Over the past few weeks the loads have been changing dramatically for both PHL-LGW and CLT-LGW for the first week of November. According to the US website both flights are listed as A330; however, if you click on the info button for the flights it lists PHL-LGW and LGW-PHL as a 767 for 11/2-11/5. This also shows on Virtually There. I understand that the aircraft that flies PHL-LGW usually returns LGW-CLT and that the aircraft that flies CLT-LGW usually returns LGW-PHL. Anyone know any more info on that week? I am returning from LGW on 11/5 and am really hoping for the 330. If they do swap a 767 will they switch the routing to keep it PHL-LGW-PHL or will the rotation continue? According to a poster on FlyerTalk the crew schedule still lists both flights as A330. Anyone else have additional info?
767 Swap For A330 -- Phl-lgw 11/2-11/5?
- Thread starter dukeman
- Start date
Still showing as a 330 for both CLT/PHL-LGW during this period according to the flight crews CATCREW computer.
The return to service date for the airplane in heavy mtc bumped causing the equipment substitution.
When ETRs were not met inhouse it was usually due to lack of parts and lack of manpower.
A vendor promises work to be done at a specific ETR and is paid well for that service, if they cant produce they should not underbid to obtain the contracts in the first place.
And we all know US whored itself out of bankruptcy and ACTS is going to make a fortune of the new US for only a $75 million investment which will earn it over $200 million a year in MRO fees.
A vendor promises work to be done at a specific ETR and is paid well for that service, if they cant produce they should not underbid to obtain the contracts in the first place.
And we all know US whored itself out of bankruptcy and ACTS is going to make a fortune of the new US for only a $75 million investment which will earn it over $200 million a year in MRO fees.
And you know that during a check unexpected things can come up, such as corrosion, that will delay the return to service time. There are some things that you just can't plan for and it happens regardless of whether the work is doen inhouse or with contract vendors.
That is true, but US also has to pay extra for the finds and there is some leeway should have been factored in.
Also did you know that ACTS was the low bidder on the A320 S-checks when the company decided to violate the IAM CBA, but the work still went to Singapore Technologies Mobile Aerospace in Alabama?
US has a history of whoring itself.
Also did you know that ACTS was the low bidder on the A320 S-checks when the company decided to violate the IAM CBA, but the work still went to Singapore Technologies Mobile Aerospace in Alabama?
US has a history of whoring itself.
We both know that the Doc influenced the decision to get St MAE the work. Glad he's gone.
Do you know if there are any stipulations in the contract with ACTS about missed ETR's and associated costs?
Do you know if there are any stipulations in the contract with ACTS about missed ETR's and associated costs?
CLT-Douglas
Advanced
- Feb 12, 2003
- 179
- 2
Funny think Mark,
Whenever we had an airplane in a check that experienced one of these "unexpected" things, the mechanics were accused of laying down on the job or simply looking to find things to delay the ETR <_<
In fact, it was for this exact reason the company claimed that we couldn't compete with the MRO's!!!! Hence the outsourcing. So now what are they going to say???? Learning curve? Or how about, "It's a normal occurrence." I would imagine that Castelveter's replacement is just as good of a liar as he was :down:
Oh, one last thing.......Emergency landing coming to an airport or worse, an OCEAN near you
!!Similar threads
