Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-02-2010 | 11:58 AM
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
I agree. I don't mind pushing without the numbers. Do it often and, of course, there's always runway changes, etc, where we're rolling and working the FMS magic like Liberace on an organ (well, maybe not an organ 
).
Stopping a taxi and setting the brakes? Really? In NY, LA, ORD or ATL? Yeah, that'll work. NOT a good idea.
). Stopping a taxi and setting the brakes? Really? In NY, LA, ORD or ATL? Yeah, that'll work. NOT a good idea.
Exactly... I don't mind us doing them on the fly one bit... we do it all the time when we get a runway change. However, this procedure is absolutely retarded. Stopping and setting the brakes? Come on! They can do better than that for the paychecks that they get.
09-02-2010 | 11:59 AM
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
I am going to sweat it. I don't like stupid procedures.
09-02-2010 | 12:00 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
From: bartender
This new WDR procedure is going to increase our fuel burns, too. A lot of crews are just going to start two engines to keep the taxi workload down. Also, we're going to be stopped with engine(s) running while inputting WDR data and running checklists instead of doing it at the gate with everything shutdown. In my opinion, this is just plain stupid. Our previous procedures weren't broke, so why "fix" them?
Also, on the -88, I can count on one hand the amount of departures we've delayed because the numbers weren't ready. I don't see where the problem is.
Also, on the -88, I can count on one hand the amount of departures we've delayed because the numbers weren't ready. I don't see where the problem is.
09-02-2010 | 12:02 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
From: bartender
Oh come on 80, how long does it really take to plug in the numbers???? By applying your way of thinking we can't do anything while taxing. I agree it is better in the chocks but it is not working right now for whatever reason.
09-02-2010 | 12:05 PM
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
Re-read what I wrote. It is bullcrap that we will have to set the brakes while putting in the numbers. I don't mind putting in the numbers on the fly.. it takes 30 seconds. What I do mind is setting the brakes and clogging up ramps to do so.
I can only imagine the chaos on ramps 2 and 3 during the 0900 push as 100 airplanes push back and then subsequently set their brakes to put in their numbers.
09-02-2010 | 12:08 PM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Well when we have three guys in the flight deck the two FO's do the numbers, and when we have a runway change the FO does the numbers and when the jet get stopped the CAPT will look at the numbers. I do not necessary see it as a "stupid procedure." It may get tweaked, but doing this after push is not going to be that big of a difference. It may require some trust in the FO's but not much more than that.
09-02-2010 | 12:11 PM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
80, my guess is that that one point will be changed very quickly once ramp one and two in ATL come to a screeching halt on Oct 1st and 2nd. We currently do numbers on taxi so it is logical to thing that will be the maturation of this procedure. Frankly the state that AWABS only gives legal derates and runways to by that virtue we should be safe with this.
09-02-2010 | 12:12 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
09-02-2010 | 12:16 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
From: A330 A
This new WDR procedure is going to increase our fuel burns, too. A lot of crews are just going to start two engines to keep the taxi workload down. Also, we're going to be stopped with engine(s) running while inputting WDR data and running checklists instead of doing it at the gate with everything shutdown. In my opinion, this is just plain stupid. Our previous procedures weren't broke, so why "fix" them?
Also, on the -88, I can count on one hand the amount of departures we've delayed because the numbers weren't ready. I don't see where the problem is.
Also, on the -88, I can count on one hand the amount of departures we've delayed because the numbers weren't ready. I don't see where the problem is.
I am glad you stated that it's just your opinion, because our previous procedures are broke as evidence of our on time performance this summer. These changes are not only for flight ops, but for ACS, load control and the below the wing staff as well. Lets just give it a chance before we call the system "just plain stupid". Who knows maybe it will work.....
09-02-2010 | 12:18 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Keeping in mind I'm not fully endorsing the changes, because I don't have all the info, here are a couple of thoughts:
The higher fare Coach pax are getting on no matter what. The only people getting squeezed out are the lower fares. Granted, those represent incremental revenue. And granted, a lot of this is about shoe-horning more into the airframe. But then again, a lot of this maybe about shoe-horning the right kind of things on the aircraft.
So maybe the problem is different on an A320 than a B747. On the Airbus, the First cabin is somehwat competitive with domestic offerings, so maybe this is just a question of tweaking the proportion of each cabin. When you create space by reducing one class, with no galley in the way, you can simply fill the void with the next class and shift the divider.
Maybe on the 747, it's a question of offering a competitive product. Maybe you don't have the option of keeping the same density in B/E, because you can't offer lie-flats without spreading out. So you have to trade a lower number of lie-flats, for a higher number of traditional B/E seats. You can't backfill with Coach seats, because there is no net gain of space, as you said. But maybe what you've done is stop yield erosion across your current B/E cabin. I would speculate that if we continue to carry those 65 seats around, and ANA, UAL, and JAL fly people in lie-flats, we would eventully lose a lot of business. Or yields.
Also, I wonder if there is a weight implication. Maybe there is a net gain in payload, and maybe yields on cargo are better.
I also wonder if there might be a staffing implication: would this change drop on required F/A?
Either way, it's a lot of speculation on my part. But based on the fact we often put people in B/E or First that don't pay for the product, and because the economy seems to have changed booking patterns, I'm not opposed to management working the yield. If they were to do so intelligently, and it led to more money to fight them over, it would be a refreshing change.
The higher fare Coach pax are getting on no matter what. The only people getting squeezed out are the lower fares. Granted, those represent incremental revenue. And granted, a lot of this is about shoe-horning more into the airframe. But then again, a lot of this maybe about shoe-horning the right kind of things on the aircraft.
So maybe the problem is different on an A320 than a B747. On the Airbus, the First cabin is somehwat competitive with domestic offerings, so maybe this is just a question of tweaking the proportion of each cabin. When you create space by reducing one class, with no galley in the way, you can simply fill the void with the next class and shift the divider.
Maybe on the 747, it's a question of offering a competitive product. Maybe you don't have the option of keeping the same density in B/E, because you can't offer lie-flats without spreading out. So you have to trade a lower number of lie-flats, for a higher number of traditional B/E seats. You can't backfill with Coach seats, because there is no net gain of space, as you said. But maybe what you've done is stop yield erosion across your current B/E cabin. I would speculate that if we continue to carry those 65 seats around, and ANA, UAL, and JAL fly people in lie-flats, we would eventully lose a lot of business. Or yields.
Also, I wonder if there is a weight implication. Maybe there is a net gain in payload, and maybe yields on cargo are better.
I also wonder if there might be a staffing implication: would this change drop on required F/A?
Either way, it's a lot of speculation on my part. But based on the fact we often put people in B/E or First that don't pay for the product, and because the economy seems to have changed booking patterns, I'm not opposed to management working the yield. If they were to do so intelligently, and it led to more money to fight them over, it would be a refreshing change.
Concerning the 747 it is a little harder to redraw the line between B/E and coach anywhere forward of the second loading door. Also the width of the plane (for the most part) makes it hard to make every seat an isle seat and maximize space without putting some seats near sideways.
If the company can manage to sell more or most coach seats in YBM-class, more power to them, however, that will always be a gamble as even business travelers buy discounted fares where possible (advance purchase).
Of cause the passengers with the higher fare will always get on, but that may be at the expense of passengers with lower fare tickets who will be denied boarding followed by compensation.
Having the ability to continue to sell (last minute) Y-fares when coach is sold out and business is not is a way to recover some business seats at decent prices as opposed denying boarding or gambling whether coach will fill in the last few days or weeks.
I suppose the capacity control will work itself out.
Remember when most airlines including Delta got rid of international first class as many companies disallowed that class of service. That meant the introduction of business elite which was in between the two.
With lie-flat in business class, it is like first class has been re-introduced. Perhaps business class should be made even smaller to add premium economy or premium economy elite. I have flown that class of service on some Asian airliners and while not business class, it is certainly something that I gladly will pay extra for.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
