Possible Plane Order
08-26-2019 | 04:35 PM
#402
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
I know this is meant to be a laugh, but the vagueness of this “article” has spurred this rumor across all the various chat groups.
Here’s why the 787 won’t work:
*Wide body gates are expensive.
*Ground handling can barely handle turning a narrow body, now we need cargo container lifts, large tugs, etc.
*The 787 need 3 GPUs to not shed, can be done with 2 minimum.
*High density seating would need a total overhaul in boarding process
*The “show up and go” mentality doesn’t work for long haul/etops/nat track/etc
*The chaser FA would be a nightmare with 8 doors (2 crews and 2 chasers maybe?)
*Depending on the length of the stage, 8-9 hours or more you need 1.5-2 planes per route to provide a daily service. That’s half a billion to open a longer destination (i.e. Rio/Buenos Aires). We could fly them domestic but do the added infrastructure costs make it worthwhile?
Sure these issues can be overcome, but it’s migrating to a whole other operating model that doesn’t jive with how we do it now.
Here’s why the 787 won’t work:
*Wide body gates are expensive.
*Ground handling can barely handle turning a narrow body, now we need cargo container lifts, large tugs, etc.
*The 787 need 3 GPUs to not shed, can be done with 2 minimum.
*High density seating would need a total overhaul in boarding process
*The “show up and go” mentality doesn’t work for long haul/etops/nat track/etc
*The chaser FA would be a nightmare with 8 doors (2 crews and 2 chasers maybe?)
*Depending on the length of the stage, 8-9 hours or more you need 1.5-2 planes per route to provide a daily service. That’s half a billion to open a longer destination (i.e. Rio/Buenos Aires). We could fly them domestic but do the added infrastructure costs make it worthwhile?
Sure these issues can be overcome, but it’s migrating to a whole other operating model that doesn’t jive with how we do it now.
08-26-2019 | 05:44 PM
#403
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
I know this is meant to be a laugh, but the vagueness of this “article” has spurred this rumor across all the various chat groups.
Here’s why the 787 won’t work:
*Wide body gates are expensive.
*Ground handling can barely handle turning a narrow body, now we need cargo container lifts, large tugs, etc.
*The 787 need 3 GPUs to not shed, can be done with 2 minimum.
*High density seating would need a total overhaul in boarding process
*The “show up and go” mentality doesn’t work for long haul/etops/nat track/etc
*The chaser FA would be a nightmare with 8 doors (2 crews and 2 chasers maybe?)
*Depending on the length of the stage, 8-9 hours or more you need 1.5-2 planes per route to provide a daily service. That’s half a billion to open a longer destination (i.e. Rio/Buenos Aires). We could fly them domestic but do the added infrastructure costs make it worthwhile?
Sure these issues can be overcome, but it’s migrating to a whole other operating model that doesn’t jive with how we do it now.
Here’s why the 787 won’t work:
*Wide body gates are expensive.
*Ground handling can barely handle turning a narrow body, now we need cargo container lifts, large tugs, etc.
*The 787 need 3 GPUs to not shed, can be done with 2 minimum.
*High density seating would need a total overhaul in boarding process
*The “show up and go” mentality doesn’t work for long haul/etops/nat track/etc
*The chaser FA would be a nightmare with 8 doors (2 crews and 2 chasers maybe?)
*Depending on the length of the stage, 8-9 hours or more you need 1.5-2 planes per route to provide a daily service. That’s half a billion to open a longer destination (i.e. Rio/Buenos Aires). We could fly them domestic but do the added infrastructure costs make it worthwhile?
Sure these issues can be overcome, but it’s migrating to a whole other operating model that doesn’t jive with how we do it now.
08-26-2019 | 05:50 PM
#404
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,469
Likes: 44
08-26-2019 | 08:26 PM
#405
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 0
From: Left
08-26-2019 | 08:32 PM
#406
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 0
From: Left
Would not surprise me. Boeing is desperate and complete fleet swaps are not unheard of this year - Vueling will swap 120 Airbuses for MAX 8s and 10s over the next few years. I still think a combo order for A321 NEOS and A220-300s would be ideal... I guess time will tell...
08-26-2019 | 09:32 PM
#407
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
From: A320 Capt
Would not surprise me. Boeing is desperate and complete fleet swaps are not unheard of this year - Vueling will swap 120 Airbuses for MAX 8s and 10s over the next few years. I still think a combo order for A321 NEOS and A220-300s would be ideal... I guess time will tell...
Boeing is not desperate.... they have delayed deliveries....
When the FINAL accident analysis comes out- and the blame is, at WORST, shared.... all those “delayed” orders will be demanded ASAP...
Just a small bump in the road.
08-26-2019 | 10:06 PM
#408
Banned
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
It's more than a bump. Word is it's really bad. Nothing like having the employee parking lot turned into aircraft storage. If you would have told someone this was going to happen 12 months ago they would have said no way.
08-27-2019 | 02:39 AM
#409
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,839
Likes: 3
They’ve delivered what? A couple of hundred Max’s at this point? Yeah, they’ve got another 5300 on order. This is a bump in the road. A costly, well publicized bump, but a bump nonetheless.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
