A330-200''s for US Airways

ITRADE

Veteran
Aug 19, 2002
2,860
0
DCA/IAD US2
www.geocities.com
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/31/2003 10:38:43 PM deelmakur wrote:

Assuming the company remains a going concern, this, as has been said, standardizes the long haul fleet. The 330 is a great plane, but not a huge seller. Example:when Sabena bellied up, a couple of its 330's ended up with Air Tahiti Nui, not exactly a household word in aviation.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Well, don't take the SN example as indicative of the selling performance of a class of aircraft. After SN crashed, the market was saturated with parked aircraft - jumbo and otherwise. Nobody really had the spare cash to go out and acquire additional planes (at least major players).

The start-ups and 3d world carriers are reaping a tremendous windfall by being able to acquire new generation aircraft and late model earlier generation aircraft at rock bottom lease rates. MD-80s can be had for about 150k less per month than they could have been leased for prior to 9-11.

So, why keeping hauling folks around in junker 727s, DC-9-10s, 737-200s, and DC-10-10s when you can get MD-80s, 733s, and A330s for low prices?
 

Baret4

Member
Sep 14, 2002
67
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/1/2003 12:58:55 AM slipnutwrench wrote:

757Fixer you are correct. The 757's are the best planes that the company owns. Ive worked on them since we took delivery of these great jets!! The Rolls-Royce RB211 engines on these planes are bulletproof! They rarely will cause a operational delay. I wish we had many more of these A/C too!!
----------------
[/blockquote]

Ditto here also. I have also worked on them since the delivery of the first one. It truly is a tremendous, reliable, and proven aircraft. RR's powerplant like-wise.
 

slipnutwrench

Member
Sep 5, 2002
51
6
www.usaviation.com
757Fixer you are correct. The 757's are the best planes that the company owns. Ive worked on them since we took delivery of these great jets!! The Rolls-Royce RB211 engines on these planes are bulletproof! They rarely will cause a operational delay. I wish we had many more of these A/C too!!
 

Biffeman

Senior
Nov 25, 2002
447
0
www.usaviation.com
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/31/2003 9:28:31 PM real world wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/31/2003 9:04:07 PM Biffeman wrote:

all the 757s will be done, and the A321s will fly the transcon routes.
----------------
[/blockquote]
That is not the plan for the forseeable future we will keep the remaining 757's.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Being done means reconfiguration to 8 and 193
 

deelmakur

Advanced
Aug 26, 2002
203
0
Aerbase, at the risk of becoming even more daft, let me amplify my comment. The 330 has been out over 10 years. During that time, slightly over 200 have been delivered (Airbus figures include options and commitments from leasing companies, which can be reconfigured to other types). In North America, the world's largest market for commercial aviation, until recently, the only other operators of this type I am aware of were Skyservice, Air Transat, and more recently Air Canada, the first two hardly household words (unless you count the "glider" incident in the Azores). I love the plane, and fly it often, but it is not a big seller. The many "white tails" the manufacturer has had on hand has been the reason so many of these are flown by obscure carriers in out of the way places. There is no doubt Airbus Industrie would do just about anything to insure that these aircraft show up in major airports around the world wearing the livery of "recognizable" North American carriers. My comment was meant to underscore that fact, which further suggests that from USAirways' perspective, they can likely get more of these on better terms than they would get from any other manufacturer (read Boeing), making their decision pretty much a no-brainer.
 

wings396

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
3,672
1,122
Maybe we can use the 757 fleet for our new LCC..perhaps called Song& Dance...
 

deelmakur

Advanced
Aug 26, 2002
203
0
Given the proposed configuration of these new LCC's, how about "Squeeze"? Apologies for going off topic.
 
OP
R

retread

Guest
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/1/2003 6:09:46 AM DakotaHC8 wrote:

>>>a profiable company with a modern fleet of short haul Embraers and long haul Airbuses!!
 
OP
C

chipmunn

Guest
Boeing 757's future not so lucky - Orders nonexistent as carriers focus on locally made 737s

SEATTLE (The Olympian) – These days, when airlines place big orders for Boeing jets, the plane of choice is the single-aisle 737.

That's good news for the company's factory in Renton, south of Seattle. The 737 is about the only thing keeping the massive factory buzzing as its wallflower sister jet, the 757, languishes without a single new order since December 2001.

Complete Story: http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20030...ess/19773.shtml
 
OP
R

retread

Guest
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/1/2003 12:12:47 PM DakotaHC8 wrote:

Retread, calm down.

I was only pointing out that Embraer had plans to create an aircraft "familiy" in the same manner as Airbus has done with the A320. Since this topic had led to a discussion the probable replacement of the widebody Boeing fleet, and a possible replacement of the B737's later on it seemed appropriate.

I only wanted to point out an possible alternative the company might consider in the future. Im sure that it would depend heavily upon the sucess of the EMB-170/175 and then a direct comparison of cost/reliabilty vs. the B717, A318, and B737.

Just because it is made by Embraer, doesnt mean you need to freak out. Im sure there would be advantages in fleet commonality to be gained (could be down to basically 2 types of flight decks). The EMB-170 should not be considered a regional jet, nor should it's 108 seat brethren. The reduced payscale is a function of the restructuring agreement, not the aircraft.

But you have to admit, it is a intriguing idea to have a fleet ranging from EMB-170/175/195 and A-319/320/321/332/333. With all of the bad news here lately it is nice to have something positive, such as a new aircraft type to talk about.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Oh, I am quite calm. It seems however that J4J is viewed as a greedy ALPA ML ploy. When I read how Mesa and CHQ pilots consider my fellow employees scabs if they indeed participate I do take it personal. For the life of me I cannot understand why it is ok for 1/3 of our fleet to be parked and replaced by RJs and our pilots not fly them all. J4Js only allows half, and that is still unacceptable by the WO & subs. If you look at the routes they are all ML routes. Look what is happening over at DAL and CMR. At what point is an RJ not considered an RJ? 70 seat, 90 seat, 150 seat. I will give you something to think about, the way you guys think of what Freedom and Republic is doing to you. We think the same has already been done to us. The industry has just taken a giant leap backwards. Good Luck.
 

DakotaHC8

Member
Aug 20, 2002
64
0
Retread, calm down.

I was only pointing out that Embraer had plans to create an aircraft "familiy" in the same manner as Airbus has done with the A320. Since this topic had led to a discussion the probable replacement of the widebody Boeing fleet, and a possible replacement of the B737's later on it seemed appropriate.

I only wanted to point out an possible alternative the company might consider in the future. Im sure that it would depend heavily upon the sucess of the EMB-170/175 and then a direct comparison of cost/reliabilty vs. the B717, A318, and B737.

Just because it is made by Embraer, doesnt mean you need to freak out. Im sure there would be advantages in fleet commonality to be gained (could be down to basically 2 types of flight decks). The EMB-170 should not be considered a regional jet, nor should it's 108 seat brethren. The reduced payscale is a function of the restructuring agreement, not the aircraft.

But you have to admit, it is a intriguing idea to have a fleet ranging from EMB-170/175/195 and A-319/320/321/332/333. With all of the bad news here lately it is nice to have something positive, such as a new aircraft type to talk about.
 

DakotaHC8

Member
Aug 20, 2002
64
0
Nice to see you keep this on topic retread.

Ill keep it simple, The EMB-170 is NOT a regional jet because there is really no such thing. It's just an airliner. just like a A-330/200, B737, CRJ-200, or Dash-8. You are the one that has fallen prey to the notion that there is a difference in either aircraft OR pilots by using the term "regional", not me. Once again I point out that the difference in the use of/pay for such aircraft lies in the contractual agreements tied to their use. But instead of blaming management or us you should instead look in the mirror. YOUR union HAS made tradeoffs in the past and present to best serve the interests of it's senior pilots, and thus helped create the situation we are in now. Your ALPA leadship has leveraged each bit of scope "relief" to obtain as much advantage/payoff that they could. Just because the majority of benefit from such negotiations will remain with pilots more senior than yourself does not make you a victim retread, it only means you get to walk in our shoes for awhile.

I take it personal as well that you think that JFJ is anything but a greedy ploy by the mainline pilots. You refer to "your" fleet, "your" routes, "your" flying as if ALG, PDT and PSA were not part of the very same company you work for. Obviously our pilots and the pilots for other subsidiary airlines such as Comair and Eagle take issue with mainline pilot's assumption that the airline revolves around them alone.

I know it's not "PC", but the situation the mainline pilots find themselves in today is of thier own making. Qiute simply if your leadership pushed years ago to get the flow thru argreement in place that had been developed, most of the current furloughees would have been former WO pilots, simply returning to the same jobs that they recently vacated.

Instead, now your pilot group demands that we make way for more than a thousand recent hires that came off of the street (many from Mesa and CHQ), all because you think it is "your flying", "your right", our "obligation". Truth is that your pilot group wanted us separate and held us arm's length, so now you get what you wished for. So stop pushing blame off on other pilot groups and accept the reality that your own leadership has created/allowed.

When multiple pilot groups exist within the same organization, there will always be pressure to transfer flying to the cheaper contract. I am as much a pilot for US Airways as you are, Dave is just as in control of my job as your own. You are amoung the many who may like to pretend otherwise. I dont "feel" bad about fighting for my rights within OUR organization because YOUR leadership has seen fit to exclude us up to now, leaving us to our own means.

Being self absorbed is one thing, airways pilots fostering it on an institutional level is another. We'll fly what OUR company buys for us, with no remorse about the effects at mainline because that is exactly the attitude we have endured from airways pilots for decades. You want my position, merge us date of hire buddy, if you have been flying and making money for USAir longer than I have it's all your's. Otherwise give the moral indignation a break and just deal with the situation that your ALPA dues payed for.
 
OP
R

retread

Guest
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/1/2003 1:28:50 PM DakotaHC8 wrote:

Nice to see you keep this on topic retread.

Ill keep it simple, The EMB-170 is NOT a regional jet because there is really no such thing. It's just an airliner. just like a A-330/200, B737, CRJ-200, or Dash-8. You are the one that has fallen prey to the notion that there is a difference in either aircraft or pilots by using the term "regional", not me. Once again I point out that the difference in the use of/pay for such aircraft lies in the contractual agreements tied to their use.

I know it's not "PC", but the situation the mainline pilots find themselves in today is of thier own making. So stop pushing blame off on other pilot groups and accept the reality that your own leadership has created/allowed.

When multiple pilot groups exist within the same organization, there will always be pressure to transfer flying to the cheaper contract. I am as much a pilot for US Airways as you are, Dave is just as in control of my job. You are amoung the many who like to pretend otherwise. I dont "feel" bad about fighting for my rights within OUR organization because YOUR leadership has seen fit to exclude us up to now, leaving us to our own means.

Now that you have fuloughed pilots, the majority of which were recently hired off of the street (many from the outside outfits Mesa and CHQ that you also complained about) instead of from our OWN subsidiaries, you expect us to vacate our jobs to make way for your people. And then you cop an attitude when we obviously protest.

Gimmie a break, self absorbed is one thing, fostering it on an institutional level is another. We'll fly what OUR company buys for us, with no remorse about the effects at mainline because that is exactly the attitude we have endured from airways pilots for decades. You want my position, merge us date of hire buddy, if you have been flying and making money for USAir longer than I have it's all your's. Otherwise give the moral indignation a break and just deal with the situation that your ALPA dues payed for.
----------------
[/blockquote]

I get it now. We give up our scope for the "cause" and then we should fall on our sword. So, because of the entitlement theory you should of been merged date of hire. Anything else we can do for you? Do you think our pilot group had anything to do with how the company hired pilots. I guess, we will never agree on this issue. Those replacement jets are ours we paid for them you guys should be thankfull to get half of them. Because of ML pilots sacrifice you will get a pay raise. Like I said spin it whatever way you want. You all are replacement pilots or should I say legalized scabs. Is that PC enough for you?
 

DakotaHC8

Member
Aug 20, 2002
64
0
>>>We give up our scope for the "cause" and then we should fall on our sword. So, because of the entitlement theory you should of been merged date of hire.[[<

Nope, but just stoping riding around this topic on your high horse trying to claim the moral high ground. Quite simply you are in the situation you are in, thru the actions of your own pilot leadership. I dont expect a DOH merger, but you should not expect special rights on my property either. I have no sense of entitlement, but you seem to be overflowing with just that.

Scope against outside companies such as Mesa and CHQ, assuming our companies' flying, and making profits while our company is in bankruptcy is something we should BOTH support. But you foolishly lump our own subsidiary airlines in with other outside "regionals". Instead of wisely seeing the advantages to keeping all flying in house, with a working flow thru that is a win/win for both groups, you prefer to paint us as the enemy. That's just how management wants you to think retread.

]]>Do you think our pilot group had anything to do with how the company hired pilots[
 

Latest posts