jtriple7

Burns 30% of the fuel that a 67 burns or 30% less than a 67 burns?
Im just trying to clarify, not a pilot but im still interested. Thanks.

Probe

The pie chart for airline costs changes dramatically with labor costs and fuel costs. But if you get airplanes cheap enough, you can afford the extra fuel flow. 15 years ago AMR said their break even point for flying old, paid for MD-80s was 70 dollars a barrel. Above that, it made sense to buy a better airplane. Oil went to 120, stayed there for several years, and AMR ordere d500 737's and A320/1's.

The part of me that hates Guppies was glad we cancelled the 737-700 order. The little bit of beancounter in me thinks we were getting them at 75% off list price, and that made them so cheap, we wouldn't notice the extra 13% fuel burn that they would use over a MAX.

Same with the new 767. I don't know what deal Boeing is going to strike with us, but if the price is really good, it might make a lot of sense financially.

The risk is that oil goes back up over 100 a barrel, and that "cheap" 767 is now not so cheap.

I love flying the 756, but I hope if they make a deal for them, it is a smokin' deal.

gettinbumped

Should be “burns 30% LESS fuel” than the 67.

Cheers

82spukram

The ridiculous thing about this is Boeing could have made a 767-max along side the 737 program. Very little money and right now UAL,DAL, and AA along with FedEx and UPS would probably have a 300-500 order backlog. Through in a few 100 more around the world and we would not be talking about a new MOM airplane. It would be 20% more efficiency and the low cost to buy would make that last 10% between the 787-767 only for those who need the extreme range. Of course that would have hurt the 787 so no 767 max.

jsled

And our pay rates today are sitting 18% higher than our Contract 2012 rates would have been today. With a 3% raise coming in Jan and another 4% raise in Jan 2019. It tops out at $193/hr for a Guppy FO!! A GUPPY FO.
Yippie ki-yay mutha trucka. It's no wonder the extension passed so overwhelmingly. And would again, easily. No brainer.

davessn763

Why is every other airline in the world using it that way?

baseball

The extension passed because it was the right thing to do at the time. It made sense. My position is: A dollar earned today is worth .60 cents made three years from now. The intrinsic value of real money is what it is all about especially considering the massive concessions and the long term effects it has had on families' budgets and their earning power and spending power.

The land scape changes however in the near future. We have most of our concessions back and now are looking to reclaim the long term position of the profession and the career path. That's exactly why scope relief won't fly.

MasterOfPuppets

I dont know why does United fly its 777s domestically? does that mean its in the same category as a 737?

United can fly a 787 between SFO - TLV/CTU/KIX/PVG, IAD - PEK, DEN - NRT. guess what CANT fly any of those routes? A 787 can do EVERYTHING a 767 can do but a 767 can't do anything the 787 can do. Therefor different category of airplane.

A Q400 could fly 76 people 450 miles in the same amount of time as a 76 seat RJ. Are they the same category? The Q400 will use 50% of the fuel on those missions, but the CRJ will fly alot further in a shorter amount of time for every other mission.

MasterOfPuppets

If section 3 of the contract is the most important thing in your life then the extension is fine.

oldmako

Sled,

If you had to eat a turd burger before every push, but they offered you 20 bucks more per hour (let's just say $20 for arguments sake), would you vote for that too?