Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-11-2012, 06:41 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Of course there is this one...
I think I have this right.
Start with the obvious,
7ER: Handsome, cocky, owns the world and really wants to be with the A330.
A330: Enjoys the trips, wants more 7ER time. Just can't figure out how to do it.
744: Think about it, stops to watch you go by. Some flat out stare. And really, who do you want to be seen with when you walk into a social setting? When people ask, what do you do, you want to say the 744.
764: You rarely see it, but you know they're making an A.
A320: Happy.
777: Solid. Boring. Money marker.
DC9: Smaller than the 88 but looks very similar.
MD88: I never study and I smile like I never study.
737: Like a maid, always there. Reliable. Frumpy.
07-11-2012, 06:45 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I'm with gloop, how much savings can 3-16 airplanes in 0-6 months of revenue flying create?
The writer of that article is connecting incongruous pieces of information and calling it analysis, it is trash and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about this industry.
I disagree with Jerry that if we were outside Sect 6 that we would end up with a 717 rate different than what we have now. (But I do agree about the 79,999 others comment!)
We have a DC9 rate that is already in the contract, and the speed, weight, distance is almost identical to the current DC9. The "we could get the 88 rate" argument is flawed because the current 3.B.6 language doesn't allow DL pilots to refuse to fly the airplane if there is no negotiated rate. Thanks to C2K, now we have to fly it and negotiate a rate (we did in this PWA) and if that fails it goes to arbitration..... Not sure what anyone else thinks, but I bet it would be a tough sell to an arbitrator that a DC9-30 airframe with newer engines and cockpit that seats 110 pax is the equivalent of a 160 seat MD-90. The 25 seat variance between the 319/320 and 32 seat variance between the -700 and -800 would both be tossed out because of the common cockpit/category that those have.
The writer of that article is connecting incongruous pieces of information and calling it analysis, it is trash and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about this industry.
I disagree with Jerry that if we were outside Sect 6 that we would end up with a 717 rate different than what we have now. (But I do agree about the 79,999 others comment!)
We have a DC9 rate that is already in the contract, and the speed, weight, distance is almost identical to the current DC9. The "we could get the 88 rate" argument is flawed because the current 3.B.6 language doesn't allow DL pilots to refuse to fly the airplane if there is no negotiated rate. Thanks to C2K, now we have to fly it and negotiate a rate (we did in this PWA) and if that fails it goes to arbitration..... Not sure what anyone else thinks, but I bet it would be a tough sell to an arbitrator that a DC9-30 airframe with newer engines and cockpit that seats 110 pax is the equivalent of a 160 seat MD-90. The 25 seat variance between the 319/320 and 32 seat variance between the -700 and -800 would both be tossed out because of the common cockpit/category that those have.
From wiki:
In early 1994 the MD-95 re-emerged bearing far more similarity to the DC-9-30. Indeed the aircraft's specification in terms of weight, dimensions, and fuel capacity are almost identical. The major changes included a fuselage "shrink" back to 119 ft 4 in (36.37 m) length (same as the DC-9-30), and the reversion to the original DC-9 wing of 93 ft 5 in (28.47 m) span. At the time of the redefinition, McDonnell Douglas said that it expected the MD-95 to grow into a family of aircraft with the capability of increased range and seating capacity.[4]
The MD-95 was developed to satisfy the market need to replace early DC-9 models, then approaching 30 years old. The MD-95 project was a complete overhaul of the system, going back to the original DC-9-30 design and reinventing it for modern transport with new engines, cockpit and other more modern systems.[5] Historically, aircraft shrinks have sold poorly, examples of such aircraft in addition to the MD-87 include the Boeing 747SP, Boeing 737-600, Airbus A318, and Airbus A340-200.
The MD-95 was developed to satisfy the market need to replace early DC-9 models, then approaching 30 years old. The MD-95 project was a complete overhaul of the system, going back to the original DC-9-30 design and reinventing it for modern transport with new engines, cockpit and other more modern systems.[5] Historically, aircraft shrinks have sold poorly, examples of such aircraft in addition to the MD-87 include the Boeing 747SP, Boeing 737-600, Airbus A318, and Airbus A340-200.
07-11-2012, 06:51 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
07-11-2012, 06:59 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: MD-88 F/O
Posts: 1,004
FTB.....I am thinking that Cousin Itt is more of the A320 variety...
07-11-2012, 07:01 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: MD-88 F/O
Posts: 1,004
Is this a shot of the 737-700 trying to take back flying from the Heavy RJ's?
07-11-2012, 07:01 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: undefined
Posts: 328
Can someone with the authority to do so, update the Delta profile to show the next contractual pay raise and change the guarantee? (and anything else that has changed with this last contract...)
07-11-2012, 07:09 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: CRJ Captain
Posts: 1,406
FARNBOROUGH: SkyWest Airlines commits to 100 MRJs
So Skywest has ordered 100 of these things that will seat 78 people in the smaller version and 86 in the larger. Trans States also has 50 orders and 50 options.
Does your new scope clause allow 76 seats or 78?
Skywest and trans states could be hoping to fly them for American but the deliveries are slated for 2017 so is this Skywest hoping scope is lifted to 86 seats in your 2015 contract?
Seems like Skywest and TSA are banking their entire futures on these things.
In europe, regionals already fly 190's (KLM Cityhopper) We have to stop this trend! Hire me and I will help!
So Skywest has ordered 100 of these things that will seat 78 people in the smaller version and 86 in the larger. Trans States also has 50 orders and 50 options.
Does your new scope clause allow 76 seats or 78?
Skywest and trans states could be hoping to fly them for American but the deliveries are slated for 2017 so is this Skywest hoping scope is lifted to 86 seats in your 2015 contract?
Seems like Skywest and TSA are banking their entire futures on these things.
In europe, regionals already fly 190's (KLM Cityhopper) We have to stop this trend! Hire me and I will help!
07-11-2012, 07:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: maddoggy dog
Posts: 1,026
FARNBOROUGH: SkyWest Airlines commits to 100 MRJs
So Skywest has ordered 100 of these things that will seat 78 people in the smaller version and 86 in the larger. Trans States also has 50 orders and 50 options.
Does your new scope clause allow 76 seats or 78?
Skywest and trans states could be hoping to fly them for American but the deliveries are slated for 2017 so is this Skywest hoping scope is lifted to 86 seats in your 2015 contract?
Seems like Skywest and TSA are banking their entire futures on these things.
In europe, regionals already fly 190's (KLM Cityhopper) We have to stop this trend! Hire me and I will help!
So Skywest has ordered 100 of these things that will seat 78 people in the smaller version and 86 in the larger. Trans States also has 50 orders and 50 options.
Does your new scope clause allow 76 seats or 78?
Skywest and trans states could be hoping to fly them for American but the deliveries are slated for 2017 so is this Skywest hoping scope is lifted to 86 seats in your 2015 contract?
Seems like Skywest and TSA are banking their entire futures on these things.
In europe, regionals already fly 190's (KLM Cityhopper) We have to stop this trend! Hire me and I will help!
Unfortunately some here see our contract as a scope gain.
I still remember Brad Holt saying "Deal me an ace!". Now mainline has given another ace to Brad and Chip-away Childs.
07-11-2012, 07:36 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: A big one that looks like a little one
Posts: 633
Originally Posted by hoserpilot
Unfortunately some here see our contract as a scope gain.
I still remember Brad Holt saying "Deal me an ace!". Now mainline has given another ace to Brad and Chip-away Childs.
With that being said I think we all learned a valuable lesson through this last section 6 that many people vote yes just to pad their wallet. With these orders for MRJs coming in (unless they're just a show of force against Bombardier to get Bombardier to lower their prices) we'll have to immediately be ready to oppose their operation in our network or under our alliances. Th company may think they're smart enough to maneuver something like this over on us. Let's make sure we prove them wrong.
07-11-2012, 07:42 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: MSP 7ERA
Posts: 58
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
