Originally Posted by Terrain Inop
(Post 2674590)
UAL recently named the A350 fleet program manager as the A320 program manager. I wouldn't read between the lines too much, but I think it's a significant impact as to the viability of the A350 program at UAL.
I wasn't aware that we had an A 350 program at UAL. I think's it's a "ghost program." Reminds me of how well the USAF hid the F-117 leading up to Desert Storm. Sure, we've got a program manager, but this guy has the best job in town. Office at 830. Coffee, email check up Make the rounds at 9 am say howdy, make some social calls Log into net flix and download favorite movie. watch til lunch time Go have lunch off campus back by 2pm fly the simulator from 2 to 3 to maintain proficiency 3pm cartoons, snack, and nap 4:30 time to head home My friends at ICE tell me this is sorta what they were doing during Obama years. 8:30 office 9:00 Net Flix 11:00 lunch 1:00 work out 3:00 Net Flix 430 go home |
Originally Posted by BMEP100
(Post 2674755)
I'm not sure, but..
Don't forget USAirways (Phl) and AMR (DAL) |
Originally Posted by baseball
(Post 2675136)
I wasn't aware that we had an A 350 program at UAL.
I think's it's a "ghost program." Reminds me of how well the USAF hid the F-117 leading up to Desert Storm. Sure, we've got a program manager, but this guy has the best job in town. Office at 830. Coffee, email check up Make the rounds at 9 am say howdy, make some social calls Log into net flix and download favorite movie. watch til lunch time Go have lunch off campus back by 2pm fly the simulator from 2 to 3 to maintain proficiency 3pm cartoons, snack, and nap 4:30 time to head home My friends at ICE tell me this is sorta what they were doing during Obama years. 8:30 office 9:00 Net Flix 11:00 lunch 1:00 work out 3:00 Net Flix 430 go home |
If you look at that seat/range chart that was posted earlier it kind of makes the case for the 350 on paper. The 777-2 are getting old and the 777X is too big, the 350-1000 is too big and too little range, and 78-10 is too little range 78-9 is too small. The closest airplane to the range and seat count to the old 777-200 is the 350-9. The costs of an added fleet might lead them to persue the 777-x which would be great for us. You need a lot more mainline passengers to fill a 360 seat airplane vs a 285.
http://veritas-lux.blogspot.com/2018...-and-777x.html |
Originally Posted by Aquaticus
(Post 2675298)
If you look at that seat/range chart that was posted earlier it kind of makes the case for the 350 on paper. The 777-2 are getting old and the 777X is too big, the 350-1000 is too big and too little range, and 78-10 is too little range 78-9 is too small. The closest airplane to the range and seat count to the old 777-200 is the 350-9. The costs of an added fleet might lead them to persue the 777-x which would be great for us. You need a lot more mainline passengers to fill a 360 seat airplane vs a 285.
http://veritas-lux.blogspot.com/2018...-and-777x.html Cathay just started HKG-IAD with the 350-1000 (334 seats) https://www.businesstraveller.com/bu...bus-a350-1000/ |
Originally Posted by guppie
(Post 2675205)
Blasphemy!! American Airlines is headquartered in Ft. Worth, TX. That is all. Carry on.
|
Originally Posted by ChalupaBatman
(Post 2674116)
Yet another punch in the nuts for ORD. God forbid we ever get some more WB flying, or a 787 base. But hey, good for EWR & SFO [emoji52]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Have heard after EWR gets their 78s, ORD is next. No definite timeline mentioned. |
Originally Posted by C11DCA
(Post 2675505)
Umm just to nitpick but the range of the 350-1000 is not too little as compared to the 777-200er. Airbus lists its range at 8400nm
Cathay just started HKG-IAD with the 350-1000 (334 seats) https://www.businesstraveller.com/bu...bus-a350-1000/ This is the chart from a United powerpoint third quarter of 2017. The 1000 has less range than the 900 but too many seats. See how closely the 777-2 and 350-9 are on the chart. If they were looking for a square peg for a square hole. Thats all I was pointing out. It is all semantics really they are all cool airplanes. |
Originally Posted by awax
(Post 2675517)
They claim Ft. Worth, but it’s actually the ****ty part of north Grand Prairie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_W...ighlighted.svg |
Originally Posted by awax
(Post 2674841)
BS! Air Travel options? gimme a break. How about $41 million in tax and other incentives over 20 years. Denver and Dallas didn't pony up the dollars, but were finalist. If air travel options were at play, Denver never would have made the list. Follow the money.
As the then CEO said.... Many large companies are actually moving their offices out of the suburbs and back into Chicago because new college graduates want to live in diverse, progressive, urban, culturally rich places. I know Denver and Dallas both have their share of these qualities, but nowhere near the scale it exists in Chicago. When you combine all of that with tax incentives, central location, and a worldwide aviation hub like ORD it is not surprising at all that Chicago would be a desirable place for a corporate HQ. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:15 AM. |
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