History

[3G'S]

__Pos-G's
__N---G's
X_Neg-G's

Robert P bought the Fairchild
Ed C bought the F-100
Doug P Bought the E 190

Have we learned from history?

10 main frames were built for the F-100 then US Airways wanted to put in first class. All 10 frames had to be modified. Is this the start for many changes? I hope we have the same clause that states " lost revenue for every day the airplane is late".

The parts supply went to American Airlines. Do we have the parts supply?

Which FAA office is going to handle the certification.
Pit or Phx? The ball was dropped on the F-100. When Pit was the only office.

Can freight be carried on the E-190? Or better yet will it fit through the cargo door? We used to make money carring freight. Another way to look at it. A Pax comes back from vacation with a lot of lougage, can they put it on the connecting flight? Or tell the golfer "No Clubs"!!!

We all liked Ed, but when he went from a person who was good with money to a person who bought airplanes, wrong department. Cheap airplanes will coast you in the end.

E-190 3 Neg's

 

[FM2436]

Embraer does post its Airport Planning Manuals for all their aircraft on its Web Page. Maybe this will help answer several of your questions about the aircraft's capabilities. The link below is to the E190's Airport Planning Manual. It quite interesting.

http://www.embraercommercialjets.com/engli...90.asp?tela=apm

 

[ringmaruf]

[quote name='3G'S' post='357157' date='Feb 26 2006, 01:06 PM']10 main frames were built for the F-100 then US Airways wanted to put in first class. All 10 frames had to be modified. Is this the start for many changes? I hope we have the same clause that states " lost revenue for every day the airplane is late".[/quote]

I'm sure if the aircraft are delivered later than the contract says due to Embraer not making them quick, there are surely specified penalties in the contract for them to pay. It's just industry standard. Boeing had to pay a bunch of penalties this summer to Southwest, Ryanair, AirTran, and others, because they were late in delivering 737s due to a strike at one of their plants. And Airbus is having to fork over an absolute *boatload* of money to airlines like Singapore and Qantas because of the A380 going to be late due to design delays.

But you seem to be saying that it was US who wanted the F100s changed. That's US's problem for changing their mind at the last minute, not Fokker's. I'm sure if they pulled a stunt like that here, then Embraer wouldn't have to pay a dime for being late if it was just due to US being typically indecisive. (And I'm sure there's a date in the contract until which US can make all the changes it wants, but if it wants to make changes after that date, it'll have to deal with delays or extra costs or whatever.

 

[FlyOnWall]

According to the press releases about the 170, it was to have a first class and fly under the US Airways brand. Only when it showed up wearing with silly Express titles and no first class did anyone know different. Embraer was still able to deliver them on time.

I dont trust this company. They lied about this airplane before, how it would be configured and who would fly it.

 

[ringmaruf]

According to the press releases about the 170, it was to have a first class and fly under the US Airways brand. Only when it showed up wearing with silly Express titles and no first class did anyone know different. Embraer was still able to deliver them on time.

I dont trust this company. They lied about this airplane before, how it would be configured and who would fly it.

I'll agree with you that I don't understand how F100s were supposedly delayed by a seat configuration change, and I certainly don't understand how Fokker would have been responsible for paying USAir penalties. The only way I can see a delay happening is if the addition of an F cabin involved more than just new seats, like perhaps an additional or larger galley. Still wouldn't be Fokker's fault that US can never just order what the heck it wants instead of having to play mind games with *everything*.

The press release also claimed the PSA CRJ-700s (and of course those were initially supposed to be CRJ-705s, a/k/a the CRJ-900s in disguise) would have first class cabins.

Both the Embraer-division f/a's and the PSA f/a's do a remarkably good job of hiding the F seats; perhaps they operate on a similar principle to Business Select and they're hiding folded in a bulkhead somewhere.

 

[nycbusdriver]

If the 190's show with no first class, the label over the door will surely say express. I think all mainline aircraft have to have first class seating to comply with Star Alliance agreements.

 

[TechBoy]

If the 190's show with no first class, the label over the door will surely say express. I think all mainline aircraft have to have first class seating to comply with Star Alliance agreements.

There is no such Star requirement. United operates Ted aircraft without 1st. And none of the European carriers have 1st class for intra-Europe flights.

Not sure where this rumor began, but it seems to pop up all the time.

 

[pilot]

Folks:

Ask yourself these questions:

How many different types of jets does Southwest own?
Which airline has never lost money since its inception?
How many regional jets does Southwest use in its operation?
Who is the original LCC?
At what point did JetBlue start losing money?

The only, and I mean only, reason there are e190's coming here is because of the hourly rates that will be paid to the flight crews. Do the math.

Now, how is it Southwest can pay substantially higher hourly rates using ONE aircraft type and be consistently profitbble?

Here's another question:

Why do you see a Burger King on the opposite corner of every street you see a McDonalds? Always, and I mean always, the Burger King came after the McDonalds. Ever hear of "replicating success"?

Copy the success story and you have your own success.

This isn't brain surgery or nuclear physics. It's an airline business that almost all mangagements, especially ours, can't seem to run. Why not copy the success instead of trying to re-invent the business? Why not indeed.

Incompetence resides in PHX as well as CCY. How else can you explain what is going on here. EMB-190's. Yeah, that ought to do it.

pilot

 

[PITbull]

Mr. Pilot,

Its not necessary to answer these retorhic questions...

I have to agree 100%! B)

 

[N628AU]

One aircraft type also eliminates many places Southwest goes. WN are what they are, and don't try to pretend to be something else. For the most part, the new US management has done a pretty good job and if predictions hold true will be the only US carriers with International and Hawaiian service to be profitablt in 2006.

 

[PITbull]

One aircraft type also eliminates many places Southwest goes. WN are what they are, and don't try to pretend to be something else. For the most part, the new US management has done a pretty good job and if predictions hold true will be the only US carriers with International and Hawaiian service to be profitablt in 2006.

Predictions? What analyst has been correct so far on any airline? Even the darling JetBlue started to slip in the red. That wasn't predicted.

If U breaks a profit, so will everyone else.

U has never been the first at anything in its history to break out of a trend. And if AWA is a history of what Doug Parker can do, than I stand by my statement. Losing one half of a billion in 2005 doesn't look to me to be turning a corner in the next 3 quarters, and labor gave billions in concessions just to keep "a job". Parker wants to buy E-190 jets for reasons unkown to mankind. He's listening to the same yo-yos. The world economics is worsening; not getting better. Looming civil unrest in the middle east with USA being 75-80% dependent on their energy production is a bad state of affairs for transportation in the next 5 years.

You just better hope U is sustainable.

 

[flyingcat]

if AWA is a history of what Doug Parker can do, than I stand by my statement.

Geez are you clueless.
Are you even aware of the turnaround that Parker did with HP after 2001.

HP was ripe for take over (TWA, United). Something US people should know all about.

HP was making a profit and it will take time to turn this heffer :eye: into the belle of the ball B).

If you are even close to smart then you would know two things:
1. Doug Parker knew and announced that their would be no immediate profit and even stated that it would take over a year to go into the black.

2. 4th quarter loss was below wall street expectations and was less per share than last year. Even with a higher fuel price.

Stop reading the analysis off the "Why PIT should be Atlanta newsletter"

 

[pilot]

Cat,

pitbull is pretty sharp. She understands both the business and labor ends of this industry. Pay close attention to what she says, she doesn't lie or look at anything with rose colored glasses.

Parker may be different but the jury is still out. He retained Al Crelin, the U ops guy, who literally lost control of PHL and never regained it. And he hired Glass to negotiate contracts. Just those two moves has me more than concerned.

With our wage structure I don't see how we can't make money. IF economics are strong. That is not good management, that is economics. I love rhetorical questions so here's one for you to chew on:

If Southwest had our labor cost structure as it is today how much more profit would they have shown in the most recent year?

That give you an idea of what kind of management we have here at U.

pilot

 

[pilot]

Uh, Bob:

Supposedly this management is making us a LCC with that kind of "cost structure".

I understand (duh) the difference.

Let me rephrase the question:

Assuming U and LUV have the same "total cost structure excluding LABOR" how much more money would LUV have made the past year with the LABOR cost structure that U has vs. the LABOR cost structure that LUV has?

How's that Bob? Care to take a stab at it?

It's rhetorical Bob. Rhetorical. U has a substantial labor advantage now and they can't seem to take advantage of it. Will they ever - EVER - be able to take advantage of it?

My point is that unless the operation actually mirrors LUV I'm not sure we will ever be the kind of profit machine they are. Wages and work rules are not the reason for losses. The way U operates is why we continually lose money. That's my point.

It that your point too?

pilot

 

[nycbusdriver]

There is no such Star requirement. United operates Ted aircraft without 1st. And none of the European carriers have 1st class for intra-Europe flights.

Not sure where this rumor began, but it seems to pop up all the time.

Don't know about the European carriers, but Ted is not "mainline," per se. The name on the airplane does not say "United Airlines." United is displayed as a small (by size comparison) disclaimer.