|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 694858)
I can't say I really saw any posturing one way or the other for the 100 seater to be flown by mainline or the regional. That would have been suicide to suggest that subject....
Let us just think it through logically. If the decision was solely up to management, would they give the 100-120 seat market to the regionals? There is where their true intentions are... |
If you could ask DALPA anything right now, what would you ask? Hurry, I don't have long and I have someone's undivided attention.
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 694866)
I think I see this more clearly now, keep the 9s and 88s, shun new, so its not about the new engines reliability compared to each other its about the new engines compared to the JT8, the only engine they trust. :D
Heyas, To quote former NWA CEO Donald Nyrop "If I want a lightbulb, I call GE, if I want an engine, I'll call Pratt & Whitney" No preference to either, but that line of thinking goes way back at NWA... Nu |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 694881)
If you could ask DALPA anything right now, what would you ask? Hurry, I don't have long and I have someone's undivided attention.
What is the MEC's much vaunted "100 seat plan"? And when is the MEC going to start listening to the membership, and do something about the horrid communications structure? I mean, I picture someone running off blue copies on the old mimiograph machine.... Edit: What's wrong with communications they might ask? We're all here on a anonymous internet forum to get our information. That should speak enough to the state of DALPA communications.. Nu |
To the company, ALVs are low so the company doesn't believe they're saving a lot of money with SILs. But if ALVs go up into the 80s per hour then they'd save money offering SILs. (i.e. 72-55)
Sounded like management just wanted to try it and see what happens over trying personal leaves. They thought it would be more like enhanced personal leaves because the pilots would keep benefits and not fall off payrolls. The company was not interested engaging on having SILs with less restrictions. |
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
|
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 694848)
From an engineering standpoint, the plastic plane is not a viable 100 seat product. The type of development on the 787 limits the plane to about 45,000 cycles max, this is reduced if the plane is damaged by ground workers. While 45,000 cycles on a long haul aircraft is acceptable, it is very limiting for a jet that does more than 3 legs in a day. That's why the 787-300 is a flop for the short haul market.
The 100 seat aircraft market will be decided by the capabilities of the engine. It's interesting that RA would say an engine that is still in development with no service history is unreliable, yet every manufacturer is considering putting it on their bread and butter aircraft(737, A320, C-series, MRJ, etc)...... BD |
one fo's suggestion to the union: we need to park all of the Airbuses.
Geeish. less than briliant, alpa rep said no but everyone has a lot of concerns about ER flying domestic. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 694881)
If you could ask DALPA anything right now, what would you ask? Hurry, I don't have long and I have someone's undivided attention.
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 694911)
one fo's suggestion to the union: we need to park all of the Airbuses.
Geeish. less than briliant, alpa rep said no but everyone has a lot of concerns about ER flying domestic. Ummmmmm, & this would help HOW? :confused: :confused: |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:34 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands