Rumor Looking For Corroboration
- Thread starter nycbusdriver
- Start date
Singleflyer
Senior
- Mar 27, 2003
- 466
- 6
I always read that different engine types reduce the fleet commonality. But since they buy "power by the hour" what difference does it make to have a different engines since they are maintained by the manufacturer. It dosen't add to the cost or training of the techs.
singleflyer,
Power by the Hour does not exempt us...or anyone from the day to day maintenance and logistics issues. Hince it adds to inventory costs...and inventory placement within the route system. This adds costs that most never begin to calculate.
The addition of different engines...and in many cases on-board avionics and control systems with a diverse fleet will also increase crew training costs as well.
Bottom line...for cost savings sake....Dance with the one you brought to the dance...or be prepared for a costly slap in the face or worse.
Power by the Hour does not exempt us...or anyone from the day to day maintenance and logistics issues. Hince it adds to inventory costs...and inventory placement within the route system. This adds costs that most never begin to calculate.
The addition of different engines...and in many cases on-board avionics and control systems with a diverse fleet will also increase crew training costs as well.
Bottom line...for cost savings sake....Dance with the one you brought to the dance...or be prepared for a costly slap in the face or worse.
singleflyer,
Power by the Hour does not exempt us...or anyone from the day to day maintenance and logistics issues. Hince it adds to inventory costs...and inventory placement within the route system. This adds costs that most never begin to calculate.
The addition of different engines...and in many cases on-board avionics and control systems with a diverse fleet will also increase crew training costs as well.
Bottom line...for cost savings sake....Dance with the one you brought to the dance...or be prepared for a costly slap in the face or worse.
Power by the Hour does not exempt us...or anyone from the day to day maintenance and logistics issues. Hince it adds to inventory costs...and inventory placement within the route system. This adds costs that most never begin to calculate.
The addition of different engines...and in many cases on-board avionics and control systems with a diverse fleet will also increase crew training costs as well.
Bottom line...for cost savings sake....Dance with the one you brought to the dance...or be prepared for a costly slap in the face or worse.
singleflyer,
Power by the Hour does not exempt us...or anyone from the day to day maintenance and logistics issues. Hince it adds to inventory costs...and inventory placement within the route system. This adds costs that most never begin to calculate.
The addition of different engines...and in many cases on-board avionics and control systems with a diverse fleet will also increase crew training costs as well.
Bottom line...for cost savings sake....Dance with the one you brought to the dance...or be prepared for a costly slap in the face or worse.
Power by the Hour does not exempt us...or anyone from the day to day maintenance and logistics issues. Hince it adds to inventory costs...and inventory placement within the route system. This adds costs that most never begin to calculate.
The addition of different engines...and in many cases on-board avionics and control systems with a diverse fleet will also increase crew training costs as well.
Bottom line...for cost savings sake....Dance with the one you brought to the dance...or be prepared for a costly slap in the face or worse.
CLT-Douglas
Advanced
- Feb 12, 2003
- 179
- 2
With the wide body fleet now maxed out and little or no room to expand until the scheduled new A330-200's start arriving in 2006 (?) there has been talk such as in this thread about leasing used A330's to fill the gap until 2006. What ever happened to all this talk? The amount of used aircraft available on the market should be solid for US Airways to get some good deals while they wait for new wide body aircraft. I guess we can expect no new long haul international destinations until 2006 at the earliest? Even then the A330-200 will be replacing the 767's so I guess even by 2009 there still won't be much a difference? So, is the plan to get as many STAR members as possible to fly to CLT, PIT, PHL and cover for them on the international markets the won't be able to provide in the future? What's the plan if not?
Flying Titan
Veteran
- Oct 14, 2003
- 773
- 0
Is it conceivable that U would try to serve some new Central American or South American destinations with narrobody aircraft (757s or A320 family)? I realize that the 757s might seem an odd choice since they're pulling out most of the f/c seating, but what about the others? What kind of range do these aircraft have? What cities on a possible Central American or South American list could they reach? Doesn't AA serve some of its south american routes with 757s?
Yes AA does use the B757-200's down there....remember the one that had the rude encounter with the stone cloud a few years back?Flying Titan said:
All that is required is ETOPS equipment and certification to run the 757's on such a route...but AA is dong it from hub points much further south I.E. MIA and DFW
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
A high ranking member of US Airways' senior management personally told me the company would like to add used/cheap B767-200s to the fleet, presumably to expand Philadelphia transatlantic service to the 20 destinations Siegel spoke of in his September 2003 Air Transport World interview.
Furthermore, there a reliable reports inside of the company that Bronner holds United B767 EETC paper and he is not interested in taking a "haircut" for United's POR.
The information I have posted on United eliminating its entire B767-200 fleet in about 12 months is public record, the information was provided to the bankruptcy court during the last omnibus hearing, and the aircraft "for sale" listing can be viewed at www.speednews.com.
Regards,
Chip
Furthermore, there a reliable reports inside of the company that Bronner holds United B767 EETC paper and he is not interested in taking a "haircut" for United's POR.
The information I have posted on United eliminating its entire B767-200 fleet in about 12 months is public record, the information was provided to the bankruptcy court during the last omnibus hearing, and the aircraft "for sale" listing can be viewed at www.speednews.com.
Regards,
Chip
Flying Titan
Veteran
- Oct 14, 2003
- 773
- 0
Chip -Chip Munn said:
Do you know if the UAL 767s that are presently listed as "available" are the Bronner planes? If yes, why haven't U/UA/RSA already worked out a deal. If no, do you know when these aircraft will become available and how soon afterwards a deal might follow? Have your sources given you any sort of a timetable to watch for?
I shudder to think that U would take on a mis-match fleet that UA's 767's would bring to the mix....but U has a history of cramming square pegs into round holes.Chip Munn said:
The ideal fleet expanse would be to either accelerate the A330-200 orders...or go after the available Asiana B767's sitting in the desert. That would be a match in thought word and deed.
I would be thrilled to see U go after the Ex-National Airlines B757-200's as well...and do something reaching with them. The engine combination mirrors ours..and many in fact have had our parts on them on numerous occasions. I fear that HP (America West) is eye-balling these planes too.
HP is in fact making their business model work ...and rumors from my HP counterparts indicate that fleet growth is but an announcement away from reality...it should be our reality as well.
ringmaruf
Veteran
I've heard that ATA is very interested in the ex-National 757's.
....As they should be....National B757's are a natural fit for ATA , HP , CO , US and AA from a logistical standpoint.ringmaruf said:
Nationals planes are well kept...and saw relatively low utilization during it's brief history. They also took a great deal of pride in thier rides if you will?
I had a former U buddy that worked on Nationals AOG desk...and later became thier warranty manager for rotable aircraft parts. We stayed in close contact during his tenure there. We even made some good money off of National due to their small size.
Having delt with National most directly...I think it's a safe bet to say that these planes will provide someone great service for many years to come....that is , after the sitting still in the desert bugs get ironed out.
I would love to see these planes in the U livery tomorrow...but I like to think and dream big as opposed to the approach of thinking smaller that we are taking of late.
ITRADE
Veteran
Was looking through a variety of production lists, and the most appetizing thing available appears to be four A-330-223s delivered to Swissair but transferred to Air Caraibes. They too are PW4168 engined aircraft.
Suffice it to say, these may very well be the majority of A330s that are in storage around the world - certainly the only ones that would represent any type of a common type.
Of course, Air Caraibes gets its transatlantic service off the ground, its all academic.
Suffice it to say, these may very well be the majority of A330s that are in storage around the world - certainly the only ones that would represent any type of a common type.
Of course, Air Caraibes gets its transatlantic service off the ground, its all academic.
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,566
- 37
You do realize that many of UAs 762s are the oldest production models still flying and that in many (if not most) combinations the flight deck and powerplant are not the same as the variants U is currently flying.Chip Munn said:
I guess your supposition is that US should bring the DC-9s, MD-80s, and the Fokkers out of retirement. Who needs fleet commonality?
