Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-12-2010, 08:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
You are a pretty high tech guy. I bet you are the one holding your i-phone in the tape record mode near your ear as if you are on the phone while you are really recording.
04-12-2010, 08:36 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 710
Just to lighten things up a little, have you guys checked out the seniority crystal ball at the new ezopenboard.com site?
It projects when you can hold an aircraft and when you move through the markers of that list. (Bottom, 90%, 75%, 50%, 25%, and most senior.)
All this in a cool, color-coded graph form.
Of course, it's all BS. Who knows what will happen. It's just cool and something different than North v. South. It's all about you, if you can remain healthy and out of trouble.
It projects when you can hold an aircraft and when you move through the markers of that list. (Bottom, 90%, 75%, 50%, 25%, and most senior.)
All this in a cool, color-coded graph form.
Of course, it's all BS. Who knows what will happen. It's just cool and something different than North v. South. It's all about you, if you can remain healthy and out of trouble.
04-12-2010, 08:41 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
You have valid points, but why then would AA be shelving MD-83s (former TWA were glass) and ordered over 140 NG 737s? With the economy on the fragile brink of recovery, oil already hovering near $90, the thought of anything narrow body powered by JT8D, yes the MD-90 is VM2500 (or whatever), is scary. If Douglas is the solution, why then to profitable airlines fly Boeing or Airbus? Why then did the A320/319 replace the 90 in SLC? Obviously more efficient, higher load and longer range. I'm sure the 90 has it's place, but up to what fuel price point. Certainly a dead goat at $100 a barrel or third world countries wouldn't be unloading them for Airbus orders themselves... There is something larger taking place here, it's not fDAL methodology.
Also not every thing is strictly dollars and cents because even if someone could show that closing MEM and shifting the flying to ATL would save millions of dollars per year then I'll show you an ATL that will hike up the rates at some point.
And we also looked at that MD80 mod that AMR is talking about, and I hope we get in on, where their old 80s would have same stage length fuel burns on par with their 738s.
Thats kind of like hitting your funny bone, its funny but its really not funny because it hurts.
04-12-2010, 08:43 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 710
How much of a future investment should we make in the 737 or the A320 anyways if you've got B&A already touting better airplanes to come? That are more efficient no less? And what advantage do you have buying into them now? They've got long backorders but we've got airplanes that can fly for a long long time too.
04-12-2010, 08:50 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
I'm convinced the iPhone is the mark of the beast for the tribulation/end times.
I refuse to join that cult!
Cheapo Palm Centro here. I can check APC throughout the day AND pick my nose with that snazzy stylus. Now that's a deal!
04-12-2010, 08:52 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 710
I think one thing I heard directly related to the DC-9-50 was that it had a lot of life left in it despite high fuel prices because it is paid for, has a high life cycle, is cheap to maintain and the engines are very cheap. When you do the math I bet the CASM, just a bet, is worth keeping it then replacing it.
Also not every thing is strictly dollars and cents because even if someone could show that closing MEM and shifting the flying to ATL would save millions of dollars per year then I'll show you an ATL that will hike up the rates at some point.
And we also looked at that MD80 mod that AMR is talking about, and I hope we get in on, where their old 80s would have same stage length fuel burns on par with their 738s.
Thats kind of like hitting your funny bone, its funny but its really not funny because it hurts.
Also not every thing is strictly dollars and cents because even if someone could show that closing MEM and shifting the flying to ATL would save millions of dollars per year then I'll show you an ATL that will hike up the rates at some point.
And we also looked at that MD80 mod that AMR is talking about, and I hope we get in on, where their old 80s would have same stage length fuel burns on par with their 738s.
Thats kind of like hitting your funny bone, its funny but its really not funny because it hurts.
I am sure you are referring to the Super 98 Phase I and II mods. I believe phase 1 reveals a 4% fuel savings, that's what they pulled with the Airtran MD-80 anyway. The MDs will look strange with tail strakes. Phase II has not been certified yet.
Super98 > Products > MD-80
What are MD-88s powered by anyway, the same JT8D-219 as the MD-83?
What will hit the funny bone is Alaska pilots, west coast based, higher paid, with higher reserve guarantees and full pensions being integrated by third party arbitration into our narrow body list. Unless you are unGodly senior, standby.
04-12-2010, 08:52 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
You have valid points, but why then would AA be shelving MD-83s (former TWA were glass) and ordered over 140 NG 737s? With the economy on the fragile brink of recovery, oil already hovering near $90, the thought of anything narrow body powered by JT8D, yes the MD-90 is VM2500 (or whatever), is scary. If Douglas is the solution, why then to profitable airlines fly Boeing or Airbus? Why then did the A320/319 replace the 90 in SLC? Obviously more efficient, higher load and longer range. I'm sure the 90 has it's place, but up to what fuel price point. Certainly a dead goat at $100 a barrel or third world countries wouldn't be unloading them for Airbus orders themselves... There is something larger taking place here, it's not fDAL methodology.
The 70 and 76 seat RJ's are actually as efficient on a CASM basis than the JT8D powered jets.
We have to focus on the next generation of equipment and work to ensure those airplanes are not outsourced.
04-12-2010, 08:54 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
If a replacement 150-seat plane isn't officially titled, then I would say the soonest you'll see a production run will be 10 to 12 years away. Look at the backlog the 787 created. NWA was to place the first ones in revenue operations in 2008, so much for that benchmark. 10 to 12 years is a long time, the price of fuel is as volatile as the countries it comes from. 10 to 12 years can make and break a company, look at the fall of the greatest in history, about 7 to 5 years from peak to fail. A lack of Next Gen aircraft is interesting at best.
Actually, if we're grabbing "older" or no longer in production planes like a 90 then my bet is why not wait a few years and grab used 320s and 737s. By that time B&A might have announced their intent to look at a definite maybe possibly starting one day a 737/A320 replacement.
Also say fuel goes to $180bb and remains there but we can't raise prices. I'd like to think you'd see the complete elimination of 50-seaters and possibly keeping only some of the larger RJs and having larger aircraft flying routes with less frequency. Maybe or maybe not, I haven't thought that out yet.
04-12-2010, 08:56 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 710
You are correct, but, don't think we have not spent billions on re-fleeting narrow body operations, we have. We just did not spend that money on airplanes that you and I happen to operate. We've just invested somewhere north of 12 Billion on RJ's and by some accounts, still have over 21 Billion in obligation to RJ operators to perform our flying. As Management says, we don't have the money & we need to pay off our debts.
The 70 and 76 seat RJ's are actually as efficient on a CASM basis than the JT8D powered jets.
We have to focus on the next generation of equipment and work to ensure those airplanes are not outsourced.
The 70 and 76 seat RJ's are actually as efficient on a CASM basis than the JT8D powered jets.
We have to focus on the next generation of equipment and work to ensure those airplanes are not outsourced.
04-12-2010, 08:59 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Mostly, yes. From Airliners.net
I've read elsewhere that Delta requested the MD88 designation and that some of these changes were driven by Delta's desire to have a windshear detection system installed.
McDonnell Douglas renamed the DC-9-80 the MD-80 in 1983. The MD-80 designation however is a generic designation for the series and does not apply to a certain model type. The specific MD-80 models are the initial MD-81, the MD-82 with more powerful JT8D-217s, the extended range MD-83 with extra fuel and more efficient JT8D-219s, and the MD-88 (first flight August 1987) with the JT8D-219s of the MD-83 with an EFIS flightdeck and redesigned cabin interior, with other improvements.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
