Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
08-30-2011, 11:20 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
Did they decide on the 66" version? The current size is 61 inches and Boeing was looking hard at 70."
Final 737 re-engine configuration down to four possible fan sizes
The trade off is that large fans make huge thrust when low and slow. At high speed big fans and nacelles are just extra drag. Think A10 and F104 and you get the picture. Here is a toy to play with:
EngineSim 1.7a beta
While reading up on this 737RE, I was a little surprised to read that Slow and Sailing were correct that there was room in the A320NEO schedule to accommodate Delta's needs. Apparently what happened is that Airbus became pretty firm in their prices after the number of orders they received. Boeing on the other hand may have been inspired to offer better discounts.
Overall the 737-900ER may have been the overlooked "ugly duckling" with Swan potential. Part of the reason for the success of the -800 was that its commonality makes it easy to lease and re-lease to another customer. The relative rarity of the -900 will decrease with Delta's order, making the airplane more accepted in the marketplace.
The 737-900ER RE might be just the ticket, with more thrust & better efficiency. If this RE is a nacelle and engine swap, seems like it could be done mid order. The other angle is, with new engines the 737-700 might become the "perfect" 130 to 150 seat jet. We did an order for 200 engines, but since the Leap X is the same manufacturer, an armchair observer would think there is a chance the order could be up-sold.
Final 737 re-engine configuration down to four possible fan sizes
The trade off is that large fans make huge thrust when low and slow. At high speed big fans and nacelles are just extra drag. Think A10 and F104 and you get the picture. Here is a toy to play with:
EngineSim 1.7a beta
While reading up on this 737RE, I was a little surprised to read that Slow and Sailing were correct that there was room in the A320NEO schedule to accommodate Delta's needs. Apparently what happened is that Airbus became pretty firm in their prices after the number of orders they received. Boeing on the other hand may have been inspired to offer better discounts.
Overall the 737-900ER may have been the overlooked "ugly duckling" with Swan potential. Part of the reason for the success of the -800 was that its commonality makes it easy to lease and re-lease to another customer. The relative rarity of the -900 will decrease with Delta's order, making the airplane more accepted in the marketplace.
The 737-900ER RE might be just the ticket, with more thrust & better efficiency. If this RE is a nacelle and engine swap, seems like it could be done mid order. The other angle is, with new engines the 737-700 might become the "perfect" 130 to 150 seat jet. We did an order for 200 engines, but since the Leap X is the same manufacturer, an armchair observer would think there is a chance the order could be up-sold.
Thats why the GTF is the better growth engine....the variable nozzle on the fan is like having a pitch change mechanism on the blades without the associated complexities. FWIW the GTF is the closest thing to the open rotor concepts trialed 20 years ago with 80% of the benefits and 20% of the complexity.
Cheers
George
08-30-2011, 11:25 AM
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 793
08-30-2011, 11:28 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 224
- AirTran has vastly lower yields and lower costs than SWA. If SWA's cost structure is placed over the routes the 717 operates, the result is about a 15 to 25% operating loss.
- The 717 is too range limited to be the core of an O&D airline.
- The 717 only really makes sense at the fringes of the market as a feeder or supplemental to an operation being driven by low costs elsewhere in the operation.
The other angle might be that management could be turning up the heat in response to the lack of an SLI agreement.
From the Peanut Gallery;
The leases on the 717 begin to expire at the same time as the 737RE is due to enter service.
I don't think GK is bluffing about the 717. The only real question is When, Where and How.
08-30-2011, 11:33 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: 7er
Posts: 1,673
I have my 1st CQ coming up in a couple of weeks. Could somebody please post what I can expect as far as training/texting/exams/orals/evaluations. Thank you.
08-30-2011, 12:02 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
Go to DeltaNet, select your type of aircraft, and all the training modules for CQ are there. You can also look up your sim schedule and partner info. If you're really into it, you can download all of the sim events and the instructors briefing items as well. Its totally painless these days.
08-30-2011, 12:22 PM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
88;
It is timing. It would be seen as rhetoric if it went on for that long. The pilots would have issue fatigue as well. It is all about timing, having us hit our peak and the correct time for the message that we all want delivered.
Yes the message need to be delivered, but you must admit that some just get tired of beating the same drum for so long. You can see that with pilots that come and go on this board. Imagine what it is like with 12,000 pilots when you need their support and all at once. Most would have checked out six months go. Look at the apathy of our group, do you think that they could really stay on message with the level of intensity needed for that long? Many could, yes, but we need everyone that way.
It is not an excuse for the actions of a few, but a reason of as to why I think now is the time to start getting the message out. We could be prepping for a marathon in section 6 and no one will know until they are at least half way though the race.
It is timing. It would be seen as rhetoric if it went on for that long. The pilots would have issue fatigue as well. It is all about timing, having us hit our peak and the correct time for the message that we all want delivered.
Yes the message need to be delivered, but you must admit that some just get tired of beating the same drum for so long. You can see that with pilots that come and go on this board. Imagine what it is like with 12,000 pilots when you need their support and all at once. Most would have checked out six months go. Look at the apathy of our group, do you think that they could really stay on message with the level of intensity needed for that long? Many could, yes, but we need everyone that way.
It is not an excuse for the actions of a few, but a reason of as to why I think now is the time to start getting the message out. We could be prepping for a marathon in section 6 and no one will know until they are at least half way though the race.
Sorry, ACL. I'm not buying it. The reason for apathy under these conditions is that we haven't had appropriate leadership. We've been a rudderless ship just floundering around with no direction or any defined destination. Using the ship analogy... you don't wander about aimlessly (for FOUR YEARS for crying out loud!) and then decide at the last minute where you're going and how you're going to get there. That will for sure get you a crew that isn't engaged anymore.
There's a reason successful companies and organizations have compelling, appropriate mission statements and make sure everyone is on board with that. And I don't know of a single successful company or organization that keeps their mission hidden and then let's all their people in on the secret as they are approaching the home stretch. That would make no sense at all.
08-30-2011, 12:28 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Delta 1067,
Go to your fleet page on the Delta Ops web site. Then the left side has your CQ briefing.
Oral should be limitations and recall items. Recall lists are not verbatim. Good to also know typically asked questions about windshear, GPWZ, MEA, MOCA, type stuff. Sim will be non jeopardy "first look" maneuvers, then training and a LOFT event.
We got an engine failure at about 700 feet in the mountains, mostly it was a fly the procedure, then the checklists, exercise. It was good practice to vary the timing of the typical V1 cut and more operationally oriented. Also has a engine failure on track to practice driftdown procedures. A little time in Section 9 of the Airway Manual helps me knock the rust off stuff I rarely see.
Straightforward, good learning environment. No gotcha's.
Go to your fleet page on the Delta Ops web site. Then the left side has your CQ briefing.
Oral should be limitations and recall items. Recall lists are not verbatim. Good to also know typically asked questions about windshear, GPWZ, MEA, MOCA, type stuff. Sim will be non jeopardy "first look" maneuvers, then training and a LOFT event.
We got an engine failure at about 700 feet in the mountains, mostly it was a fly the procedure, then the checklists, exercise. It was good practice to vary the timing of the typical V1 cut and more operationally oriented. Also has a engine failure on track to practice driftdown procedures. A little time in Section 9 of the Airway Manual helps me knock the rust off stuff I rarely see.
Straightforward, good learning environment. No gotcha's.
08-30-2011, 12:41 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
To the Bar-88-ACL discussion, do the 76 staters exist because they can't buy bigger ones for DCI or because they're the best righ sized platforms available?
I like ACLs idea to sunset contracts over fighting to win a plane that the company doesn't want in reality. It'd be like fighting to get 50 seaters, nobody wants to do that, why? Because we see them as going away anyways. The 76 seaters are just bigger versions, so they'll be here longer so we discuss them but are they really Charlie Sheen winners? Or are they here because they fit our scope clause?
Kind of like the ERJ-140. What is that? It's a 50 seater adjusted to APAs scope clause, nobody else wanted them. The rest wanted 50 seaters because 51 requires a second FA. Just like Beech 1900s and J32s seat 19, 20 requires a FA. Or 37 seat E120s and Dash 8s, I believe at the time those were all Part 135 airplanes and that was the max size you could have a Part 135 scheduled air carrier because 38 required Part 121 ops. I may be wrong but I believe that's why.
So take away Section 1, make DCI illegal, all flying in-house, what would we really have on the small end? and if 76 seaters aren't them, do we fight for them or like in the case of the 50 seaters we wait and see if external factors take care of the mental glitch that brought them here.
Check, move over, I'm coming to your bunker. We can play angry birds if you want?
I like ACLs idea to sunset contracts over fighting to win a plane that the company doesn't want in reality. It'd be like fighting to get 50 seaters, nobody wants to do that, why? Because we see them as going away anyways. The 76 seaters are just bigger versions, so they'll be here longer so we discuss them but are they really Charlie Sheen winners? Or are they here because they fit our scope clause?
Kind of like the ERJ-140. What is that? It's a 50 seater adjusted to APAs scope clause, nobody else wanted them. The rest wanted 50 seaters because 51 requires a second FA. Just like Beech 1900s and J32s seat 19, 20 requires a FA. Or 37 seat E120s and Dash 8s, I believe at the time those were all Part 135 airplanes and that was the max size you could have a Part 135 scheduled air carrier because 38 required Part 121 ops. I may be wrong but I believe that's why.
So take away Section 1, make DCI illegal, all flying in-house, what would we really have on the small end? and if 76 seaters aren't them, do we fight for them or like in the case of the 50 seaters we wait and see if external factors take care of the mental glitch that brought them here.
Check, move over, I'm coming to your bunker. We can play angry birds if you want?
08-30-2011, 12:43 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
So then we are staffing the reserves for this category out of ATL... got it. We actually have 6 whole days in September where reserve available exceeds required in NY. And that is with the loss of NINE international destinations next month. Atlanta, conveniently has 6 days where reserve coverage is NOT in excess. And in case you didn't notice, in the last AE, there was no net gain in the manning in NY. therefore, there is no end in sight for this.
If the company wants to run the reserve system with the Atlanta base, that's fine just as long as it's clearly delineated in the mythical manning formula. And let me be perfectly clear on this: Swapping between bases is not the solution to this problem, so enjoy your regular line trips that you cannot drop. Maybe I'll get that MEX qual so you don't get so many GSs per month... Cause once I have it, EVERYBODY is gettin qualified.
Last edited by tsquare; 08-30-2011 at 12:58 PM.
08-30-2011, 12:53 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
too bad it wasn't a GS.
So then we are staffing the reserves for this category out of ATL... got it. We actually have 6 whole days in September where reserve available exceeds required in NY. And that is with the loss of NINE international destinations next month. Atlanta, conveniently has 6 days where reserve coverage is NOT in excess. And in case you didn't notice, in the last AE, there was no net gain in the manning in NY. therefore, there is no end in sight for this.
If the company wants to run the reserve system with the Atlanta base, that's fine just as long as it's clearly delineated in the mythical manning formula. And let me be perfectly clear on this: Swapping between bases is not the solution to this problem, so enjoy your regular line trips that you cannot drop. Maybe I'll get that MEX qual so you don't get so many GSs per month... Cause once I have it, EVERYBODY is gettin qualified.
So then we are staffing the reserves for this category out of ATL... got it. We actually have 6 whole days in September where reserve available exceeds required in NY. And that is with the loss of NINE international destinations next month. Atlanta, conveniently has 6 days where reserve coverage is NOT in excess. And in case you didn't notice, in the last AE, there was no net gain in the manning in NY. therefore, there is no end in sight for this.
If the company wants to run the reserve system with the Atlanta base, that's fine just as long as it's clearly delineated in the mythical manning formula. And let me be perfectly clear on this: Swapping between bases is not the solution to this problem, so enjoy your regular line trips that you cannot drop. Maybe I'll get that MEX qual so you don't get so many GSs per month... Cause once I have it, EVERYBODY is gettin qualified.
Hell, we're covering NYC trips with LAX reserves these days. Just got back from one.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
