DC-9 Gear Collapse

[Blueskies/400 UpperDeck]

Oh contrair Mr.Pillow. The Moderators won't let me say what I really want to say hence the deletion. Let's put it this way. We at NWA are sleeping FAR better than YOU (USAIR)or UAL. We fly new planes and old planes that allow us to maintain a very healthy cash reserve. That is a FACT, as that person from UAL loves facts. Quote from Busdrv: Why would it be wrong to point out a bottom of the industry performance in OT arrivals and completions? It wouldn't. The bottom is a location that UAL knows very well. I mean, we all know what your address was in the DOT rankings FOR YEARS! From desperation can come good things, such as finding out what it feels like not to be at the bottom in every catagory for YEARS. GOOD ON YA UAL! As for ourselves...we simply don't pad our scheduals anymore. What was UAL's excuse?
USAIR and UAL operated FAR above their means and are UNABLE to PAY their bills. FACT: UAL's stock is almost a penny stock, Fact:UAL can't borrow two cents while every other Major can, and has. Fact: UAL and USAIR were failing entities BEFORE 9/11. Actually, I could pick UAL's failing operation apart piece by piece. There is pleanty to pick apart. Mr. Pillow, I find my kitchen quite comfortable. The electric bill is paid, so the central air is working wonderfully, and the cooking is delicious. I am quite sure your kitchen is FAR WARMER than mine. The two WORST shape airlines in the country has employees commenting on the state of other companies( snicker ). That is a really good joke..and We are ALL laughing... at YOU!!!!

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/29/2002 11:33:09 AM Blueskies/400 UpperDeck wrote:

...we simply don't pad our scheduals anymore. What was UAL's excuse?

----------------
[/blockquote]

We never did (and still don't). Please, be my guest, jump on you little computer and put some schedules up. Show me where UAL pads it's schedule.

 

[Blueskies/400 UpperDeck]

Dear Bear, First off...I am not your Honey. Sweety. The location of my self-esteem is none of your business. If I were you I would try not to demonstrate (in public) areas of knowledge that is clearly above ones understanding (kinda makes you look bad). Now...the issue here seems to be the age of our DC-9's. Yes they are old, we ALL know that. They ALSO serve our purpose evidently better than newer aircraft at some other carriers. Moreover, the REAL issue is that EVERYTIME some takes a stab at insluting NWA and the men and women who work there is to comment on the DC-9 fleet. We have simply become fed up with it. Particularly when it is USUALLY coming from folks that are from failing entities. Now, I have said my PEACE. I am off to fly a BRAND NEW 747-400 to Tokyo! Happy trails to all!

 

[Bear96]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/27/2002 1226 PM Blueskies/400 UpperDeck wrote:

...There has been certain individuals that have made it their mission to attack and degrade the companies of others. Their past posts prove it.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Blueskies, honey, that is quite rich coming from YOU of all people.

Your personal life must certainly be lacking to have all of your self-esteem dependent upon the relative financial health of your employer (which isn't all THAT great I have to point out).

This is not to defend busdrvr, who certainly needs to give it a rest too.

But what a silly discussion this has degenerated into, My company is less of a financial basket case than your company, especially in an industry where whoever is on top today can very quickly be on the bottom tomorrow, and vice versa.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/29/2002 12:30:01 PM Blueskies/400 UpperDeck wrote:

Moreover, the REAL issue is that EVERYTIME some takes a stab at insluting NWA and the men and women who work there is to comment on the DC-9 fleet. We have simply become fed up with it.

----------------
[/blockquote]

OK fair enough. Your 727's and DC-10s are really OLD!!

 

[ExAF]

Busdriver, I think you must have too much time on your hands and take this board way too seriously but I will attempt a civil response anyway.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/28/2002 258 PM Busdrvr wrote:

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"

Yes it does. The well-maintained line was dripping with sarcasm and was intended to be a cheap shot as others pointed out. The failure of a component/part that may or may not be original equipment doesn't really have much to do with the age of the aircraft. One could always counter with at least the tails don't fall off in flight like they do on an airbus! That too would be a ridiculous remark and appear to be flame bait now wouldn't it. There are also plenty of aircraft even older than the DC-9 flying today that are very reliable and safe. The fact that a particular component or batch of replacement parts may have a manufactruing flaw or some other problem (don't know if that was a factor in this case yet) has no bearing on the age of the fleet at all. It could happen on a brand new aircraft as well.

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.

I do go to the UAL side to see what's going on there, but I try not to say anything unless I have something positive to contribute to the thread. I don't really care what Blueskies does and I'm not defending nor condemning him. You can deal with him directly and not through me.

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 don't have the time or desire to go check the truth of your facts. It just isn't that important to me. For that reason, I tend to take your posts (and others) at face value and assume they are accurate/truthful. I didn't say anything you posted was incorrect. Again, I'm not Blueskies and I'm not concerned with his posts. Your response was addressed to me and not him.

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).

And I have a lot of friends at UAL; however I don't hear them bashing other airlines. Some of them are on the lower end of the seniority list and are just concerned about keeping their job. They are not concerned about the fleet age of NWA, who NWA's CEO is, or what our MEC is doing.

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.

Here we go again with the my CEO can beat up your CEO argument. I'm not particularly fond of management or CEOs in general, but since you brought it up...I think our CEO is trying his best to keep our airline afloat and make sure it is one of the survivors. If that makes him a jerk in your eyes, then so be it. Of all the CEOs running airlines right now, I think I'm pretty content to have him over some of the other options out there right now. Who knows what the long-term outcome is going to be? Your past CEO and management got you in the position you are in now, so I guess I would say I think your past CEO is a jerk too. The jury is still out on your present CEO and I don't really have an opinion on him yet. I'm not sure what employee concessions you are talking about. The contract extension had a pay raise in it last time I checked. As far as handouts from congress go...are you implying that UAL is not looking for a handout as well?

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.

See the response at the beginning of this post. It is not wrong to point it out, just not that relevant. What is important is that NWA is aggressively ensuring that the well maintained reputation sticks and if there is a problem with the 9s, it is addressed and fixed.

Why would it be wrong to point out a bottom of the industry performance in OT arrivals and completions?

What has that got to do with fleet age or a gear failure? I suggest you look at the last couple of years and not just the last couple of months. Those pesky thunderstorms at the hubs hurt the last couple of months. Not making excuses, just stating the facts. I think NWA has done just fine over the long term and will continue to do well in the stats over time.
----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[ExAF]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/29/2002 1221 PM Busdrvr wrote:

----------------
OK fair enough. Your 727's and DC-10s are really OLD!! [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']
----------------
[/blockquote]
Yea...and all of the 727s will be gone on Jan 6 except for the few in the charter configuration that will finish out the NBA/NHL charter season. All of the DC-10-40s are already gone and the -30s won't be far behind. Then you will only have those old, reliable, well-maintained, paid-for DC-9s to make fun of. And that's OK with me as long as those DC-9s keep me employed. Cheers [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']

 

[GGpillow]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/29/2002 1:13:56 PM JFK Fleet Service wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/29/2002 11:33:09 AM Blueskies/400 UpperDeck wrote:

We at NWA are sleeping FAR better than YOU (USAIR)or UAL. We fly new planes and old planes that allow us to maintain a very healthy cash reserve.

----------------
[/blockquote]



I suppose rather limited exposure to low fare carriers and the downward pressure on fares associated with them has nothing to do with it?

You'd be singing a different tune if your employer was going head to head with low fare competition on over 70% of its network.



----------------
[/blockquote]



Don't confuse him with facts. You may disrupt his USA Today version of reality. Anyone who thinks that their is ANY CEO in the industry today, that is sleeping well, is an idiot.

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/29/2002 11:33:09 AM Blueskies/400 UpperDeck wrote:

We at NWA are sleeping FAR better than YOU (USAIR)or UAL. We fly new planes and old planes that allow us to maintain a very healthy cash reserve.

----------------
[/blockquote]


I suppose rather limited exposure to low fare carriers and the downward pressure on fares associated with them has nothing to do with it?

You'd be singing a different tune if your employer was going head to head with low fare competition on over 70% of its network.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/29/2002 1:28:14 PM ExAF wrote:

Busdriver, I think you must have too much time on your hands and take this board way too seriously but I will attempt a civil response anyway.
One could always counter with at least the tails don't fall off in flight like they do on an airbus!

There you go bashing AMR! (It was an A300)

They are not concerned about the fleet age of NWA, who NWA's CEO is, or what our MEC is doing.

Then listen more closely. What you do DOES have a bearing on the rest of the industry.

I'm not particularly fond of management or CEOs in general, but since you brought it up...I think our CEO is trying his best to keep our airline afloat and make sure it is one of the survivors. If that makes him a jerk in your eyes, then so be it. Of all the CEOs running airlines right now, I think I'm pretty content to have him over some of the other options out there right now. The contract extension had a pay raise in it last time I checked. As far as handouts from congress go...are you implying that UAL is not looking for a handout as well?

Two points, First, I haven't heard anyone say this industry DOESN'T need higher yields to survive. Your management team, to the detriment of the entire industry, and on the back of lower wages and older equipment, did it's best to delay that recovery. Quite frankly, they busted the Cartel. In the short term, it paid off for them, in the long term, it'll likely cost us all dearly. It's one thing to put your hand out because the market hasn't recovered, it is another IMHO to sabotage the recovery then put your hand out. As to your payraise, you started WAY below DAL and UAL. UALs ERP II will likley bring us DOWN to your new high level, and we'll likely put a clause to prevent future furloughs. What we get DOES depend on what you get and vise versa. I won't blame you though, i don't know what anybody could've expected given the state of the industry. There is a little sting when one of your Bangkok visiting F/As razes UAL for the current SHORT TERM financial situation situation we find ourselves in, especially when HE, She or it, would have benefited materially from our past negotiations.

See the response at the beginning of this post. It is not wrong to point it out, just not that relevant. What is important is that NWA is aggressively ensuring that the well maintained reputation sticks and if there is a problem with the 9s, it is addressed and fixed.

I would still think in a value for your ticket equation, fleet age and safety would be relevent, just as cost would be. Think how much money could be saved with single engine jets or just one pilot? Niether of which would make sense when safety is factored in.

I suggest you look at the last couple of years and not just the last couple of months. Those pesky thunderstorms at the hubs hurt the last couple of months. Not making excuses, just stating the facts. I think NWA has done just fine over the long term and will continue to do well in the stats over time.

Don't count on it, Blew skies thinks it's because you quit padding your schedule. In any case, I hope the lenders do what you are recommending and look back a few years. We'd have no prob getting loans if that were the case. BTW, What's the disposition of the 747-200 fleet? Are they planning on converting all of them to Cargo, or are they going to keep them in pax service for some time to come?
----------------
[/blockquote]


----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/29/2002 1:38:24 PM ExAF wrote:

Then you will only have those old, reliable, well-maintained, paid-for DC-9s to make fun of. And that's OK with me as long as those DC-9s keep me employed. Cheers
----------------
[/blockquote]

LOL, Can't argue with that line of reasoning! Do the 9s have EGPWS?

 

[ExAF]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/29/2002 1:54:47 PM Busdrvr wrote:


LOL, Can't argue with that line of reasoning! Do the 9s have EGPWS?

----------------
[/blockquote]
Some do and some don't. Money for the mod is the limiting factor.

 

[ExAF]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/29/2002 1:49:45 PM Busdrvr wrote:

There you go bashing AMR! (It was an A300)

No I wasn't bashing AMR. I said making such a statement would be ridiculous. Bashing an A300 incident (much like bashing the DC-9 gear incident) shouldn't be used to condemn an entire fleet (old or not). Now if it were a weekly occurance, then that would be a different story. So I guess you agree with me.

Then listen more closely. What you do DOES have a bearing on the rest of the industry.

I do listen closely and yes it does. They aren't complaining like you are nor blaming anyone other than their own management for their problems. They are trying to get their own house in order first. You seem to be the exception, but then...I don't know you either.

Two points, First, I haven't heard anyone say this industry DOESN'T need higher yields to survive. Your management team, to the detriment of the entire industry, and on the back of lower wages and older equipment, did it's best to delay that recovery. Quite frankly, they busted the Cartel. In the short term, it paid off for them, in the long term, it'll likely cost us all dearly. It's one thing to put your hand out because the market hasn't recovered, it is another IMHO to sabotage the recovery then put your hand out.

There you go again with the on the backs dribble. You completely missed the point. The fares that were being raised were the rack leisure fares. NOBODY was actually paying the rack leisure fares at the time. They were all travelling on the sale fares or not at all. It wasn't going to increase revenue and probably was going to result in an actual loss of revenue that would have gone to the low-cost carriers. What are you smoking that would make you think NWA would purposely delay any recovery? I would counter that UAL going into BK will have a far more devastating effect on the industry as a whole than NWA not going along with a $20 rack leisure fare that nobody was buying anyway. What was the second point?

As to your "payraise", you started WAY below DAL and UAL.

Tell me something I don't know. Are you trying to rub it in that UAL pilots are paid more than us low-life NWA brothers? Would you prefer we had entered negotiations with the condition of the industry the way it is now and forfeit any real opportunity for improvement? I'll take the raise from our 1 year contract extension now (along with the one guaranteed for next year while we are in negotiations) and start negotiations next year (or maybe the one after that if necessary) to try to raise the bar.

UALs ERP II will likley bring us DOWN to your new "high level", and we'll likely put a clause to prevent future furloughs.

Boy...I sure wouldn't want the almighty UAL pilots to have to stoop DOWN to our level! And I NEVER said it was a high level. My point which you completely missed or were unwilling to acknowledge is that management was not doing anything on our backs and there haven't been any concessions...only a raise. Good luck on the furlough clause...you see what it did for DAL!

What we get DOES depend on what you get and vise versa. I won't blame you though, i don't know what anybody could've expected given the state of the industry.

Thanks for not blaming us...I would have been crushed if you had! Maybe when we start negotiations next year we will be able to help raise the bar. I just hope the state of the industry has improved enough to realistically expect some improvement in the contract.

There is a little sting when one of your Bangkok visiting F/As "razes" UAL for the current SHORT TERM financial situation situation we find ourselves in, especially when HE, She or it, would have benefited materially from our past negotiations.

I'm sorry the FA did that...it was wrong and uncalled for.

I would still think in a value for your ticket equation, fleet age and safety would be relevent, just as cost would be. Think how much money could be saved with "single engine" jets or just one pilot? Niether of which would make sense when safety is factored in.

Our safety record is exemplary. If you didn't know how old the DC-9s were you wouldn't be able to tell from the cabin. They have all been refurbished and the interiors look as good as the newest airbus in the fleet. Our value for your ticket equation is just as good as any other airline when it comes to safety and fleet age is transparent. The 9s have a better on-time tha the busses right now. Something to be said for simplicity.

Don't count on it, Blew skies thinks it's because you quit "padding" your schedule.

He's right. They did reduce the blocks to save money and there isn't any pad to speak of any more. I would wager that there is still a little bit of a pad with most other carrier schedules, but I don't know that for a fact and I couldn't prove it.

In any case, I hope the lenders do what you are recommending and look back a few years. We'd have no prob getting loans if that were the case.

I hope so too. The last thing I want to see is UAL in BK. I am convinced it would be devastating to the industry.

BTW, What's the disposition of the 747-200 fleet? Are they planning on converting all of them to Cargo, or are they going to keep them in pax service for some time to come?

I honestly do not know the answer to that. I'm sure they will do whatever help the bottom line for the company.
----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/29/2002 4:43:30 PM ExAF wrote:

I'll take the raise from our 1 year contract extension now (along with the one guaranteed for next year while we are in negotiations) and start negotiations next year (or maybe the one after that if necessary) to try to raise the bar.

I think you're dreaming, maybe 3 or 4 years from now.

Boy...I sure wouldn't want the almighty UAL pilots to have to stoop DOWN to our level! And I NEVER said it was a high level. My point which you completely missed or were unwilling to acknowledge is that management was not doing anything on our backs and there haven't been any concessions...only a raise.

A small raise on a concessionary contract IMHO is still a concessionary contract, especially if it pays 15 to 20% less than the new industry standard. But don't worry, we'll likely undercut you.

Good luck on the furlough clause...you see what it did for DAL!

we already have illegal furloughs as does DAL. The diff with the new contract is the company would accept language that stipulates no additional FM claims with respect to 9/11. Will it stick in court? Likely, but if something else happens (Iraq) all bets are off. I think the fact that the company has only canned 844 out of approx 10,000, despite larger schedule cuts at UAL than other airlines, would tend to indicate a willingness to deal.


He's right. They did reduce the blocks to save money and there isn't any pad to speak of any more. I would wager that there is still a little bit of a pad with most other carrier schedules, but I don't know that for a fact and I couldn't prove it.

Yes there is. CAL and AMR do, at least on the routes I looked at, DAL, NWA and UAL did not.

I hope so too. The last thing I want to see is UAL in BK. I am convinced it would be devastating to the industry.

Explain that to Blew skies. I honestly think the original plan at AMR and NWA was to try and bleed away market share from a weakened but not dead UAL, unfortunately, the market has not come back as expected and the strategy may have backfired to an extent. We're making a payback list ya know


----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[Blueskies/400 UpperDeck]

The only thing you had better concern yourself with is PAYING BACK your bills next month!Couldn't resist this one...as we are just dying laughing in the crew room!!!