VA deferring aircraft deliveries

[weasel_lips]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/04/22/355900/virgin-america-plans-aircraft-deferrals.html

Virgin America plans aircraft deferrals
By Lori Ranson
Virgin America is deferring some of its Airbus narrowbody deliveries scheduled for 2012 and 2013 to ease fuel cost volatility.
Virgin America's fuel costs in 2010 increased 65.3% to $246 million and carrier CEO David Cush warns in a statement that "oil prices remain a concern", and a result the carrier plans to "tap the brakes slightly on our 2012 growth plans".
A carrier spokeswoman explains Virgin America is deferring six A320 family aircraft scheduled for the latter half of 2012 and seven aircraft scheduled for delivery in 2013.
Virgin America ended 2010 with 34 aircraft and now operates a total of 39 Airbus narrowbodies. By year-end 2011 its fleet will grow to 46 aircraft, and "continue to grow overall in 2012-2013", the carrier's spokeswoman explains.

 

[NEDude]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/04/22/355900/virgin-america-plans-aircraft-deferrals.html

Virgin America plans aircraft deferrals
By Lori Ranson
Virgin America is deferring some of its Airbus narrowbody deliveries scheduled for 2012 and 2013 to ease fuel cost volatility.
Virgin America's fuel costs in 2010 increased 65.3% to $246 million and carrier CEO David Cush warns in a statement that "oil prices remain a concern", and a result the carrier plans to "tap the brakes slightly on our 2012 growth plans".
A carrier spokeswoman explains Virgin America is deferring six A320 family aircraft scheduled for the latter half of 2012 and seven aircraft scheduled for delivery in 2013.
Virgin America ended 2010 with 34 aircraft and now operates a total of 39 Airbus narrowbodies. By year-end 2011 its fleet will grow to 46 aircraft, and "continue to grow overall in 2012-2013", the carrier's spokeswoman explains.

The article is a bit misleading. VX is not deferring any deliveries of committed aircraft, they are simply not exercising the options they had with leasing companies for 2012 and 2013. There are still seven more aircraft coming in 2011 - no change there, and six more aircraft for 2012. Neither of those are changes. In July of last year the company outlined the plan for the next few years and they showed a graph with committed deliveries and committed deliveries plus options. This latest news shows us exactly on par with the committed deliveries plan that was presented to the company last July.

 

[A320kid]

The article is a bit misleading. VX is not deferring any deliveries of committed aircraft, they are simply not exercising the options they had with leasing companies for 2012 and 2013. There are still seven more aircraft coming in 2011 - no change there, and six more aircraft for 2012. Neither of those are changes. In July of last year the company outlined the plan for the next few years and they showed a graph with committed deliveries and committed deliveries plus options. This latest news shows us exactly on par with the committed deliveries plan that was presented to the company last July.

NEDude, is it still looking like a 4 year upgrade without these options?

 

[twasurfer]

yes-coming from a fall 2010 hire- 3-4 year upgrade

 

[NEDude]

yes-coming from a fall 2010 hire- 3-4 year upgrade

Also keep in mind, none of this news is regarding the 60 aircraft scheduled for delivery starting in late 2013. That is still a go as planned.

 

[BLUE BAYOU]

If oil prices continue their rise then VX is in trouble. Their stage length includes many transcons, something you don't want with high oil prices. They need to find some nice, profitable short routes to mix in with their current route structure.

 

[B6Busdriver]

If oil prices continue their rise then VX is in trouble. Their stage length includes many transcons, something you don't want with high oil prices. They need to find some nice, profitable short routes to mix in with their current route structure.

Wow, that's genius! I'm sure Richard Branson never thought of that!

 

[RJ Bum]

two B6 guys going at it out over a better VA route structure... classic....

 

[Fubijaakr]

Yeah, the guys who wanted to convince the FAA to give them a waiver to fly transcon turns...

 

[curtaindriver]

Yeah, the guys who wanted to convince the FAA to give them a waiver to fly transcon turns...

Careful bro, I don't know any pilots at JetBlue who wanted this......or for that matter were even asked their opinion. The "guys" were Neeleman.

CD

 

[doz4dllrs]

Didn't they use anal probes for the study about the transcons? Was that true or a rumor?

 

[Fubijaakr]

Careful bro, I don't know any pilots at JetBlue who wanted this......or for that matter were even asked their opinion. The "guys" were Neeleman.

CD

BS. You had at least 28 pilots who were in danger of losing their licenses because they flew the unapproved "proving runs." Every one of them was a volunteer.

 

[curtaindriver]

BS. You had at least 28 pilots who were in danger of losing their licenses because they flew the unapproved "proving runs." Every one of them was a volunteer.

We had approval from the POI, who subsequently got in trouble for sanctioning this. Like I said, I didn't know any.......... and 28 pilots is hardly a representative of this pilot group.

Just to add a note: Although I personally think a transcon turn is dangerous for 2 pilots, the idea of working 10 days a month and crediting 90-92 hours is enticing.

CD

 

[bluechunks]

We had approval from the POI, who subsequently got in trouble for sanctioning this. Like I said, I didn't know any...

I did.

The issue was not only the POI; for example several crews at the direction of JetBlue flew segments without a legal additional crewmember as required by part 121 supplemental. This is where the spam really hit the fan and it is only because the FAA was directly involved in the nonsense that the whole thing magically went quietly away.

Just to add a note: Although I personally think a transcon turn is dangerous for 2 pilots, the idea of working 10 days a month and crediting 90-92 hours is enticing.

It is. And that is also the problem.

If crews are only working 10 days a month how long do you think it will take the ATA to petition the FAA to relax weekly and monthly limits? After that, there will be pressure on hourly pay since a pilot could easily earn >$300k annually flying domestically with relaxed limits. Their ultimate goal: pilots working >150 hours/month for the same annual W-2 as today.

After all the dust settles we all could easily end up working more for the same paycheck. IMHO, no thanks.

 

[curtaindriver]

I did.

The issue was not only the POI; for example several crews at the direction of JetBlue flew segments without a legal additional crewmember as required by part 121 supplemental. This is where the spam really hit the fan and it is only because the FAA was directly involved in the nonsense that the whole thing magically went quietly away.


It is. And that is also the problem.

If crews are only working 10 days a month how long do you think it will take the ATA to petition the FAA to relax weekly and monthly limits? After that, there will be pressure on hourly pay since a pilot could easily earn >$300k annually flying domestically with relaxed limits. Their ultimate goal: pilots working >150 hours/month for the same annual W-2 as today.

After all the dust settles we all could easily end up working more for the same paycheck. IMHO, no thanks.

I agree. I was just saying it was an enticing thought. But, I know....you know that JB management wasn't doing it for us. And just to clarify......I believe it is/was dangerous.

CD