Your summation is not what the T&G stated. What they said, was ALPA felt that the jury ruled against them due, in part, to erroneous instructions given to the jury by the judge. That's a far cry from saying, "the courts ruled against us."

T

 

Slow,

I know Delta's party line is "...we are retiring regional jets at a record pace...". But from 10/1/2010 to 10/1/2011 that "record pace" was a blistering 19 50-seat RJs.

It's my understanding that DAL has agreements with the various DCI carriers and that each has a certain number of aircraft under contract and those numbers decline over time.

If it's not too much trouble, could you (or anyone else who knows) please post how many DCI aircraft are under contract each year for say the next five years.

I'd also appreciate it if you would elaborate what your expectations of "change within that segment of the industry" are.

 

SLC departures-- even more fuel for the fire, sometimes there are THREE opinions on what to do.

Was flying the SID out of SLC couple weeks ago, 230 kts to some point, then 250kts at FL240 further on (I think, or close). Got "maintain 230 kts" on the PDC. So that should over-ride the SID, now I'm maintaining 230 kts forever until told otherwise...

Passing 11,000 or so, controller says , "Resume Normal Speed". So I punch 250k into the FMC. Capt says "What are you doing? He said resume normal speed."
I say, "Yep, and normal speed is 250 until the next restriction on the SID then I'm going to Econ climb."
"No..." (Captain reaching over and setting 300ish econ climb), "Normal speed is econ climb, there are no restrictions."
"Hmmm," say I, "That would be great-- but I've got some question in my mind on that... can you ask him if the 250kt restriction at 240 is also removed?"
"No, I can't, it's removed, that's how we do it here. Fly 300."

We then had some discussion on what "normal speed" meant, where I basically said that if there was ANY question in my mind, the correct answer was to ASK the controller for clarification, and how could ensuring no confusion ever be wrong? He was a bit miffed at me...

Good guy to fly with otherwise, but I've never had anyone ever argue about ensuring a clearance was understood correctly before.



“Resume Normal Speed”
Instructs the aircraft to comply with the speeds published on the SID.
“Delete Speed Restrictions”
Instructs the aircraft to disregard all previously issued speeds including speeds on upcoming portions of the RNAV SID.

 

I think you will find the current A320 is more range limited westbound in winter than the current 73NG series...

There is a software upgrade that uses the spoilers for load alleviation coming that should partially help boost MTOW, the "sharklets" will help boost transcend range...

So with the current Delta jets, Networking's pure plan:

738 to the coasts
A320 in SLC and ATL
MD90 for the center
M88 for East of the Mississippi

Here's the rub:
Some markets require IFE and SatTV for competitive purposes, that means the 738 is the go-to jet for longer routes all across the country.

On 1-2 hr stage length flights any one of our jets will do...

The 739 will help draw down the remains of the 767 category flying and thin out the 7ER categories out West.

YMMV, before you know it they'll come up with a new prime directive (fly fast/slow up-gauge/down-gage etc.)
I've heard Networking has been reigned in after having pretty much carte-blache 3-4 years ago...

Cheers
George

 

hey alfa, I know, its a bit disconcerting ;-)

Cheers
George

 

You're right, they won't come straight out and say it and acknowledge what took place was wrong, but instead will try to find fault with others involved. Meanwhile we're the ones whose dues will pay for their mistakes.

 

I didn't think Pinnacle could "force" us to pay them more just by declaring BK. If we hold the line with them as well as agressively enforce their performance end of the CPA/ASA the best they could hope for would maybe a temporary injunction delaying how soon we could dump them. But if they come to us for any relief whatsoever we should tell them to pound sand and use it as an opportunity to cull even more 50 seaters at the very least.

While I'm sure we want the full compliment of 255 large outsourced RJ's in our "armada" Pinnacle has zero leverage over us even with those airframes as there are tons of other carriers tripping all over themselves to instantly add whatever they can't do at the prices they low balled in their bid for the work in the first place. For any planes they have that we may be directly leasing or owning, those could be transfered almost instantly.

In either case it seems like a great opportunity to reduce 50 seaters and depending on the timing reducing 51-76 seaters that we allow to be outsourced.

 

Windcheck says what?

Anyway that sounds like a pretty good fleet mission plan over all. Our baby busses are old and getting older fast. Some of the new 73's were ordered to replace them as well as some 75's. I suspect we will continue to see some overlap in missions that blur some of the size/capacity lines but in the macro I'll go with that.

It will be interesting watching the remainder of our fleet replacement orders play out. Most seem to be of the opinion that a split order is a slam dunk. While possible, especially if prices are right, I wouldn't discount a borderline radical shift towards Boeing for the rest of the baby busses and MD's going forward.

Whatever SWA flies is never, ever, going to have a massive fleet grounding AD so there is no exposure there, Boeing appears more willing to wheel and deal and we are committed to a large number of new 73's as our baby bus fleet ages rapidly and we need to at least start seriously thinking about an MD88 replacement.

The baby bus is an OK transcon airplane. Not the best, but it can hold its own. I think the 73-800 is slightly better and of course the −700 is like a baws at least in mission, marketing notwithstanding. Of course from the pax perspective, the baby bus is better although I haven't seen the "sky interior" or whatever its called, I'm sure the bus still beats it.

Then there's the issue of IFE. We like it in the 73s and 75s but aren't investing anything equipping the minibusses with it. That leads me to believe that unless we order more, the 320/19 is destined to morph into sort of an MD-88/90, 91, whatever it takes kind of role while the 73's do more of the longer stuff.

Of course one end of any coast to coast flight is the west coast and there is no money there and AS dominates and we can't do it ourselves or we trash the yields so we will just give it all to them but they feed our widebodies so its all good amirite?

 

Reminds me of the pilot write ups and mx response from some airline(some Australian Airline).

Pilot- Heard squeaky noise in by avionics
MX- Installed cat

 

Yeah whenever fuel's tight on a long flight I like to crack out some boards for the cruise portion to take the edge off.

Wait, what?

Is that like negative flaps on a Maul for cruise or something? I guess its better than "OK when I select some flaps you pull that breaker real quick, k?"

And are we definately investing on sharklets for the 320's? If so that would mean we might be thinking of keeping/refreshing that fleet and taking a harder look at the NEO's than I thought.