Virgin America Latest and Greatest
10-06-2016, 08:23 AM
#2261
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 128
Here is another take on your analysis. Adding a second fleet type does add significant costs to the ALK operation ONLY if a second fleet is "added" to the certificate from scratch. Alaska has already paid $2.6B ($4B with debt) which includes the costs of the second fleet type. So I would argue that the second fleet type "cost" has already been paid for through the VX acquisition. Secondly, Ben said Airbus has been making a full court press weekly on Alaska to stick with the busses.
"Ben said that Airbus is making a full court press..." the part he left out is ... "and so is Boeing."
As far as hiring goes... I went back and read the original management e-mail about hiring, and I stand by what I said. Perhaps VA HR personelle will be reviewing resumes, etc. but minimum standards and final hiring decisions for pilots will be coming from Seattle, if not immediatelly...then almost immediatelly after deal close.
10-06-2016, 12:55 PM
#2262
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 14
Alaska already had an MD-80 operation for years when they got rid of them, granted it was mostly for fuel...but there was a lot of savings touted for non fuel cost like part inventories, less resrve pilots, fleet planning simplification, etc.
"Ben said that Airbus is making a full court press..." the part he left out is ... "and so is Boeing."
As far as hiring goes... I went back and read the original management e-mail about hiring, and I stand by what I said. Perhaps VA HR personelle will be reviewing resumes, etc. but minimum standards and final hiring decisions for pilots will be coming from Seattle, if not immediatelly...then almost immediatelly after deal close.
"Ben said that Airbus is making a full court press..." the part he left out is ... "and so is Boeing."
As far as hiring goes... I went back and read the original management e-mail about hiring, and I stand by what I said. Perhaps VA HR personelle will be reviewing resumes, etc. but minimum standards and final hiring decisions for pilots will be coming from Seattle, if not immediatelly...then almost immediatelly after deal close.
10-07-2016, 06:26 AM
#2266
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 14
It's just funny that guys think that Alaska will take over the hiring that quickly. It shows that they know nothing about how long a merger actually takes. Alaska took 225 management jobs but chose to keep Virgins Recruiting team till Virgin and Alaska become on a Single Operating Certificate. Alaska didn't just keep them just because they need people to look at resumes. Lol
10-07-2016, 09:59 AM
#2267
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 42
Heard on the line...
AS flight ops management in process of putting together analysis for use in decision on final fate of airbuses.
One of the large items under consideration is whether or not to bring the airplanes/crews up to the Alaska level (i.e RNP .1, handflown CAT III, etc.) which will cost money in euipment and training. The less interchangeable the airplanes are the higher the cost to run 2 fleet types; the bigger the difference the less likely they are to stick around much beyond a bridge period.
AS HR is going to take over hiring at both airlines in all positions (pilot and non-pilot) at deal close.
The following is my opinion...as I have seen this airlne operate for the last 10 years I have some guesses as to what is going to happen going forward fleet/base-wise...
According to management, when we got rid of the MD-80 7-8 years ago, it saved Alaska tens of millions/year in non-fuel cost. When AS employees ask management in various forms why we don't buy xxx airplane, one of the most cited reasons is the added cost of running two fleet types. I could possibly envision AS running a second fleet type if it gave us some new way to make money (787 anyone) but another fleet type of essentially the same airplane, not trying to troll, but I don't think it is likely that the Airbus survives beyond a bridge period.
Still not convinced? What about the Airbus 321NEO? Ask yourself this question...Why doesn't Alaska Airlines have an order in for the new Airbus?
Because they didn't want any
AS flight ops management in process of putting together analysis for use in decision on final fate of airbuses.
One of the large items under consideration is whether or not to bring the airplanes/crews up to the Alaska level (i.e RNP .1, handflown CAT III, etc.) which will cost money in euipment and training. The less interchangeable the airplanes are the higher the cost to run 2 fleet types; the bigger the difference the less likely they are to stick around much beyond a bridge period.
AS HR is going to take over hiring at both airlines in all positions (pilot and non-pilot) at deal close.
The following is my opinion...as I have seen this airlne operate for the last 10 years I have some guesses as to what is going to happen going forward fleet/base-wise...
According to management, when we got rid of the MD-80 7-8 years ago, it saved Alaska tens of millions/year in non-fuel cost. When AS employees ask management in various forms why we don't buy xxx airplane, one of the most cited reasons is the added cost of running two fleet types. I could possibly envision AS running a second fleet type if it gave us some new way to make money (787 anyone) but another fleet type of essentially the same airplane, not trying to troll, but I don't think it is likely that the Airbus survives beyond a bridge period.
Still not convinced? What about the Airbus 321NEO? Ask yourself this question...Why doesn't Alaska Airlines have an order in for the new Airbus?
Because they didn't want any
10-10-2016, 12:31 PM
#2270
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 304
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
