Where's the Bid?
10-02-2007, 05:19 AM
#42
Slainge Var'
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Posts: 1,530
C'mon guys. They could put out any "bid packet" and change it the next month just like they do with all the other jets/domiciles. I suspect the first year or so there will be fairly dramatic schedule changes month to month as they sort out the routes/cities/loads/times etc. If you want some set in concrete, an FDA is going to be no better than MEM,LAX, ANC or SFS.
10-02-2007, 05:50 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
C'mon guys. They could put out any "bid packet" and change it the next month just like they do with all the other jets/domiciles. I suspect the first year or so there will be fairly dramatic schedule changes month to month as they sort out the routes/cities/loads/times etc. If you want some set in concrete, an FDA is going to be no better than MEM,LAX, ANC or SFS.
All true but I am sure they know if the hubturns will be 3, 4, or 5 times a week. Which cities are going to be serviced. How many lines. The basic info isn't going to change much. From there I can do the math myself.
10-03-2007, 04:45 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
So if the company puts out a Nice sample Bid pack for either HKG or CDG would you bid it based on that? Remember when they published the sample LAX Bid packs or the Sample Bid packs from the TA contract of 98?
I agree it would be nice to see sample schedules, but I wouldn't put much faith in them, as history has dictated.
10-03-2007, 04:53 PM
#45
Trust but Verify!!
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
"I agree it would be nice to see sample schedules, but I wouldn't put much faith in them, as history has dictated."
But didn't the MEC tell us the company was to be trusted on things like their intention on not using STV's? Can't we trust them to honor their intentions on sample bid lines then as well? I mean they sure got that tax and moving info out just like the MEC said they would when we voted on the LOA. OOPS..I just read my Block 4 update. I'm confused now....
But didn't the MEC tell us the company was to be trusted on things like their intention on not using STV's? Can't we trust them to honor their intentions on sample bid lines then as well? I mean they sure got that tax and moving info out just like the MEC said they would when we voted on the LOA. OOPS..I just read my Block 4 update. I'm confused now....
10-03-2007, 05:27 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
So if the company puts out a Nice sample Bid pack for either HKG or CDG would you bid it based on that? Remember when they published the sample LAX Bid packs or the Sample Bid packs from the TA contract of 98?
I agree it would be nice to see sample schedules, but I wouldn't put much faith in them, as history has dictated.
I agree it would be nice to see sample schedules, but I wouldn't put much faith in them, as history has dictated.
10-03-2007, 06:53 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
[QUOTE=FDXLAG;241660]So we agree some info is better than no info, sooner is better than latter, and the company is not to be trusted on FDAs. That is what I said before the vote, but I am almost over it.[/QUOTE
I am glad and your almost over it. And your right never trust them,
Because the Sample bid packs most likely won't reflect reality
I am glad and your almost over it. And your right never trust them,
Because the Sample bid packs most likely won't reflect reality
10-03-2007, 11:39 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,237
Friend of mine had as much 727 time as you and was getting IOE on the panel here as a new-hire.
They were doing the full approach into Casper, with a procedure turn. He estimated the fuel they would burn and wrote down the landing weight.
The LCA got mad because he didn't use the standard fuel burn subtraction. My friend said that, based on his experience, they were going to burn more doing the full approach down low. He was told he "couldn't use his experience" in his calculations. I sh!t you not.
They were doing the full approach into Casper, with a procedure turn. He estimated the fuel they would burn and wrote down the landing weight.
The LCA got mad because he didn't use the standard fuel burn subtraction. My friend said that, based on his experience, they were going to burn more doing the full approach down low. He was told he "couldn't use his experience" in his calculations. I sh!t you not.
10-04-2007, 04:25 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Friend of mine had as much 727 time as you and was getting IOE on the panel here as a new-hire.
They were doing the full approach into Casper, with a procedure turn. He estimated the fuel they would burn and wrote down the landing weight.
The LCA got mad because he didn't use the standard fuel burn subtraction. My friend said that, based on his experience, they were going to burn more doing the full approach down low. He was told he "couldn't use his experience" in his calculations. I sh!t you not.
They were doing the full approach into Casper, with a procedure turn. He estimated the fuel they would burn and wrote down the landing weight.
The LCA got mad because he didn't use the standard fuel burn subtraction. My friend said that, based on his experience, they were going to burn more doing the full approach down low. He was told he "couldn't use his experience" in his calculations. I sh!t you not.
I had a similar situation with a guy giving a line check to the boys upfront. Conversation ended when I said do you want to E Mail Standards and ask them who is right or should I.
I heard the bid will be out shortly after we approve the loa.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
