No, Rico, I covered the points you specifically addressed to me. Though I admit that I did so in the same way you usually defend "your" airplane - one side all good, the other all bad.
Sigh..., No I just feel I have to defend the aircraft from constant cutdowns and misconceptions on here. I said I would prefer additional mainline aircraft as well, but In the mean time IMO adding additional E-170's is a good move to help soldify our position in important markets.
You miss the point completely - as usual in your "Emb-170 all good" fantasy. When you use alternate runways for departure over the same departure gates as I use and don't wait in line, that means I wait in line that much longer. When you use 17/35 for landing that means the controllers put a little more room between the 27 arrivals - that makes the 27 arrivals slower (or means a go-around if the ATC guys don't get it right. But what the heck, you can get right in and out and that's all that matters.
No, you are wrong.
That is true for arrivals on 26, but not 35. If you are able to take a 35 arrival, then you (for example) can skip the hold over TERRI intersection (on the dupont arrival), and then you fit
in between 27 arrivals. Trust me,, it is true.
Funny how you constantly talk about matching the plane to the load when it's an Emb-170 vs mainline discussion, but don't see that the same argument applies to light loads on "your" airplane.
I do not see the humor, if a route is too soft for ther E-170, put something else on it, and move the 170 onto a new route with higher loads. Why does that sound strange. Ever since the aircraft was introduced we have been shifting routes to find the best setup. Nothing wrong with that in my book. You are the one that gets all uptight about a E-170 on what you consider a "mainline" route
Hopefully improvement will come. Maybe someone, somewhere, will finally "discover" that all airplanes do strange things when left without heat overnight up north.
. Well to be fair, you do not understand the main issue here, in that we cannot leave the aircraft with power on unattended. The reason is that is the APU or GPU drops off, the RAT will deploy in about 10 minutes as the remaining battery power is drained down. It is not so much a heat issue, rather a powerup one.
Sure does seem that this company has a knack of having to rediscover what should be long learned. It also seems that CHQ is learning from our mistakes faster than we are
Again to be fair, I guess you did not know that CHQ paid a fortune to send their people through our training early on, so I would hope they are catching on. But nce again, the E-170 issues are seldom anything to do with what is known/done already at the rest of mainline, rather typical issues expected from an new aircraft.
Funny thing - which airplanes are being returned to GE? That's right, those mainline planes that "a few people might want". Do you really think they are so dumb that they're taking back hard to place airplanes and letting up keep the planes everyone is panting to have?
No, I just think the creditors feel less of a risk adding new E-170 here than any other fleet type. Not an insult..., just that lots of people want E-170s, and there are not many to be had.
You really should take off those blinders sometime. Airplane financing is airplane financing - the dollars don't know what type of plane is being financed. If the money is available to finace planes, the company decides what type of plane to get. After BK1, management decided to use all available financing for RJ's - worked well didn't it? Looks like BK2 will be more of the same.
Thanks for the financing lesson Mr. Myopic, but the fact is that we CAN finance additional E-170s right now, so we are. If we cannot even keep the mainline aircraft soon to be returned, I doubt that they are able to finance additional large aircraft for now, despote what you claim about the dollars not knowing what plane and so on...
If management is being truthful, later won't come. After all, it is they who say we must have a compettive cost structure to survive, not me. Adding RJ's is a sure way to insure we don't achieve that.
You say so, seems to me that it is exactly where the industry is headed, not 50 seaters, but the "smaller than 737" size aircraft that have proven popular now and in the past. (B717 AirTran, E-190 jetBlue...)
But what the heck, if it means you reaching that near 6-figure left seat sooner, that's all that matters, right?
Wow, yoiu are almost as bitter and hard wrought as 700UW, you need to chill. I have not faulted you your 6 figure pay in the past, so why fault me any such opportunities in the future..?.
