legacy-to-LCC
Veteran
- Feb 20, 2004
- 778
- 2
i am a huge advocate for international expansion, but doug's theory seems logical?!? it is an enormous gamble; i certainly hope he is right!!!
757 Year Round Phl-snn-dub-phl
- Thread starter snnus
- Start date
TheWatcher
Senior
- Aug 26, 2002
- 342
- 0
More Stagnation for US. NO GROWTH IN AREAS THAT ARE PROFITABLE. Things havent changed much in that department from the old guard.
sharkstooth
Member
- Aug 23, 2005
- 64
- 0
Range has absolutely nothing to do with etops certification.
1. The U 321 lacks life-rafts.
2. The U 321 lacks HF radios.
Etops has a lot to do with engine maintenance levels as well as training for all support personnel.
Read the regs before you post bs.
legacy-to-LCC
Veteran
- Feb 20, 2004
- 778
- 2
after considering it for a moment--and getting more and more frustrated--it occurred to me that international expansion will NOT saturate and increase capacity on major markets only, i.e., lgw, cdg, fra--major hub cities. here's why: the (innovative and lucrative) european expansion we are seeing by delta and continental are into smaller, niche cities where n/s transatlantic capacity was never an option in the past. so, this "new" capacity would will likely result in less seats filled on major (and traditional) transatlantic markets due to the absence of connecting pax. just my, more critical, extension of logic and a retraction of my previous post. thus i believe dp's prediction to be wrong, and therefore, detrimental to our ability to capture more profitable revenue streams...
after listening to the webcast today, my sense that, with the exception of wolfe (who came to use with clearer international sensibilties cultivated at ua, if nothing else. crook!) this company lacks, and dp is no exception, reach. it's as if they are scared by actually becoming (and not just saying) we are truly a global airline. it's really quite sad...
after listening to the webcast today, my sense that, with the exception of wolfe (who came to use with clearer international sensibilties cultivated at ua, if nothing else. crook!) this company lacks, and dp is no exception, reach. it's as if they are scared by actually becoming (and not just saying) we are truly a global airline. it's really quite sad...
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
The only thing I can think of is that Doug and co. have set their sites on overhauling the domestic operation. It stands to reason to not fix what isn't broken, in reference to our int'l flights. They work well for us and have for some time. Domestically on the the other hand, still needs much work in fine tuning. Because other carriers are running to expand int'l service such as Delta doesn't fix their domestic problems. It just may be smart to stay focused on what we have here. Finish the integration before worrying about expanding. Have a good foundation before you build the house. We shall see.
sharkstooth
Member
- Aug 23, 2005
- 64
- 0
Let us see here:
A319 with 120 pax, bags and cargo can easily do seven hours (Glasgow is 6+55).
ETOPS comes in two versions, 120 min. and 180 min. In case you didn't notice, one is 2 hour, the other, 3 hour, and both are single engine operation. That means, in simple terms, that your route of flight should be no more than 2 slash 3 hours from an emergency field, using one engine.
A few minutes of thought should reveal that a Hawaii leg should always require a 3 hour etops, with more stringent conditions than a 2 hour etops. Rarely does an Irish leg require 3 hour etops, though it does happen.
To assert that "extra fuel tanks because its capacity is only 48 to 50 passengers" reveals your ignorance about flying, much less airline operations.
sharkstooth
Member
- Aug 23, 2005
- 64
- 0
The other thing for sure - US will interpret it however it damn well pleases, regardless of what the contract actually says. And ALPA will do nothing about it.
Seriously, though, I don't think ALPA should have a problem with it. It's not like the HP flying would be replacing 767 lines--the 767 flying would just go to other destinations. More block hours for US, too, since Ireland is as close as it gets to PHL.
What, contractually or anyway else, would suggest that "767 flying would just go to other destinations"? Wishful thinking, stupidity or just plain ignorance?
There was no contractual language otherwise. Fifteen years of "experience" should have "learned" you by now that with the mentally challenged executives at U, wishful thinking is just that, a fairy tale.
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Oct 6, 2002
- 2,123
- 1
I agree with you here. In the beginning of this merger I was very excited about expansion possibilities, new a/c orders, expanded international. Now I have a clear picture of things....we need to handle todays market and whats going on here and the best way to deal with that. It appears the airline is "right sized". I think we should focus on the customer right now...i think they are a little confused...with a single airline. Continue to focus on cultural integration and get things going in the direction before we look too far ahead. It occured to me tonight, after listening to DP that as employees we get excited about growth, opportunity, a/c, new routes..etc...but the reality is....it boils down to business and do what works for business. For now, i trust what they say and I think they are on the right track....for now.
TheWatcher
Senior
- Aug 26, 2002
- 342
- 0
Growing in the Intl. market and bringing in revenue would harm the stabilization of the platform?
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #72
Seems like the same old u.s airways. Dont venture and dont gain......
Tho the 757 is set for europe
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
As much as any employee loves to feel proud of their company, where they fly and how big you are that is not what is important. We have so much work here at US that considering expansion and certainly should be in sight. HONESTLY, how could anyone say that we are structured enough to worry about more int'l? Fix what we have currently. Just because others are rushing into the int'l markets obviously makes it the BEST decision right now? Not necessarily. There is so much work needed still on the domestic front that starting up new int'l service would be out "eyes being bigger than our stomachs". Theres a lot more involved with adding a second or year round flight to ireland than just scheduling a flight. There are many more money making routes that we could explore but haven't. With Doug at the helm now, I feel that once all the important integration is finished and were on one certificate, then you will see just how strong this co can be. Make this current company a KICK@$% one and go from there.
US1YFARE
Veteran
- Mar 31, 2004
- 3,932
- 54
That is exactly what I thought when I read what DP said. Why expand internationally now if there is going to be another transaction in 6 or more months?
Revolutions
Member
- Jan 8, 2004
- 60
- 0
Parker says no more international expansion? That is the only place these clowns are making any money. He may know how to run those flights to the desert for the backpack and flip-flop crowd but its clear that they haven't a clue how to spell international. Maybe we can take those 767's and run them between PHL and PIT for $39 fares. That'll teach WN a lesson.
