Search
Notices

777-300ER order

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-21-2015, 11:33 AM
  #51  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
Default

Originally Posted by intrepidcv11 View Post
Ah it's not coming this year. Pretty sure the koolaid slide I saw was Feb 2016. Also after 25, there is over a year delay until #26. Quite simply vacancies after #25 will largely based on attrition. And recent events could very well change all of this. We shall see.

The old Unimatic page showed 12/15/2015 but that DIS page is gone. That was a while back.

Either way as long as I have an Airbus on the property to fly I'm happy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
pilot64golfer is offline  
Old 01-21-2015, 02:04 PM
  #52  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 920
Default

If you believe the info at the 787 blog, which seems pretty up to date, our 25th airplane is due to be delivered on 11/20/2015.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...=2&output=html



theoretically that could change if the deliveries were modified based on a 777-300 order, but since we are now 10 months out from that delivery, I think it is unlikely.
GoCats67 is offline  
Old 01-21-2015, 02:24 PM
  #53  
Gets Weekends Off
 
13n144e's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 787 CA
Posts: 425
Default

Originally Posted by Probe View Post
Yeah I think the fence is done as well. Parts and interiors are ordered way out, and UAL's 787's are probably a done deal for at least 12 months. Nobody else would use them and the interiors are already ordered and being produced.
Not so sure this is true. We're almost certainly taking the AF/KLM deferral that was slated for 2015/2016 and that's obviously within 12 months. So allowances were made somewhere and I don't think they will want much of a delay since they're apparently so hot and bothered to get them as replacement aircraft. If its not meant to replace any of this years 78's then we're talking 2017 due to the 78 delivery gap in 2016 and I just don't think that was the plan. But you're right in that the crux of the issue is how many of this years orders can be converted and how quickly.
13n144e is offline  
Old 01-21-2015, 02:34 PM
  #54  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: May 2011
Position: 756 CAP
Posts: 74
Default

Today's news

United Readies Order for 10 Boeing 777s (NYSE: BA) (NYSE: UAL) - 24/7 Wall St.
ReserveDog is offline  
Old 01-21-2015, 03:32 PM
  #55  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Default

Originally Posted by pilot64golfer View Post
Not really. Yes those exact seats are fenced, but when a LCAL 757 or guppy Captain upgrades to Sparky, that opens a 757 or Guppy Captain for anyone to bid. Same for all those 747 bids. Yes the direct bid sucks, and we should not have fences. I understand why they proposed it though.

The other tradeoff is that Sparky is very junior. Seniority 6,000 on the seniority list would be about 30% in any base on Sparky. Same guy on the 747 is on reserve.
I understand why they proposed it to. But in my opinion, it ended up backfiring..... at least here on the West Coast. The problem is that there have been almost ZERO 400 Cap bids, and many Sparky Cap bids. And if the 777-300ER is going to replace the 400, then there will most likely not be any more 400 bids soon. The replacement airplane ANYONE can bid, so we are losing fenced airplane bids to non fenced airplane bids. And IF the 777's are truly an order conversion from the 787-9, AND if the 787-9's that are being converted are the ones that come before #25, then the fence won't come down quite some time. We will see how it plays out.
gettinbumped is offline  
Old 01-21-2015, 03:39 PM
  #56  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Default

Hmmmm.... the picture gets clearer
gettinbumped is offline  
Old 01-21-2015, 04:43 PM
  #57  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
Default

Originally Posted by gettinbumped View Post
I understand why they proposed it to. But in my opinion, it ended up backfiring.....
Which backfire would you rather have? Proposing fences for less than 5% of the aircraft or not having your proposal even considered and letting the other side decide the methodology because you proposed 1-for-1.

I agree it affects some people more than others. Its what we got. Its part of the deal. I'm at peace with the decision.
pilot64golfer is offline  
Old 01-21-2015, 05:24 PM
  #58  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Default

Originally Posted by pilot64golfer View Post
Which backfire would you rather have? Proposing fences for less than 5% of the aircraft or not having your proposal even considered and letting the other side decide the methodology because you proposed 1-for-1.

I agree it affects some people more than others. Its what we got. Its part of the deal. I'm at peace with the decision.
Are those my only two choices? I would rather have had our proposal in it's entirety.... minus the fences. I thought it was a mistake at the time of the proposal considering it was LUAL who made brought the issue to the table. I've been scolded for not having all the facts behind the decision, and it's true - I certainly don't. We will never know what would have happened if there WERE no fences, but I'm sticking to my hunch that we would have been better off without them.

Like you, I'm at peace with it. It is what it is, and is definitely all water under the bridge. But do I wish we hadn't brought the issue of fences into the SLI discussion? Yes.
gettinbumped is offline  
Old 01-21-2015, 05:28 PM
  #59  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 303
Default

Originally Posted by gettinbumped View Post
Are those my only two choices? I would rather have had our proposal in it's entirety.... minus the fences. I thought it was a mistake at the time of the proposal considering it was LUAL who made brought the issue to the table. I've been scolded for not having all the facts behind the decision, and it's true - I certainly don't. We will never know what would have happened if there WERE no fences, but I'm sticking to my hunch that we would have been better off without them.

Like you, I'm at peace with it. It is what it is, and is definitely all water under the bridge. But do I wish we hadn't brought the issue of fences into the SLI discussion? Yes.
All mental knob schlobing. We continue to go round and round. This is such an old, worn out tune.
Scrappy is offline  
Old 01-21-2015, 08:39 PM
  #60  
Don't say Guppy
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Default

So we are getting 10 unfenced airplanes, and both sides are complaining about fences???????????????????????????????

For a 400 guy the 777 is quieter.
For a 787 guy you don't have to worry about leaning forward and hitting your forehead on the HUD on a 777.

You both win.

I am stuck on the Uberguppy. The cockpit is too small and loud, no intercom, and the toilet seat won't stay up.

There is something for everybody with 10 777-300ER.
Probe is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
EWR73FO
Major
5
10-13-2011 03:32 PM
AirbusA320
Cargo
3
08-30-2009 06:10 AM
vagabond
Foreign
1
04-12-2009 05:29 PM
vagabond
Technical
4
12-31-2008 04:13 PM
WatchThis!
Major
8
04-01-2006 08:57 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices