When did we sell jets to PIA? When did we take delivery of more 400? (we have 44) BTW, we are pulling them out of storage. How many you got? Your Stock ain't exactly Dell. Keep throwing the spears, we'll see what the industry looks like one year from now.
DC-9 Gear Collapse
- Thread starter ExAF
- Start date
Busdrvr: Man, I have watched you bad mouth so many people on this web site that I feel that there must be a problem in your life. Maybe it is just that you like to put airlines and your brother airline pilots down. I see you put forth so much effort into negative comments that it makes me wonder if you are really a alpa member. Are we not to hold each other up in times of trouble? Are we not to encourage each other when things go wrong (dc-9 gear)? You are so fast to put down and criticize that it is only devicive to everyone. In other words you just make people mad and cause trouble. Maybe you should start your own web site if you always want to make rude and hurtful comments. I encourage you my brother airline pilot to re-think your efforts to cause trouble and maybe post encouraging comments and take pride in knowing that you are part of a brotherhood that should stick together and not divide. I hope to read positive comments from you in the future. This post is to encourage not to put you down.
![1.gif']](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F%5Bimg+src%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usaviation.com%2Fidealbb%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2F1.gif%27%5D&hash=780a81acab56bb4a2bb51d3d5e078f5f)
Need a hankie? Clearly, you DON'T know TOO much about what is going on at your own carrier,I am beginning to wonder IF you work for UAL? NWA's stock is worth TWICE as much as yours. I must say, I feel rather terrible putting down my dear friends at UAL. But...they have you to deal with.
So we should have started this cock a mamie selfserving, full of greed contract like yours? And....just how many UAL pilots are sitting at home?
Busdrv :Take your pick, correct it for number of employees, pension obligation, or total revenue, UAL's pension is MUCH better funded
Blueskies: That must apply to cash on hand as well, right? NWA is MUCH better funded (twice as much cash on hand, corrected for number of employees, total revenue) as I am sure you will agree based on YOUR formula. Perhaps you can share your views with with WALL STREET. Just to shed some light on the MN deal. As I have pointed out before...Our deal was EXACTLY like your tax breaks from the state of INDIANA to build your under used hangar , the only difference was NWA fullfilled it's obligation of creating a specified number of jobs. UAL failed to meet it's obligation to the state of Indiana in creating a specified number of jobs, and therefore was penalized to the tune of over $130 million dollars, as I am sure you are aware. But, on another note, perhaps UAL could borrow some money from your pension funds to pay for that wonderful 8 year old fleet instead of selling e shiny new 777's to PIA, or parking those 47'400 Kings in the desert. I am just alittle confused, maybe you can clarify something for me. IF you can't aford to make the payments on those planes...how is it that you have a 8 year old fleet if they don't belong to you. Thanks for you ever so helpful information. I hope we can all be like UAL someday...when we want to mimmic managerial suicide.
![9.gif'] keep it up!](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2FTop+dog+UAL+needs+welfare+from+the+Feds+cause+they+don%27t+own+any+really+old%2C+but+well+maintained+aircraft.+They+like+to+park+new+ones+in+the+desert%2C+and+sell+them+to+other+airlines+for+less+than+what+they+went+into+debt+for.+Way+to+go+PIA%21%21%21%21+Maybe+we+can+get+some+of+your+400%27s+and+use+them+for+frieghters.+Love+those+FIRE+HOUSE+sales.%5Bimg+src%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usaviation.com%2Fidealbb%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2F3.gif%27%5D+We+love+your+business+model+%5Bimg+src%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usaviation.com%2Fidealbb%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2F9.gif%27%5D+keep+it+up%21&hash=dda789c1f72cac72007904ca57158bb1)
Blueskies: That must apply to cash on hand as well, right? NWA is MUCH better funded (twice as much cash on hand, corrected for number of employees, total revenue) as I am sure you will agree based on YOUR formula. Perhaps you can share your views with with WALL STREET. Just to shed some light on the MN deal. As I have pointed out before...Our deal was EXACTLY like your tax breaks from the state of INDIANA to build your under used hangar , the only difference was NWA fullfilled it's obligation of creating a specified number of jobs. UAL failed to meet it's obligation to the state of Indiana in creating a specified number of jobs, and therefore was penalized to the tune of over $130 million dollars, as I am sure you are aware. But, on another note, perhaps UAL could borrow some money from your pension funds to pay for that wonderful 8 year old fleet instead of selling e shiny new 777's to PIA, or parking those 47'400 Kings in the desert. I am just alittle confused, maybe you can clarify something for me. IF you can't aford to make the payments on those planes...how is it that you have a 8 year old fleet if they don't belong to you. Thanks for you ever so helpful information. I hope we can all be like UAL someday...when we want to mimmic managerial suicide.
Oh dear God...this is what we've come to?
My airline is less insolvent than your airline...
What's next?
My CEO can beat up your CEO?
Look folks, with a few exceptions, none of the airlines are in particularly good shape right now, but making somebody else feel bad about their carrier won't really improve the standing of your own. It seems every discussion disintegrates into an off-topic My airline rules, your airline sucks insult-fest anymore.
If you want to get mad about something, get mad about working in an industry where the market seems to expect air fares to remain at 1978 levels forever and where the government would rather see the carriers fail than let them have an open (and public) discussion on pricing. Get mad at the various airline managements who refuse to recognize the cyclical nature of our industry and, while more than willing to ignore employees and waste millions on a whim when times are good, whose default position when times get tough is to immediately demand concessions from those same employees.
Or don't. Either way, kicking your fellow walking wounded will not help.
My airline is less insolvent than your airline...
What's next?
My CEO can beat up your CEO?
Look folks, with a few exceptions, none of the airlines are in particularly good shape right now, but making somebody else feel bad about their carrier won't really improve the standing of your own. It seems every discussion disintegrates into an off-topic My airline rules, your airline sucks insult-fest anymore.
If you want to get mad about something, get mad about working in an industry where the market seems to expect air fares to remain at 1978 levels forever and where the government would rather see the carriers fail than let them have an open (and public) discussion on pricing. Get mad at the various airline managements who refuse to recognize the cyclical nature of our industry and, while more than willing to ignore employees and waste millions on a whim when times are good, whose default position when times get tough is to immediately demand concessions from those same employees.
Or don't. Either way, kicking your fellow walking wounded will not help.
Oh I forgot one thing. Years ago some AA guys accused NWA of selling out all pilot groups by having a B scale. The guys that made these comments were VERY mean in their statements. I believe that AA had a B scale long before NWA. My point? Well, it is that when people put their anger in words they sometimes say things that are misdirected. Lets stop beating each other up and ENCOURAGE each other. PLEASE Yes, I mean my brother NWA guys too.
I must agree with NWA/AMT: Come on you guys, lets get a grip. Thumpers mom has it right. So, let ALL of us stop treating each other with disdane! I believe there is enough of that going on in the world without we yes Brothers doing it to each other. When I say brothers I mean brothers! Please don't assume that I or anyone else has hung our brothers out to dry. No one knows what I have voted or not voted. Busdrvr: do you see now my point about saying hurtful things. It just seems to stir the pot. There must be someone that will stop this name calling. NWA's pilots did not start the decline of the industry. You may choose to think what you want. I am still hopeful that you will speak out of brotherhood instead of anger. Your brother....nwa400
Back to the subject at hand (namely the DC9's age and reliability....I have flown NW numerous times since January. Of the 28 flight segments that I have taken, 17 were on DC9's (10s, 30s, and 50s). I experienced only 1 delay (43 minutes in MEM due to no First Officer available)in all these DC9 flights. The remaining flights were on Airbus 320 and 319s. Of these 11 flights....not one got out of the gate on time. All were delayed by mechanicals ranging from 4 minutes to 2hours 53minutes. It has gotten to the point where I avoid these busses no matter what airline flies them. They are unreliable in my opinion. I find it odd that a plane that is in some cases almost as old as I am (actually, on one flight when I asked the First Officer that was greeting the departing passengers which was older; him or the DC9-10 that we just flew in on, we discovered that he was younger than the 9 -- by a healthy margin), is more reliable than the latest thing on the line (A320/319). I feel completely comfortable on the DC9 as long as I am reasonably certain that the airline that operates it is taking care of it (apparently NW does take good care of these old birds). I have actually gotten very fond of the plane....sort of like meeting up with an old friend from childhood on a regular basis.
Anyway, you guys (NW) keep right on flying those antiquated 9's. When you go all Airbus...I'll be looking for another carrier to fly. Just my opinion.
Anyway, you guys (NW) keep right on flying those antiquated 9's. When you go all Airbus...I'll be looking for another carrier to fly. Just my opinion.
Ladies, and Gentelmen...I couldn't agree with you more. There has been certain individuals that have made it their mission to attack and degrade the companies of others. Their past posts prove it. This really is no time for any airline to rave about anything, cept that we are lucky enought to be working. If you don't like the planes we fly, keep your mouth off the NWA board and concern yourself with your own house. Happy trails.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/27/2002 10:39:27 AM electradude wrote:
Back to the subject at hand (namely the DC9's age and reliability....
----------------
[/blockquote]
Often its a question of the benefits and drawbacks of the technology in use. Sometimes the down side of the more modern aircraft is that often the very complexity that makes them more efficient to operate makes them more vulnerable to relatively minor maintenance problems. Things that wouldn't even apply to a DC9 or 727 are often no-go items for an A320 or 757 and could create the impression that they are less reliable. However, that's not a reason to shun the newer aircraft - if the answer was as easy as simpler is better, the airlines would all be buying DC-3s.
The advantage the DC9s have in this case, other than their relative simplicity, is that it experienced many problems similar to the teething problems that the newer aircraft have experienced, but it did so decades ago. With much more operating experience it has less of a capacity to surprise us, or at least we'd like to think so...
The truth is that they all break. Several weeks before the DC9 main gear collapse that is the topic of this discussion, another carrier had a A320 nose gear collapse on landing, yet no one that I know of attempted to draw broad conclusions from that. The important thing for any such incident is that we investigate the cause without allowing our preconceptions to affect our conclusions and that we apply the lessons learned to try to prevent any reoccurance.
----------------
On 9/27/2002 10:39:27 AM electradude wrote:
Back to the subject at hand (namely the DC9's age and reliability....
----------------
[/blockquote]
Often its a question of the benefits and drawbacks of the technology in use. Sometimes the down side of the more modern aircraft is that often the very complexity that makes them more efficient to operate makes them more vulnerable to relatively minor maintenance problems. Things that wouldn't even apply to a DC9 or 727 are often no-go items for an A320 or 757 and could create the impression that they are less reliable. However, that's not a reason to shun the newer aircraft - if the answer was as easy as simpler is better, the airlines would all be buying DC-3s.
The advantage the DC9s have in this case, other than their relative simplicity, is that it experienced many problems similar to the teething problems that the newer aircraft have experienced, but it did so decades ago. With much more operating experience it has less of a capacity to surprise us, or at least we'd like to think so...
The truth is that they all break. Several weeks before the DC9 main gear collapse that is the topic of this discussion, another carrier had a A320 nose gear collapse on landing, yet no one that I know of attempted to draw broad conclusions from that. The important thing for any such incident is that we investigate the cause without allowing our preconceptions to affect our conclusions and that we apply the lessons learned to try to prevent any reoccurance.
- Thread Starter
- #42
Wow! Just got back from a 5-day trip and missed out on all of the fun on this thread. It is amazing that all of this venom came from a thread asking if anyone had heard anything about a gear collapse. Busdriver, you must really enjoy pi$$ing people off. It's obvious that you really don't have anything to contribute other than entertainment value. I wish there was more going on at the UAL board so it could keep you at home. Blue Skies, just resist to responding to the flames. Don't lower yourself to their level. In case anyone is interested, the word is that the gear collapse was caused by a cylinder failure and is under investigation. NWA is very proactive in troubleshooting the problem and preventing further occurances. Safe flying to all...ExAF
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/28/2002 1:39:58 PM ExAF wrote:
It is amazing that all of this venom came from a thread asking if anyone had heard anything about a gear collapse. Busdriver, you must really enjoy pi$$ing people off. It's obvious that you really don't have anything to contribute other than entertainment value. I wish there was more going on at the UAL board so it could keep you "at home." Blue Skies, just resist to responding to the flames.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Ex-AF, go back and read the string closely. All I pointed out was it was a VERY old but well maintained DC-9. What if it was a brand new airbus? Then would it be flaming to point out it was a new Airbus. Or does the notion that there may be something bad associated with the average age of the DC-9 fleet, make my post a flame. Come on over to the UAL side, you'll see more than a couple you're gonna go BK, our old a$$ fleet is great, blah blah blah posts by Blowskies. Just look at this string. Did I post ANYTHING that was factually incorrect? Now look at Blowskies posts. They are riddled with inaccuracies, and one was apparently SO bad it was deleted by the moderator. I have a bunch of friends at NWA, and appreciate the things NWAs ALPA has done for the industry in the past (before this year). I do think you CEO is a jerk. 6 times the rest of the industry tried to raise fares, 6 times he stopped it. He did it o9n the back of old cheaper jets and employee concessions. Now he's in front of congress begging for a handout. If you fly an older fleet because it's cheaper, why is it wrong to point it out when one literally falls apart on the taxiway? Heck even Valujet is parking the rest of thier DC-9s soon. Why would it be wrong to point out a bottom of the industry performance in OT arrivals and completions?
----------------
On 9/28/2002 1:39:58 PM ExAF wrote:
It is amazing that all of this venom came from a thread asking if anyone had heard anything about a gear collapse. Busdriver, you must really enjoy pi$$ing people off. It's obvious that you really don't have anything to contribute other than entertainment value. I wish there was more going on at the UAL board so it could keep you "at home." Blue Skies, just resist to responding to the flames.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Ex-AF, go back and read the string closely. All I pointed out was it was a VERY old but well maintained DC-9. What if it was a brand new airbus? Then would it be flaming to point out it was a new Airbus. Or does the notion that there may be something bad associated with the average age of the DC-9 fleet, make my post a flame. Come on over to the UAL side, you'll see more than a couple you're gonna go BK, our old a$$ fleet is great, blah blah blah posts by Blowskies. Just look at this string. Did I post ANYTHING that was factually incorrect? Now look at Blowskies posts. They are riddled with inaccuracies, and one was apparently SO bad it was deleted by the moderator. I have a bunch of friends at NWA, and appreciate the things NWAs ALPA has done for the industry in the past (before this year). I do think you CEO is a jerk. 6 times the rest of the industry tried to raise fares, 6 times he stopped it. He did it o9n the back of old cheaper jets and employee concessions. Now he's in front of congress begging for a handout. If you fly an older fleet because it's cheaper, why is it wrong to point it out when one literally falls apart on the taxiway? Heck even Valujet is parking the rest of thier DC-9s soon. Why would it be wrong to point out a bottom of the industry performance in OT arrivals and completions?
A bit bitter are we? How does it feel to play tennis against the curb? As I have said BEFORE...YAWN, YAWN,please take your tired whinning somewhere other than here. Go help your sinking ship...and worry about paying for that fleet that you CAN'T AFFORD. Interesting quote from one of United's customers and vestors: I should add that on many other United flights I've found nothing to complain about. But I also detected no evidence that having an ownership stake had enhanced employee service in any way. More fundamentally, it doesn't seem to have stopped United's pilots' union from negotiating a damagingly high compensation package, and then using its clout on the board to make sure management accepted it or else. The fact that the company is teetering on bankruptcy is evidence that the airline's employees have used their status as owners simply to plunder the company for their own benefit, at the expense of other shareholders. They may not have done anything unlawful, in contrast to chief executives who've fraudulently driven up their companies' stock prices, cashed out their options and then fiddled while Rome burned. But they share a high level of self-interest and indifference to shareholder value. Sound like anyone we know on this board? The name is BLUESKIES...try not miss spell my name with ones own nickname. Happy flying all!
![14.gif']](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F%5Bimg+src%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usaviation.com%2Fidealbb%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2F14.gif%27%5D+%5Bimg+src%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usaviation.com%2Fidealbb%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2F14.gif%27%5D&hash=f5cf104b99e0e37e4d2febf278026352)
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/27/2002 12
26 PM Blueskies/400 UpperDeck wrote:
Ladies, and Gentelmen...I couldn't agree with you more. There has been certain individuals that have made it their mission to attack and degrade the companies of others. Their past posts prove it. This really is no time for any airline to rave about anything, cept that we are lucky enought to be working. If you don't like the planes we fly, keep your mouth off the NWA board and concern yourself with your own house. Happy trails.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hmmm, just reread your U can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen! post, and comparing that post, with the above statement, leads me to believe you are nothing but a hypocrite.
----------------
On 9/27/2002 12
26 PM Blueskies/400 UpperDeck wrote: Ladies, and Gentelmen...I couldn't agree with you more. There has been certain individuals that have made it their mission to attack and degrade the companies of others. Their past posts prove it. This really is no time for any airline to rave about anything, cept that we are lucky enought to be working. If you don't like the planes we fly, keep your mouth off the NWA board and concern yourself with your own house. Happy trails.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hmmm, just reread your U can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen! post, and comparing that post, with the above statement, leads me to believe you are nothing but a hypocrite.
