![]() |
777-9 is too much airplane the c-suite says though I’d love to see it. Thinking 25 firm 787 orders, options for 75 more. My prediction is that we won’t see the 350 at United though I’d love to see that too.
|
5% raise, new bases and now new planes but no contract. You guys are all sorts of giddy
|
Originally Posted by PilotsAreDumb
(Post 3541715)
5% raise, new bases and now new planes but no contract. You guys are all sorts of giddy
Yea but we’re not quite as giddy as the SWA guys were when southwest announced seat back power outlets. LOL |
Or spirit getting wifi lol
|
Originally Posted by fireman0174
(Post 3541644)
Honest question. What does an A-350-900 offer over a B-787-9 or -10?
Or does it at all? |
Originally Posted by PilotsAreDumb
(Post 3541715)
5% raise, new bases and now new planes but no contract. You guys are all sorts of giddy
|
Originally Posted by oldmako
(Post 3541736)
If I had to guess... A much quieter and more comfortable cockpit. No yoke/yolk - take your preference. A better seat. A better bunk.
|
Originally Posted by Half wing
(Post 3541778)
worse bunk than a 787.
|
Oh whoops… I thought this was a totally different topic. Dammit.
|
Originally Posted by Half wing
(Post 3541778)
worse bunk than a 787.
Years ago I was told that our Crew Rest Oversight Committee (CROC) stated the A350 crew rest facility is not in compliance with FAR 117 and most importantly our contract. This supposedly is a structural issue that can’t be rectified. It’s also my understanding that DAL (the only current US operator of the A350) and the DAL MEC jointly requested a waiver from the FAA to operate the A350 with a non 117 compliant crew rest facility. If all above is true and the company buys A350’s you have additional leverage. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:06 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands