Buyer be ware?

You get what you pay for??

Any more?

 

So, the rumor of 3x Hawaiian 767-300s coming our way was finally confirmed this week. Saw the rumor on this and other forums, but never in the press.

Meanwhile the rumor of dozens of new build -300s which started in the open press around the same time has not come to fruition. A few more months with nothing, and I'd say stick a fork in it. Sometimes the Forum/TK rumor mill is the way to go, chaff and all. The market for used -300s is tight, however I noticed that DAL put a couple of 20ish -300s with PW engines into storage last year. So maybe we can find some more used aircraft to tide us over for the next decade after all.

Several months ago in post #301, I declared that updating the small end of our fleet was not a pressing need as our -700/319 fleet is not that old and Kirby can maximize existing RJ scope for a bit (I believe I called it "Screw the Hole"). I wonder if our early negotiations are so the company can try and lock in pay rates for the Mad Max and likely CS-500.

Sure, Kirby will ask for scope gives and we'll tell him to pound sand. So, after the contract is approved with no change in scope, I think the company will finally chuck a rock and order a NSNB. Now that the BA v. BBD trade case is seemingly over, I could see it going to either the CS or E2 depending on how they are doing in service (unless we allow the company to change the NSNB definition, which I doubt).

Anyways, peace out.

 

I can’t believe it’s going to be profitable to refurbish and equip 20+ year old 767’s and deal with the reliability headaches for the next decade it takes to really replace them with something new. I pretty much fly the -300’s exclusively now and I’m I’m probably batting .500 for maintenance issue free flights. Why are we buying other people’s junk? Where is the pull with airbus and Boeing that an airline our size should have? Hawaiian replaced those 767’s with shiny new Airbuses, why can’t the “the worlds leading global airline” do the same.
Yes it’s expansion but it sucks watching the coaches f up a game from the bullpen.

 

Well, I'm guessing refurbished 20 year old aircraft would be a small step up in reliability from 24+ year old aircraft. We have 21 -300s which were built between 1991-1993. I'd be very interested to know if there are significant reliability differences between this group and our newer -300s from 1998 on. I do think we'll see our oldest -300s mostly doing domestic PS/Island service so they are kept close to maintenance.

I still think a few dozen new builds to allow some 756 retirements makes a lot of sense for the right price. But, surprisingly, no one from Willis has asked me.

 

Recent Motley Fool article made it look like a slam-dunk, you'll just give up 50 seat scope for a coke and a smile. I've got to believe that guy it nucking futs. Can Kirby buy scope for pay rates or are you guys gonna tell him to stick it where the sun don't shine?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/u...154000428.html

 

If we give up scope for money we are fools... keep scope same and get the larger RJs on property flown by United Pilots...

 

I have seen 300 reliability improve. But I would like to see it get better. Most of what I saw on the bad-bad reliability side was on the 76T right after the merger.

 

You may have noticed the company made a big deal about doing a great job, patting themselves on the back even, as far as meeting us at the table to get a deal done by the amendable date.... Well, in the eyes of management, they are happy to give us a contract by the amdendable date, as long as it contains scope relief.

That will be the rub. The pilots will see the amendable date come and go. Then questions start flying....Where's the contract? Management will say "you can't have it without scope relief." I forsee Kirby holding us hostage for scope relief. He thinks its on the table. So far not many union reps taking a public stance on it.

We didn't have many ALPA reps taking a stance on age 60 and we can see how that turned out. I would like to head this off at the pass sooner than later. ALPA should just come out, and do it big time and state their position. Interesting, Kirby has no problem coming out and negotiating in public. He's putting out his bottom lines for all to see, employees, pilots, other managers, and investors. I am OK with ALPA putting up billboards around Chicago, and in front of Kirby's office informing management "hell no." That way, they get the message.

 

I think the "paltry crumbs" approach we've seen with the most recent two vacancy bids indicate that Kirby is betting big time on this. He doesn't want to grow this pilot group at all. Heck I am not sure he even wants to staff it for summer flying. But, one thing is for sure by looking at the vacancy bids, any anticipated new flying won't be done by the UAL pilots. Interesting, he apparently has not bought into the public's perceived "pilot shortage" mumbo jumbo.

 

I'll go with any talk of RJ expansion being a diversionary tactic to try to keep a lid on NSNB pay rates.

If Kirby's busy talking about RJ scope relief, that's likely not what management's interested in. Management saw the Trump administration's desire to stop funding EAS this last year. And if EAS isn't funded, RJs will quickly become an endangered species.

I think that United is more angling for a new generation NSNB to replace RJ flying, not to expand RJ flying. The CASM on new NSNBs is significantly lower than current RJs.

United's pilot problem is more a staffing issue. Some BESs are way overstaffed while others are short. The company needs to do a few effective surpluses, not dumb surpluses (LAX 777 and IAH 787 only to have vacancies a few months later are two examples of stupid surpluses).

I'd also like to see the average number of hours pilots fly every month. My guess is that there are many pilots picking up open time.