Pilots Don't Be Fooled

[700UW]

It has come to someone's attention that the 60 planes are not additions to the fleet, they are replacement jets for the 737-300/400.

A reliable source has informed people that the 737s have some major lap joint repairs due which take 90 days and cost at least $500,000 per plane.

Company wants to park the affected planes and replace them with Airbus.

Just what a little birdy told me.

 

[Winglet]

Surely, Mr. Siegel wouldn't say anything that wasn't 100% and above board true, without any spin or intent to mislead . . . . . . would he?

 

[delldude]

are you accusing these fine people of trying the infamous end around?

 

[delldude]

It has come to someone's attention that the 60 planes are not additions to the fleet, they are replacement jets for the 737-300/400.

A reliable source has informed people that the 737s have some major lap joint repairs due which take 90 days and cost at least $500,000 per plane.

Company wants to park the affected planes and replace them with Airbus.

Just what a little birdy told me.

these planes have been previously damaged by using razors to scrape sealant out of the lap joints prior to painting.these scratches will eventually become a crack.this is terrible from both a safety standpoint and an operational standpoint. how then can the company circumvent their leases and dump these a/c?

 

[BoeingBoy]

700UW,

I've seen mgt quoted as saying "60 new airplanes", but have not seen them quoted as saying "60 additional new airplanes".

Does make you wonder, doesn't it.

Jim

 

[flyin2low]

It's no surprise! :angry:

 

[Harry Callahan]

Thanks for the post. No problem in thinking company not telling the truth..AGAIN

 

[Piedmont4US]

700,

I don't know... I hear they are additions to the fleet until US can actually park some of the 737s, and with the situation of parking some 319s right now I think we need more aircraft and soon, but otherwise I hear that the aircraft count will gradually increase.

 

[delldude]

hearing from this end they wish to put these on the carribean and east coast high density routes.

 

[Flying Titan]

While I certainly wouldn't discount the possibility that the 60 new aircraft would be used to replace other aircraft, I wouldn't assume it either.

Unless someone has something or someone to specifically cite, this sound like something to be brought up in negotiations. A good negotiator for the union should force CCY to spell out these intentions as well as the staffing issues that will arise with the new aircraft. Obviously, staffing requirements will be somewhat different if these are additional aircraft vs. replacement aircraft. If these are supposed to be additional aircraft, it shouldn't be hard to get a new minimum fleet number - even if it's not for the full sixty. If the new number is 339, 309 or stays at 279 - that's what will truly tell the tale.

Until then, it doesn't seem like there's any reason to be pessimistic or optimistic over this - just curious - and perhaps, hopeful.

 

[7.5victim]

"It has come to someone's attention..."

"Just what a little birdy told me."

Yeah that's definately reliable and confirmed.... Sheesh, don't US employees have enough to worry about without people coming spreading unconfirmable rumors? Post your sources or don't post at all.

 

[delldude]

While I certainly wouldn't discount the possibility that the 60 new aircraft would be used to replace other aircraft, I wouldn't assume it either.

Unless someone has something or someone to specifically cite, this sound like something to be brought up in negotiations. A good negotiator for the union should force CCY to spell out these intentions as well as the staffing issues that will arise with the new aircraft. Obviously, staffing requirements will be somewhat different if these are additional aircraft vs. replacement aircraft. If these are supposed to be additional aircraft, it shouldn't be hard to get a new minimum fleet number - even if it's not for the full sixty. If the new number is 339, 309 or stays at 279 - that's what will truly tell the tale.

Until then, it doesn't seem like there's any reason to be pessimistic or optimistic over this - just curious - and perhaps, hopeful.

i believe ALPA is pursuing thiis as we speak.

 

[Freighterguynow]

Those 737's are not RVSM compliant either. I think it's about $1 million per to bring them up to spec .....

For you non pilot types RVSM is the FAA reducing the vertical seperation requirements between aircraft starting in 2005. The altimeters in the 737 fleet are not accurate enough nor have the necessary redundancy to comply.

 

[Flying Titan]

While I certainly wouldn't discount the possibility that the 60 new aircraft would be used to replace other aircraft, I wouldn't assume it either.

Unless someone has something or someone to specifically cite, this sound like something to be brought up in negotiations. A good negotiator for the union should force CCY to spell out these intentions as well as the staffing issues that will arise with the new aircraft. Obviously, staffing requirements will be somewhat different if these are additional aircraft vs. replacement aircraft. If these are supposed to be additional aircraft, it shouldn't be hard to get a new minimum fleet number - even if it's not for the full sixty. If the new number is 339, 309 or stays at 279 - that's what will truly tell the tale.

Until then, it doesn't seem like there's any reason to be pessimistic or optimistic over this - just curious - and perhaps, hopeful.

i believe ALPA is pursuing thiis as we speak.

That's a good thing. I look forward to seeing what comes out of this.

 

[The Truth]

It has come to someone's attention that the 60 planes are not additions to the fleet, they are replacement jets for the 737-300/400.

Please stop spreading fallacious rumors.