President of Skybus is a former SWA Chief Pilot???

[myq2u]

Was this guy really a chief pilot at SWA?

Why would he get jump the ship for another Ultra+ ((LCC)²)³ Airline?


Kenneth Gile
President & Chief Operating Officer
Ken is one COO who knows his way around an airplane. He began his career in the Air Force, serving as a pilot and instructor for six years before moving on to Southwest Airlines in 1979. He spent the next 25 years with Southwest, working his way up from Line Pilot to Instructor to Airline Chief Pilot to Director of Flight Operations.
In 2004, Ken brought his experience managing line operations, flight operations and maintenance to Skybus, providing leadership that will help Skybus become the premier low-cost, low-fare carrier in the United States.

Link

 

[atrflier]

I'm not sure why that kind of guys will be going to this place. Dave Tzounakis ( think thats how you spell it) was one of the first scabs to leaves TSA for Gojets (Management), and he just left Go jets to go there. I would have to say it must suck!!

 

[COpilot]

I'm not in management, but I've work under them. (no pun)

Anyway it seems that when you get to that certain level, you can tell if there is a glass ceiling that's going to either stop you or let you continue advancement. Often if it stops them, then they move on to someplace else.

Thats the great thing about high management in the airline world; once your in the circle with these people, you always have a job moving around bringing in the same old ideals, and business plans.

 

[SWA2000]

Yes, he is a former chief pilot for WN who left with about a year to go till retirement

 

[Shrek]

I'm not sure why that kind of guys will be going to this place. Dave Tzounakis ( think thats how you spell it) was one of the first scabs to leaves TSA for Gojets (Management), and he just left Go jets to go there. I would have to say it must suck!!

DT would have been fine............lol

 

[Speedbird87]

Its must say something for the Airbus 319 when the COO picks the Airbus over the 737 since he has 25 years flying the Boeing.

 

[starchkr]

Yeah, they were cheaper...

 

[satpak77]

Its must say something for the Airbus 319 when the COO picks the Airbus over the 737 since he has 25 years flying the Boeing.

Airbus = cheap to buy, expensive to keep
Boeing = expensive to buy, cheap to keep

there are no startups that can afford a fleet of 737-800s

the french will give the plane away to get you in the door

Boeing does not have to

So yes, it DOES say something about Airbus

 

[Speedbird87]

You would think that if a company is going to place a order for 64 aircraft that Boeing would match what ever deal that Airbus comes up with. It just seems to me that Boeing says ok here is the price take it or leave it and lets Airbus win.

 

[goahead]

Air Force is the only reason I can think of........

 

[satpak77]

You would think that if a company is going to place a order for 64 aircraft that Boeing would match what ever deal that Airbus comes up with. It just seems to me that Boeing says ok here is the price take it or leave it and lets Airbus win.

(another "must be a reason" statement)

Boeing is tapped out and does not have 64 airplanes laying around right now

Airbus does

must be a reason

 

[General Lee]

Airbus = cheap to buy, expensive to keep
Boeing = expensive to buy, cheap to keep

there are no startups that can afford a fleet of 737-800s

the french will give the plane away to get you in the door

Boeing does not have to

So yes, it DOES say something about Airbus

How about Spicejet in India? They have plenty of new 738s, with winglets.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[MRYFLYER]

(another "must be a reason" statement)

Boeing is tapped out and does not have 64 airplanes laying around right now

Airbus does

must be a reason

Not exactly true. Airbus is ramping up production 320 series aircraft to 34 a month to try and keep up with demand. According the flight international the line is sold out but like Boeing there are always planes if you really want them. I think skybus probably chose the Bus for the economics of the airplane and comfort for the pax.

 

[Guitar Guy]

You would think that if a company is going to place a order for 64 aircraft that Boeing would match what ever deal that Airbus comes up with. It just seems to me that Boeing says ok here is the price take it or leave it and lets Airbus win.

I worked at Boeing for several years, spending a good amount of time with the sales force. I can tell you that at least back then, they refused to make deals just to get market share when it meant selling planes at a loss. Put another way, Boeing is a business whose purpose is to turn a profit, they're not a government works program.

 

[MRYFLYER]

I worked at Boeing for several years, spending a good amount of time with the sales force. I can tell you that at least back then, they refused to make deals just to get market share when it meant selling planes at a loss. Put another way, Boeing is a business whose purpose is to turn a profit, they're not a government works program.

You are correct. The C17 and the 767 tanker program show how far apart Boeing is from a goverment works program. How many CEO's did the corruption at Boeing take out?

 

[Guitar Guy]

You are correct. The C17 and the 767 tanker program show how far apart Boeing is from a goverment works program. How many CEO's did the corruption at Boeing take out?

Can you explain the commercial side of Boeing and say, the success and longevity of the 747 and 737? By the way, the C-17 was a McD-D project that Boeing inherited, like the MD-95/717 and MD-11.

As for Condit and Stonecipher, who I think you are alluding to, good riddance to both of them. Condit, especially, was very bad for Boeing in a number of ways.

 

[SkiFishFly]

You are correct. The C17 and the 767 tanker program show how far apart Boeing is from a goverment works program. How many CEO's did the corruption at Boeing take out?

These programs are not gov work programs. These aircraft are an important part of this countries defense capabilities. The C-17 is a tremendous platform and in the long run I believe it will prove to be a tremendous purchase/value. It has already proven itself many times over.
Tankers are vital to the AIr Force and Navy. The ones the AF has are getting very old and have been heavily used. A replacement is definitely needed.
Not sure how these legitimate defense programs could be considered a "jobs" program. Especially when the defense contractors usually are profitable on these programs, and are often permitted to sell to foriegn militaries (again at a profit). Additionally, these companies return this increased value to their shareholders.

 

[big_al]

so why is the C-17 production being closed down then if it is so successful?

 

[scrub]

don't kid yourself, every industry in this country is subsidised to some extent with taxpayer dollars!!

 

[satpak77]

How about Spicejet in India? They have plenty of new 738s, with winglets.

Bye Bye--General Lee

exactly my point.

Boeing currently does NOT have anything to give to Skybus, a new upstart. Spicejet fleet is only like 10 airplanes by the way.

 

[MRYFLYER]

These programs are not gov work programs. These aircraft are an important part of this countries defense capabilities. The C-17 is a tremendous platform and in the long run I believe it will prove to be a tremendous purchase/value. It has already proven itself many times over.
Tankers are vital to the AIr Force and Navy. The ones the AF has are getting very old and have been heavily used. A replacement is definitely needed.
Not sure how these legitimate defense programs could be considered a "jobs" program. Especially when the defense contractors usually are profitable on these programs, and are often permitted to sell to foriegn militaries (again at a profit). Additionally, these companies return this increased value to their shareholders.

Sure tankers and other military aircraft are needed but Airbus has optional aircraft to the boeing offerings also. The US taxpayers pay for Boeings peaks and valleys of earnings on commerical aircraft.

 

[Guitar Guy]

Sure tankers and other military aircraft are needed but Airbus has optional aircraft to the boeing offerings also. The US taxpayers pay for Boeings peaks and valleys of earnings on commerical aircraft.

Are you suggesting that companies should be barred from selling to the government at a price that yields a profit?

 

[Oh-ryan]

Sure tankers and other military aircraft are needed but Airbus has optional aircraft to the boeing offerings also. The US taxpayers pay for Boeings peaks and valleys of earnings on commerical aircraft.

Airbus is owned by EADS which is basically the Eurpopean Union. If it weren't for EU tax dollars Airbus might be T.U. Most all know about the 18 month (at least) delay for the A380. Their only true military venture (A400M) is dragging along at a snails pace plus delays/uncertainty about the A350XWB (replacement for the 330/340) program has Airbus on thin ice and stretched to it's limits. I don't think I would be handing them any huge contracts right about now. Again, Airbus gets money from the EU without even selling a single plane. Not true for Boeing. They may get huge contracts, but the understanding is that eventually there will be the delivery of a product.

That being said, I hope Airbus pulls through. If it weren't for them breathing down Boeing's neck during the 90's you wouldn't have seen the 737NG, 747-4 or the 787 come along. Competition is good.

 

[SkiFishFly]

Sure tankers and other military aircraft are needed but Airbus has optional aircraft to the boeing offerings also. The US taxpayers pay for Boeings peaks and valleys of earnings on commerical aircraft.

As a taxpayer, I think that all military contracts should go to a US owned corporation. There is no reason we should be putting money into the profits of an EU company. Let the Europeans take care of that.

 

[DOVPILOT]

Was this guy really a chief pilot at SWA?

Why would he get jump the ship for another Ultra+ ((LCC)²)³ Airline?

Why so he can screw SWA up the A$$ like SWA has done to everyone else, scum bags you'll get what you deserve.

 

[SkiFishFly]

so why is the C-17 production being closed down then if it is so successful?

Because the AF Leadership feels that they have bought enough of them to cover the mission for which it was acquired. If you have the proper numbers in service (plus some level of spares/reserves) then to buy more is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
If the C-17 program were a "jobs" program as someone suggested, then the gov would just keep the line open indefinitely...

 

[JimNtexas]

Sure tankers and other military aircraft are needed but Airbus has optional aircraft to the boeing offerings also. The US taxpayers pay for Boeings peaks and valleys of earnings on commerical aircraft.

Airbus/EADS does more military contracts than Boeing.

This weeks AV&ST has an interesting article on the current freak-out on the part of the German goverment due to the failure of the A380 program. The Germans want their goverment to buy a large share of Airbus.

The Brits, on the other hand, closed the sale of their share of Airbus this month.

 

[sonny320]

I thought this thread was about a former SWA Chief Pilot that's working for Skybus, did I miss something??

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

. The C-17 is a tremendous platform and in the long run I believe it will prove to be a tremendous purchase/value. It has already proven itself many times over.

You are victim of Government Big-Wig marketing.

Yeah, tremendously expensive. You can't even hope to fill it up in theater since there isn't enough cargo lined up for it. It flies around empty in theater or near empty back to Europe/North America...A LOT. Wastes gas like its going out of style. And it requires lots of tanker support. That's one big reason why the tankers are getting so beat up. The others are JSTARS and Fighter orbits.

Now that the C-17 is going out of production (Pentagon is getting as many as Congress will let them) The C-130J can now get going again. The real workhorse of airlift in tactical environments.


The Porsche 911 Turbo is a tremendous car, too. It does its "job" very well. Doesn't mean its a good value for the taxpayer. But sure is fun to drive.


Thread Hijack now over...