Crude Settles at Lowest Level Since 2005
- Thread starter TIME FOR CHANGE
- Start date
And three years from now you'll still be bootlicking Bear96.
ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
Yea, and they're "unionista's" because they correctly point out the farce that is the management bonus situation.
Yea, you "got it" alright
Hackman
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2003
- Messages
- 3,997
- Reaction score
- 892
Yep, your a yes voting ex-UAL F/A, who predicted the demise of UAL, no more UAL flying to Europe, and him/herself stated is a cynical, pessimistic bastard (or bastardette? 🙄 ).
I bet the UAL AFA just loved having another bootlicker in its ranks. Assuming you moved on to Wal Mart, and are only here for a hobby. Several other bone-us loving management type bootlickers are still here after the airline career ended. 😛h34r:
Where's your buddy Chip when you need him. :huh:
Please quote a post of mine where I have supported management bonuses or executive compensation levels.
Please quote a post of mine where I "predicted the demise of UAL" or that UAL would stop flying to Europe.
Please post a quote of mine where I have treated Chip as a "buddy." I have been nothing but critical of :wacko: through the years.
star power
Advanced
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 1
I heard that the Mad Dogs are to be re-engine with RR BR715-A (23,000 LBS thrust with a .62 SFC) 
starting in 4Q 07. Has anyone heard the similar rumor? does any one know who has the STC for the Mod. My info was from JP morgan and mOrningstar thru the grapevine. The cost to do re-engine Mod and electronic upgrade will be approximately $5M per airframe. the return on the investment will require approximately 5.6 yrs per airframe to recoup @ 300 airframe in service, The fuel burn is said to be 5800 lbs per Hr, which is alot better than 7400 lbs per Hr currently for the Mad Dogs. I guest the return would be achieved earlier if the fuel cost return to the high of the 2Q 06 cost. It look like TUL will get more Mad Dog work.
starting in 4Q 07. Has anyone heard the similar rumor? does any one know who has the STC for the Mod. My info was from JP morgan and mOrningstar thru the grapevine. The cost to do re-engine Mod and electronic upgrade will be approximately $5M per airframe. the return on the investment will require approximately 5.6 yrs per airframe to recoup @ 300 airframe in service, The fuel burn is said to be 5800 lbs per Hr, which is alot better than 7400 lbs per Hr currently for the Mad Dogs. I guest the return would be achieved earlier if the fuel cost return to the high of the 2Q 06 cost. It look like TUL will get more Mad Dog work. 
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,374
I'd asked Reding about that last year at a conference (right after the announcement on winglets for the entire 757 fleet), and he said the BR retrofit was a dead end. I'd be surprised if it were somehow more economical now with fuel having dropped back into the 50's, but stranger things have happened.
star power
Advanced
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 1
I guest saving 170M gal per year is to costly. BR meets and exceedes stage 4 noise requirements. BR dispatch reliability is 99.94%. BR has a reduce maintenance cost than the P/W, and BR has 1300 lbs thrust more than the 219. The 7Q7 program is a secondary market for the 219's.
star power
Advanced
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 1
I think Honeywell mfg the TMC for the fadec and throttle resovlors, and Smiths aerospace the DU, but some 82/83 have the EDAS, The DU would be a excellent upgrade and interchangable with primary and nav DU with only programming changes, I think the anlog 82/83 have the Smiths aerospace DU upgrades.
While everything certainly isnt black and white some things are easy to distinguish.
You've made it clear that you are against us.
I am "against" the outdated and divisive union rhetoric you happen to espouse, yes. You might want to take a moment to reflect that about 92% of the private sector workforce agrees with me and has also rejected your rhetoric. Pause for another moment to wonder why. Your mantra is becoming all but irrelevant in today's world. The economy is passing you by.
However, I would like to see more productive union/management relations, along with more progressive ideas and cooperation from both sides to face the problems of the future. But people in your mindset aren't really interested in that. (To be fair, neither is much of corporate America these days. You're both more or less equally part of the problem.)
Are you claiming that the 92% where given an option to have a union?
Most of the 92% you speak of also do not have a contract. Are you claiming thats by choice also?
Your simplistic black or white anti worker view is why people here say to ignore you.
The sad reality is that people like you claim that workers dont want unions however if workers try to get a union and get fired, which is common you support such actions.
The fact that 92% dont have unions is due to many reasons. In some cases its agressive union-busting activities by the company. In others its simply because unions are doing what you want them to do-form "productive union management relations". Why get a union if they arent going to make things better for the workers?
American Airlines and the TWU is a perfect example. The TWU is joined at the hip with AA. They are telling members to go above and beyond to help the company be more profitable despite the fact that the company extracted huge paycuts from the workers. Unneccesary paycuts. What is the TWU promising in return for the members? Nothing, except for the possibility that the company may hire more people if they get more work than the more productive workers can handle. What will hiring more people do for the member? Nothing. What will it do for the TWU-increase dues.
Where unions are going wrong is they are doing what you want them to do. Unions are not here to make up for the shortfalls of management. Its up to the stockholders to hold them accountable. Unions can point out to stockholders where they feel management is screwing up but its not the unions job to run the company, if a union runs a company then they are management.
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
Bear, do you know how many corporations pay just a little bit more to keep unions off their property?
What unions started fighting for decades ago was to raise the standard of living and quality of life. The gains they achieved for their members spilled over into the private sector. Where I disagree most with you is that you seem to find more fault with "antiquated" union philosophy than "traditional" corporate greed.
I will be the first to admit that unions have lost touch with their roots and why they were conceived in the first place. They are now more concerned with maintaining union dues than about achieving a better standard of living. Corporations seem to be taking advantage of the "new" unionism and ineptness.
As proven in the AA/TWU lovefest, this union cares only to maintain their foothold in TULSA where only certain members benefit.
