fNW (or if you havent noticed me chastizing similar with our guys that do the same for over here.... I'm an equal opportunity hater of stupid) when it really wasn't the optimum that we need it to be in the long run.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawaii50 (Post 832125)

Secondhand from JFK base meeting:
- New weight/balance hybrid NWA/DL product in fall. Not required prior to push

Interesting. If it's the hybrid we had prior to full AWABS, that won't be too bad, I wish I kept the workbook for screen shots as I think you guys may like it.

BUT..........pushing without the numbers is a step backwards IMHO:mad:

Quote:

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 832144)

Carl, I was not on the A team. These are the biggest reasons that were stated to me. I know the issues with SAP and trying to ramrod other programs in to their templates. It never works well. My wife transitioned to SAP, and once those templates are made, it is very difficult to have them reworked

ACL,

I cant find the post I was really going to answer. But, I think we are talking past each other on the SAP issue when in fact we agree.

My understanding of SAP comes from my brother in law, and he wasn't a fan as SAP isn't very flexible from my understanding.

As we are both saying, momma D has way to much $$ invested in it to trash it overnight. Because of SAP, things that "tie together" will have to be changed in chunks over large periods of time. So sad, as how reservations ties into gate agents which ties into baggage etc is going to be big bucks to take apart and put back together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd149 (Post 832287)

What was the hybrid like?

And yes... I don't miss one bit pushing without numbers. Like was stated earlier, we should be focusing on getting the plane out as close to D0 as possible (I think it should be D0-D5), and then again on targetting arriving within a certain window. Slow down or speed up to hit that window.

Then again, that could wreak havoc in ATC with some planes that are running early going 250 and others doing 330.

ftb... draw me a picture!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwanker (Post 832281)

{ Do not copy copyrighted material}

Let's see here, at 3% burn per pound per hour we needlessly been wasting approx 2000k fuel (Roughly $1000) per 10 hour flight segment??? Good thing the APU police are out there complaning about the lack of the single engine taxi!!!

How do we make up for the 5000 pounds of cargo we bump for the priviledge of needlessly ferrying around this fuel??? Maybe we can chop one at top of descent to extend the single engine taxi to a single engine descent, approach and taxi!

Why do some just insist on defending yesterday's technology instead of realizing there are better ways to do it? Instead of listening, some prefer to charge forward with Operation Visine. I don't get it. Oh well....I'm sure someone will defend this.

The most interesting part of your post is what I've put in red font. Delta put it on the back burner, not because it wasn't the best thing to do, but because of software developer availability.

As I've said before, so many of our current difficulties stem from a lack of adequate technology. There's a quote somewhere from RA saying that Tech is the main worry that keeps him up at night. That's great because I think he's right on target. I just wonder about his underlings that decided on discarding fNWA's clearly better tech. It was about the only thing we had that was near the top of the industry. Those kind of decisions worry me.

Carl