Exit Financing & The Future

[BoeingBoy]

Well, thanks for missing the point altogether as usual Jim, I know that it is hard for you to see clearly with that bolder-sized chip on your shoulder reagrding MDA and any of the other changes over the last year. I should have expected it.

[post="243820"][/post]​

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.

Point was that the E-170 can use the alternate runways in PHL, and they do so on a regular basis.. We can use the F terminal gates, and have. Both have allowed added capacity to PHL while not adding further congestion (replacing other express flights instead) on the limited number of gates US Airways has, or the airfield in general. That makes the plane more useful IMO, not less. Still wondering why you think otherwise.

[post="243820"][/post]​

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.

As for the load factor, lately nothing has been full, but I cringe far less at 35 open seats on my plane vs. 100+ open seats on yours I see so often...

[post="243820"][/post]​

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.

Yeah dispatch reliability has suffered as of late, remember the "new plane" thing, well, this is our first winter with a plane designed in Brazil. So yeah, we have a fair bit of changes made or coming to solve such things as they come up. Considering that we are under a year old, with a plane that is just as new, I think we are doing quite well, and will only improve overtime...

[post="243820"][/post]​

Hopefully improvement will come. Maybe someone, somewhere, will finally "discover" that all airplanes do strange things when left without heat overnight up north. 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.

But in the end, it does not matter, I would prefer additional mainline aircraft over E-170's. But the cold truth is that we cannot finance an aircraft a few people might want, vs financing a small amount of aircraft that GE knows they could find a home for quickly.

[post="243820"][/post]​

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?

We are adding the E170's because we can, and because we should. Not because of some continual effort to make your life worse Jim...

[post="243820"][/post]​

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.

Mainline aircraft will be added later, just not right now, we will both just have to wait until then.

[post="243820"][/post]​

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.

But what the heck, if it means you reaching that near 6-figure left seat sooner, that's all that matters, right?

Jim

 

[Rico]

Man, you are one uptight little dude 700... You should learn to relax.

I am not worried about furlough from MDA, every day I have in the E-170 is more hours in the logbook, and well, to be honest.. fun. I came expecting to just see how things play themselves out, not to get too worked up about some other guy coming to take my 35K a year job.

The only furloughed mainline pilots that were willing to bid into the E-170 FO positions nowadays, were those desparate to escape Mesa's JFJ nightmare, otherwise the positions went to other wholly owned pilots...

Yeah, cannot go back to ALG anymore, but the merger is being completed finally, and the pilot groups are being merged into one, rather than PDT and a shrinking ALG. So my senority at the new PDT would allow me to get back to the left seat if the former wholly owned pilots are displaced somehow...

Guess you did not know that eh...?

Well, this is starting to be less about exit financing, and more the sort of stuff that belongs in a PM, so feel free to use that instead, Otherwise we could get back on topic...

Peace B)

 

[Rico]

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..?.

 

[xoxo]

That's a bit of a stretch.

I took a 3 hour delay on a -170 over the summer and almost missed the sole US connection to Barbados because of it. Several others on my flight missed connections to 1x/day cities, and I can tell you that none of them cared about the aircraft.

In fact, absent sitting in a real F seat or even Envoy or Intl First (on OAs), most people (VFFs and non-VFFs alike) don't go "well, I'm delayed, but what a great plane!"

Clue,

Sorry that happened to you..it was frustrating last summer with all the problems the a/c had...but, things have changed drastically. So, if you ever ride on an EMB_170 again I am sure it will be different.

 

[xoxo]

And last I checked MDA was operating under the US certificate, so let's stop all the us and them. Rico is one of US as is all the mainliners that went over.



PSA1979,

Thanks! Atleast someone on here (non MAA) realizes this!!!! I was mainline for 3 1/2 years...and I still consider myself mainline, its just the EMB Division now. We will all be back because eventually it will be all combined. So, if you are a F/A or pilot..hope to fly with ya!!!

 

[700UW]

The majority of the financing is the pre-petition deposits on hand from the initial purchase.

 

[BoeingBoy]

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.

[post="243920"][/post]​

Of course, you completely ignored the departure situation. Everytime you "ease the congestion" by using 17/35 and go over Ditch, Woodstown, Pottstown, etc, someone waiting to use that same fix from 27L waits a little longer. You get right out and they pay the price.

Aside from that, are you claiming that 35 arrivals don't slow down the acceptance rate for 27R? Are you claiming that there are never go-arounds because the spacing isn't working out for the intersecting approaches?

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.

[post="243920"][/post]​

I guess you're saying that nobody "discovered" this until it started affecting the dispatch reliability this winter, huh....

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.

[post="243920"][/post]​

Actually, I did know that - my nephew is flying the Emb-170 for them and went through our training. Funny, I thought the airplane was new whether they fly it or you do. Just seems that they're not having as many problems as we are - that's what I meant by them learning faster than us.

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..?.

[post="243920"][/post]​

Because you love to tell the lower paid mainline employees (who have sacrifaced so much to give you that chance) what they need to do to keep your hope alive.....

Jim

 

[Rico]

Because you love to fault the mainline employees who have sacrifaced so much to give you that chance....

I have never done any such thing.

But I take issue with those who seem bent on seeing this place fail. I would think those certain people are more of an insult to those who have worked, AND continue to work hard to keeo this place around.

Of course, you completely ignored the departure situation. Everytime you "ease the congestion" by using 17/35 and go over Ditch, Woodstown, Pottstown, etc, someone waiting to use that same fix from 27L waits a little longer. You get right out and they pay the price.

"They" who, our competition...?

Fact is that USAirways Express aircraft utilize this departure advantage, and that benifits the company as a whole. Sorry that you have to wait, but why would you be displeased that some of our fleet has the advantage on not having to...? That was my original point, that adding aircraft that have an operational advantage is a good idea. The original point was that adding mainline aircraft instead would mean that both they and the other 27L departures would have to wait... Rather than just your fleet type, and not mine.

Aside from that, are you claiming that 35 arrivals don't slow down the acceptance rate for 27R? Are you claiming that there are never go-arounds because the spacing isn't working out for the intersecting approaches?

What is with the putting words in my mouth thing Jim...?

But yes, the acceptance rate between the two runways is far greater than if everything was stacked up to land on 27R, duh...

Intersecting approaches are done SO AS to increase the airport's acceptance rate. And they are done because they have littel effect nor restictions upon arrivals on the primary runway. You know that.

Of course go arounds occur at times, but hardly ever for the 27R aircraft, and in 5 months of flying into PHL, I have only had one 35 go around in the E-170. Not a bad record considering how often I have used this runway. And not a bad trade off, for the advantages landing on 35 provide.

I guess you're saying that nobody "discovered" this until it started affecting the dispatch reliability this winter, huh

I was instructing you upon what the main ongoing issue was for the aircraft. Multiple software uploads and operational changes have improved this. GThe main winter issue is APU reliability, but that again is just another kind of issue that new aircraft have. You make it sound like No one is doing anything about it, rather we have factory people crawling all over our planes on a constant basis to smooth out the wrinkles.

What exactly do you think we are supposed to be doing differently...?

Actually, I did know that - my nephew is flying the Emb-170 for them and went through our training. Funny, I thought the airplane was new whether they fly it or you do. Just seems that they're not having as many problems as we are - that's what I meant by them learning faster than us.

No duh. It is not "new" so far as they are concerned, they have gained from our hard earned experience, passed on in class or by the factory.

Other than that, IMO your bias against anything MDA is showing itself once again Jim.

 

[diogenes]

. 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bring me up to date here. There are fleet agents who are APU-qualified. They were trained to never leave a running APU unattended, because in the event of a APU fire, they had to discharge the onboard fire extinguisher. As the system could be also be activated from the ground, fleet did not have to man the cockpit, but did have to remain planeside on the ramp.

I know running APU's are walked away from all the time now, and have assumed there is a policy change and a good reason for doing so.

Yes?

 

[delldude]

wow thats amazing........

 

[BoeingBoy]

diogenes,

Like all things human, the passage of time without incident brings complacency. If an unattended airplane ever sustains damage due to an APU fire, someone will be doing the carpet dance explaining how it happened (or trying to).

 

[diogenes]

wow thats amazing........

[post="244400"][/post]​

I am reliably informed some of them can even walk on their hind legs and speak, too!

Don't worry, when they trained fleet to flip switches, they taught them to chant "ALPA-0-mighty-ALPA" upon entry into the cockpit, and "mechanics rule" upon exit!

 

[diogenes]

diogenes,

Like all things human, the passage of time without incident brings complacency. If an unattended airplane ever sustains damage due to an APU fire, someone will be doing the carpet dance explaining how it happened (or trying to).

[post="244412"][/post]​

Ahhhhhhh, US S.O.P.

 

[BoeingBoy]

One thing I found interesting from Rico's description of the problem is that there is apparently no way to power down the electronics but leave power on to the cabin/cargo lights on the Emb-170 when hooked to ground power like there is on the Boeing (don't know about the Bus). Thus, the problem of draining the battery if the ground power drops off or is inadvertently turned off outside.

On the Boeing, losing ground power overnight only results in the lights going out and nothing more since the battery is isolated and the electronics are already unpowered. Surprising Embraer didn't include a similiar feature.

There's still the risk of fire when the APU is providing power, though. That's why I always make a point of asking someone - agent, ramp, mechanic - it they want the APU left running when ground power is unavailable for the overnight.

Jim

 

[Heinrich]

leaving ORF one early morning when the E170 first started overnighting there a few months back, there was an incident when the ground crew accidently disconnected the power too early. The pilot had to reboot the entire system, which took about 20 minutes....that in addition to fog was my first missed USAir connection in 3 years. I would have been ok with the circle for the fog but the 20 minute delay in taking off killed it. <_<