Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
Baghdad Bob on the 14-12S Displacement Letter >

Baghdad Bob on the 14-12S Displacement Letter

Search

Notices

Baghdad Bob on the 14-12S Displacement Letter

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-03-2014, 07:46 PM
  #41  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 154
Default

Originally Posted by Pkcola
I thought most of the 737 fleet had gone through the wifi/entertainment update and all new 737 are equipped with wifi/entertainment system from the get go. 36% seems a little low - doesn't sound right. What do you 737 guys say?

What's happening to Jeff's 2 class / 2 airplane type airline. Did somebody educate him?
Right off the UAL website.

Inflight Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi Coverage | United Airlines

Note, not a single 67 or 87 has WiFi. Does that make any sense from a customer standpoint?
steve0617 is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 08:08 PM
  #42  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Default

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
T38,

Fwiw, via a flight mgr, the airbii used acft order has been quashed.
For now.... I heard the China airplanes got snagged out from under us. But I believe the search continues
gettinbumped is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 08:13 PM
  #43  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CousinEddie's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,085
Default

Originally Posted by steve0617
Right off the UAL website.

Inflight Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi Coverage | United Airlines

Note, not a single 67 or 87 has WiFi. Does that make any sense from a customer standpoint?

Looking at Delta, they appear to be much further along with their fleet having Wi-Fi service. The Gogo service they have though is limited to the coverage map below. What we are putting in as I understand it is satellite based Wi-Fi that won't have the coverage limitations. I could see why this would be a more time consuming and expensive system to put in. In the end it will allow coverage on legs outside the U.S. We do have the Gogo system on the PS 757s, but for the routes they always fly that works fine. I wonder what the issues might be mounting a satellite receiver dome up on top of the 787 composite tube though?

Gogo Inflight Internet - Participating Airlines



Gogo Has the U.S. Covered


Delta Connect and Gogo are available on Gogo equipped flights within the continental U.S. and portions of Alaska*.

With Delta and Gogo, you can surf the sky knowing that we have you covered on Gogo equipped flights within the entire continental U.S. & Alaska.
*Service is not available outside the continental USA and Alaska as shown. Some parts of Alaska may experience interruptions.

Check My Trips to see if Wi-Fi is available on your flight.
CousinEddie is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 08:24 PM
  #44  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

I would think you wouldn't have to mount it on top...the signal could go through the aircraft fuselage skin.

For that matter, you could put it in an outer portion of the wing, and let it through the composite skin, in a portion that is just an empty bay.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 08:27 PM
  #45  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

Originally Posted by steve0617
Right off the UAL website.

Inflight Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi Coverage | United Airlines

Note, not a single 67 or 87 has WiFi. Does that make any sense from a customer standpoint?
Same numbers are in Hemispheres; that was where I saw them. Same graphic.

And no, it makes no sense from a customer-service standpoint. We need to get this done.

Apparently, there is no STC for a system on the 787 yet.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 07:33 AM
  #46  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Default

Originally Posted by gettinbumped
For now.... I heard the China airplanes got snagged out from under us. But I believe the search continues
What aircraft are they parking for the future used aircraft purchases? Certainly this isn't for growth.
SpecialTracking is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 08:12 AM
  #47  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

Here's my guess:

I think there is still a slight excess in training capacity on the Bus. If they had a few extra Buses, they could send some of the new 737s to get modified with wifi/entertainment systems.

Once complete, they could keep the Buses, or park them.

Used airplanes, intended for short-time use, would be cheap to acquire, and have no long-term maintenance costs (ie, D-checks).

This would reduce the training footprint on the 737 as well.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 04:24 PM
  #48  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Default

Originally Posted by Airhoss
Stupid question I guess but why does the 320 work better in IAH and the 737 better in Denver? Seems like a lot of shuck and jive for very little real world benefit?
I don't know the answer to that question, but in July we had 514 weekly Airbus departures from Houston vs 256 from Denver. That's 2 to 1. Yet we have 123 Airbus pilots based in Houston vs 454 based in Denver. That's today, not the future. Manpower is out of wack.
jsled is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 04:29 PM
  #49  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MasterOfPuppets's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
Default

Originally Posted by Airhoss
Stupid question I guess but why does the 320 work better in IAH and the 737 better in Denver? Seems like a lot of shuck and jive for very little real world benefit?
I was told that it is because the cargo doors on the 320 open outward, 737 opens inward. This allows the 320 to carry bigger cargo pallets in and out of Mexico and Central America.
MasterOfPuppets is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 04:42 PM
  #50  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Default

Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05
Great point. You'd think if they allow this to play out in the long term via attrition and growth they'd ending saving a lot more money than displacing so many pilots short term. The gain doesn't seem to be worth it.
We saw 50% RSV coverage on the 76T in Denver last summer. That meant about 50 Captains and 50 FOs were getting paid 15K and 10K per month to do remodeling projects around the house. Not so bad this summer, but now 25- 757s are retiring just in the second half of this year. There are big costs associated with not displacing as well. In fact, Mr. Papaleo seems to think the benefits of this displacement will far outweigh the costs, or so he says.
jsled is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Deez340
Regional
160
05-06-2008 10:41 PM
Micro
Cargo
0
10-30-2007 03:51 PM
rjlavender
Cargo
40
08-10-2007 01:35 PM
2cylinderdriver
Cargo
11
08-07-2007 07:23 PM
WatchThis!
Hangar Talk
1
05-30-2007 04:27 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices