|
Originally Posted by Shifty
(Post 2456245)
No on scope. Kirby can pound sand. Bring the 76 seats to mainline. Buy more A319s or buy a regional and staple them to the bottom. Period.
|
Originally Posted by webecheck
(Post 2456237)
I'll believe this one. As someone who's inclined to make his judgements based on things the company has recently said and done instead of being persuaded by events of a decade ago or more, I think this is a plausible rumor.
|
Originally Posted by webecheck
(Post 2456237)
I'll believe this one. As someone who's inclined to make his judgements based on things the company has recently said and done instead of being persuaded by events of a decade ago or more, I think this is a plausible rumor.
Kirby has said he wants to grow the hubs, and the way you do that is by feed. Feed from new markets, and new markets don't need a half filled 130 seater, they need projections of a 90% load 76 seater to avoid the potential financial burn if it doesn't work out. If one was to make a pitch to the union why it's good for them, you would need to show up to the table with actual metrics to discuss imo. Ie, we can acquire these airplanes by this date, it will cost this, we will open these routes, etc. I suspect said routes would all be markets we don't serve or currently underserve, and for competitive reasons the markets we already serve need frequency to be competitive rather than adding seats by throwing a mainline jet on it. Given that scope is maxed, but mgmt wants to grow now, the logical first step to address this with the union would be to open section 6 early. Oh wait, that just happened. I believe Kirby has also said he wants scope relief so there's that too. Lol Certainly UAL can make an argument that outsourcing all labor, or any traction thereof, would lower costs making the company better able to enter and grow new markets. However, you sound confused with a route-growth business argument vs. the union's responsibility to solve the company's revenue issues. |
Originally Posted by 89Pistons
(Post 2456261)
What is said and done today is no different than what was said and done 10 and 20 years ago. That's what you don't get. You think this is new shiz or something????
|
there are some A318s out there. Pick em up!
|
Originally Posted by 89Pistons
(Post 2456261)
What is said and done today is no different than what was said and done 10 and 20 years ago. That's what you don't get. You think this is new shiz or something????
APC is such a comedy sometimes. You'll have a couple guys talking about how they bid reserve on purpose and never get used, haven't flown but a couple hundred hours the entire year. The company will at the same time say they want to utilize airplanes and labor more efficiently. Then hiring gets paused and nobody can seem to figure out why. Thus, look at what the company is saying and what's actually happening. |
Originally Posted by awax
(Post 2456270)
Exactly, he's also shown himself to post rumors here without any attribution and defend it like the gospel. More of low-speed troll IMO. Of course there's nothing wrong with being an optimist, but add clueless, then it's just annoying.
|
Originally Posted by awax
(Post 2456263)
Certainly UAL can make an argument that outsourcing all labor, or any traction thereof, would lower costs making the company better able to enter and grow new markets. However, you sound confused with a route-growth business argument vs. the union's responsibility to solve the company's revenue issues.
Not confused at all. It doesn't take an understanding of rocket science to see how the company is going to argue for their position. I personally like the idea of trying to force the cs100. The rates on it I think would be fairly competitive since they differ so much from the cs3, and having that airplane would give network planning more flexibility to redeploy 76 seaters elsewhere. It would also offer up scope concessions anyway. OKC IAH for instance would be perfect. Swa flies 700s to HOU. AA maddogs to DFW. We fly 76 seaters that are typically full. OKC DEN too. PHX and SLC always have loaded 76 seaters. SEA LAX I believe we fly 2 x 76 seaters daily. Gmafb. Perfect for UA CS100s over more 76 seaters. |
Originally Posted by webecheck
(Post 2456292)
Except I was right about hiring beginning earnest wasn't I. Quite timely at it too huh?
|
Originally Posted by webecheck
(Post 2456237)
I'll believe this one. As someone who's inclined to make his judgements based on things the company has recently said and done instead of being persuaded by events of a decade ago or more, I think this is a plausible rumor.
Kirby has said he wants to grow the hubs, and the way you do that is by feed. Feed from new markets, and new markets don't need a half filled 130 seater, they need projections of a 90% load 76 seater to avoid the potential financial burn if it doesn't work out. If one was to make a pitch to the union why it's good for them, you would need to show up to the table with actual metrics to discuss imo. Ie, we can acquire these airplanes by this date, it will cost this, we will open these routes, etc. I suspect said routes would all be markets we don't serve or currently underserve, and for competitive reasons the markets we already serve need frequency to be competitive rather than adding seats by throwing a mainline jet on it. Given that scope is maxed, but mgmt wants to grow now, the logical first step to address this with the union would be to open section 6 early. Oh wait, that just happened. I believe Kirby has also said he wants scope relief so there's that too. Lol All that said, the company is already at scope choke and there is NO sentiment in the pilot group to give even an inch on that. You need to find a better bridge to hide under :). Haven't you heard, Paul Whiteford isn't the MEC Chairman anymore. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:15 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands