New A/C
- Thread starter CLT_Flyer
- Start date
ELP_WN_Psgr
Senior
- Nov 29, 2003
- 419
- 0
Don't try to fix something that is not broken.
IF (and that is a big IF) the Embraer 190 turns out to be everything the manufacturer says it is, there's an easy way to rectify the problem of not having bought any. Buy some.
In the meantime, you have a very versatile 137 seat airplane. You have pilots who can fly everything you own. The training costs are minimized...you don't constantly have pilots upgrading from the Embraer to the 737 and First Officers moving from Right seat/737 to Left seat/Embraer. If an airplane breaks at the gate, and you have another one at another gate, it's plug and play. The simplicity of operations generated by a single fleet type cannot be overstated. Contractually life is a lot simpler too....without the hassles of determining the different pay scales for 737 Captains/FOs versus Embraer Captains/FOs.
The # of markets that will support a 100 seat airplane but won't support a 137 seat airplane, especially if the seats are priced appropriately....is not nearly as big as folks think it is.
In reading the USAir board I have to admit I am surprised at how candidly (and disparagingly) the Maintenance personnel slam the Airbus family. We don't really know enough about Embraer's ability to produce largish passenger jets to bet the farm on them today. After reading what they've had to say about corrosion and "there's no way we're gonna be flying these in 10 or 15 yrs" I just wonder if Neeleman and pals have discovered that being an Airbus owner is not as much fun as they said it would be. Who k nows, jumping ship to Embraer might mean nothing more than JetBlue has discovered the Airbus is a corrosion plagued, 15 yr life expectancy disposable plane that the manufacturer can, will, and has to sell at a low-ball price.....
We do know that owning Boeings can be fun and profitable. So why change? Like the old advertisement, it's better to fight than switch.
IF (and that is a big IF) the Embraer 190 turns out to be everything the manufacturer says it is, there's an easy way to rectify the problem of not having bought any. Buy some.
In the meantime, you have a very versatile 137 seat airplane. You have pilots who can fly everything you own. The training costs are minimized...you don't constantly have pilots upgrading from the Embraer to the 737 and First Officers moving from Right seat/737 to Left seat/Embraer. If an airplane breaks at the gate, and you have another one at another gate, it's plug and play. The simplicity of operations generated by a single fleet type cannot be overstated. Contractually life is a lot simpler too....without the hassles of determining the different pay scales for 737 Captains/FOs versus Embraer Captains/FOs.
The # of markets that will support a 100 seat airplane but won't support a 137 seat airplane, especially if the seats are priced appropriately....is not nearly as big as folks think it is.
In reading the USAir board I have to admit I am surprised at how candidly (and disparagingly) the Maintenance personnel slam the Airbus family. We don't really know enough about Embraer's ability to produce largish passenger jets to bet the farm on them today. After reading what they've had to say about corrosion and "there's no way we're gonna be flying these in 10 or 15 yrs" I just wonder if Neeleman and pals have discovered that being an Airbus owner is not as much fun as they said it would be. Who k nows, jumping ship to Embraer might mean nothing more than JetBlue has discovered the Airbus is a corrosion plagued, 15 yr life expectancy disposable plane that the manufacturer can, will, and has to sell at a low-ball price.....
We do know that owning Boeings can be fun and profitable. So why change? Like the old advertisement, it's better to fight than switch.
diverboy
Member
yeah.. um.. nospanky said:
I wouldn't put too much stock in what some USair maint people have to say about Airbus. As Americans we have a very strong bias against ANY foriegn built aircraft!ELP_WN_Psgr said:
Its also a serious culture shock to go from working on a Boeing to an Airbus. The Airbus is cutting edge "fly-by-wire". Your average "Old School" mechanics don't care for anthing electrical and this entire plane is nothing but wires!
Airbus makes a very good product and unfortuntly, airlines that were once all Boeing fleets are switching over entirely or substantialy. Once they start operating the Airbus planes they want more. They're very reliable and have great operating costs. Pilots love to fly them and best of all, passengers prefer them. It should tell you something when you see major 737operators like Easyjet switching over to A320s.
Back to the subject: SW should stick with flying only 737s for now. Let JB do the experimenting with dual fleets and if it works then copy it. If it doesn't, then SW remains the geniuses!
Sorry AOG. Don't mean to offend anyone but my comments were about American(citizen/resident) mechanics in general. Not U mechanics in specific. We just don't like foreign stuff. Actually WE HATE IT!! We're quick to scream bloody murder when an airbus stab breaks off, but brush off any Boeing problems like Rudder lock-overs.
Its true I don't have firsthand experience with A320s. But I have never seen the extensive corrosion you talk about on the A300-600. The A300's problem is Cracks.
I do have extensive experience with Boeings. Especially older Boeings. And to claim they age much better is just false. Yes airlines do fly plenty of older Boeings, but not without plenty of Engineering intervention. Theres a constant flow of Modifications coming from Boeing and in-house Engineering departments. They also cost a lot of money to keep them flying. The desert is littered with not that old 737-300,400,500s. who's operators decided it was cheaper to replace them.
Its true I don't have firsthand experience with A320s. But I have never seen the extensive corrosion you talk about on the A300-600. The A300's problem is Cracks.
I do have extensive experience with Boeings. Especially older Boeings. And to claim they age much better is just false. Yes airlines do fly plenty of older Boeings, but not without plenty of Engineering intervention. Theres a constant flow of Modifications coming from Boeing and in-house Engineering departments. They also cost a lot of money to keep them flying. The desert is littered with not that old 737-300,400,500s. who's operators decided it was cheaper to replace them.
Fred Ziffel
Member
Yes there are:
The Hmong in the U.S. came mainly from Laos as refugees after the Vietnam War. They once lived idyllic agrarian lives in the hills of northern Laos, but that changed once many of them were recruited by the CIA to fight for us in the once-secret wars in Laos.
AA Mech,AAmech said:
Apology noted...and I appreciate your taking of your time to make your point much clearer and far less invasive.
I agree...many Americans do have a natural adversion to the loss of what has traditionally been ours , by that I mean the dominance we once enjoyed in commercial aircraft production.
However just as Japanese vehicles gained acceptance and popularity during the 70's , this natural adversion will pass...but much slower as compared to the automobile. I view the Airbus explosion in the market as a call to arms for Boeing...and I can easily invision the 7E7 taking certain pluses the Airbus has and expanding on the best aspects that both product lines tend to offer.
I agree that Engineering relief has to be sought on Boeings , that same fact holds true on any Aircraft to ever enjoy mass production , daily utilization or military action for that matter....Tis the nature of the beast.
We tend to disagree on the aging aspects...and that is fine , your A300-300's must be of a different train of thought than our newer A320 family is , in regards to how they were handled on the corrosion prevention end at the factories from which they were pieced together. Time and ways to produce a cheaper product and yet make a profit has that affect at times...on this I'm sure we can both agree.
From an Engineeing standpoint....the relationship and response time we have always enjoyed with Boeing is now less than stellar in regards to what we recieve from Airbus....and imagine if you will what we have invested with this product by comparison to you fine people at AA.
My personal beef with Airbus stems from logistics. Airbus sells a cheaper product upfront...but then recoupes it's money in spare parts support. The cost of moving AOG items from Toulouse , Hamburg or any other European location is simply staggering on its own accord. Having developed a fine relationship with all my counterparts at the other carriers , yours in TUL included , we all have a common fear and hate when the call involves an Airbus. The Ashburn Va. support facility is a mockery of AOG support by comparison to what we have enjoyed with Boeing in SEA or MDC in Torrence Ca. over the years....the only good thing I can say about after the delivery support of the Airbus is this....at least it isn't a Fokker.
Yes Sir , the desert is littered with older B737's and a million other examples too...and some of that is a dodge to avoid performing work and paying for it to be performed. The "Wiz-Kids" in the executive ranks would much rather recieve a new airplane and a kick-back like the CEO before them recieved...all the while avoiding paying or retaining people like us to keep a worthy aircraft flying...so is it a matter of the cost of a purchase or the cost of ownership benefiting a select few that's in question here?
WN is the classic example of what a B737 can do...and do well for many years to come , USAir is still an alike example , but those whom benefit most are seeing to that coming to an end...and not because of any shortcomings of the plane itself.
I would surfice to say...that beyond WN's bright future and choice in aircraft...I would likley gain 5 years on the back end of my life without the added stress Airbus brings to my corner of the world...I should have gone to DAL and LUV when the time was right to do so. So far they continue to prove to me and the financial community that they know what they are doing....a weathering of the last few years storms and still showing a steady profit only compounds this belief.
skycruiser
Member
- Oct 11, 2003
- 70
- 0
:down:ELP_WN_Psgr said:
LUV business plan is key to their success, change the plan and you will jeopardize that success. Adding a new fleet type to the mix would increase their operating cost and that low operating cost is what is keeping them in a profit every quarter. Aside from USA and maybe DAL in FLA most other airlines coexist with LUV (like in Houston for example, LUV has HOU and CAL has IAH... CAL stays out of their markets and in turn LUV reciprocates). If they start buying big aircraft to get into the Asian market they will have to go up against airlines that are very well established and that, by the most part, already control the limited slots. Also all those additional landing fees, operating cost and crew cost (if your flying international on a large a/c you can bet the crews will be demanding higher pay) wouldn't help LUV's bottom line either. Since they are a point to point airline with no central hub to feed into and doesn't code share with anyone who would feed those international flights with passengers. The other issue is LUV is single class open seating and to compete with the other airlines those flights better have some kind of business/first class cabin that people are assigned a seat and what about some kind of airport "first class type club" those high paying pax can go to. Basically it would mean redesigning their business model and what would be the point in that when the one in place not seems to be turning a profit every year.
I, too, am not a fan of WN adding a smaller fleet type to its service. I will say, however, that WN operates tactfully, not strategically. By doing so, they do not wholly commit to one strategy forever and they can quickly change if it becomes necessary. I don't think, however, that it would be to their advantage to add any smaller a/c since they already serve the smallest markets that will continually sustain a lowfare operation. WN doesn't need to take on a regional angle. However, IF they were to add a/c, I would be insupport of larger equipment with the possibility of international service. The problem is that both larger a/c and the start of international service would have a huge impact on their turn time as well as expose them possibly too much.
I don't think that WN should never change their equipment type or "strategy" because it is their "strategy" but I don't see it as being tactfully advantageous at this time. I hope they hold out for the 7E7 and then possibly replace their fleet.
I don't think that WN should never change their equipment type or "strategy" because it is their "strategy" but I don't see it as being tactfully advantageous at this time. I hope they hold out for the 7E7 and then possibly replace their fleet.
justaumechanic
Veteran
- Dec 15, 2003
- 578
- 0
I agree with the post that says "Dont fix something that is not broken"..
Southwest has been flying the 737 its entire history and they have 30 years plus of profits to prove it.. Its a winner.. Dont stray or you will find yourselves in a big huge mess.
KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid..
Airbus.. The A320 family is pretty easy to work on.. But its expensive to purchase parts for and the wait can be painfully long. Each aircraft has its pros and cons. JetBlue seems to be doing quite nicely with the A320 and Southwest with the 737 Classic and the NG.
Personally US Airways made a huge mistake going the route of Airbus.. Not that its a bad plane but like anything at US Airways we did it 1/2 ass. We already had the 737-300/400 so why not go the route of the NG. Materials, procedures, Training, ground support, Tooling all would be similar or the same. One Pilot Group today would be flying all of the aircraft instead of the split groups we have.
Sure the A320 family is great if your entire fleet is Airbus.. But thats not the case at US Airways.. It would have been much better buying the NG and the 767-300/400 than to have purchases the Airbus A320 family and the A330..
Southwest, stick with your 737's.. Its a sure thing.
Southwest has been flying the 737 its entire history and they have 30 years plus of profits to prove it.. Its a winner.. Dont stray or you will find yourselves in a big huge mess.
KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid..
Airbus.. The A320 family is pretty easy to work on.. But its expensive to purchase parts for and the wait can be painfully long. Each aircraft has its pros and cons. JetBlue seems to be doing quite nicely with the A320 and Southwest with the 737 Classic and the NG.
Personally US Airways made a huge mistake going the route of Airbus.. Not that its a bad plane but like anything at US Airways we did it 1/2 ass. We already had the 737-300/400 so why not go the route of the NG. Materials, procedures, Training, ground support, Tooling all would be similar or the same. One Pilot Group today would be flying all of the aircraft instead of the split groups we have.
Sure the A320 family is great if your entire fleet is Airbus.. But thats not the case at US Airways.. It would have been much better buying the NG and the 767-300/400 than to have purchases the Airbus A320 family and the A330..
Southwest, stick with your 737's.. Its a sure thing.
