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

 

[oldxfr8dog]

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.

Pretty easy to find 28 guys out of 2000 when the pay was so good. They weren't flying nearly as much as they were being credited and they were credited A LOT, as in an extra 40-50 hours of time-and-a-half. It went very senior.
The sad thing is that the test data reflected better alertness and in a perfect world could have been safer.
The reality is that neither jetblue nor any other airline that I know of has the integrity to operate the flights as tested. One mx delay, one tech stop, one medical divert, etc, and it would have become a 16 hour duty day with a transcon turn.
Plus, the camel's nose was under the tent: Jb was already thinking of "L"-shaped pairings. LGB-JFL-FLL. More than 8 hours, but completely defeating the purpose of staying in your circadian rhythm.
Quietly or not, I'm glad it was stillborn.

 

[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.

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.

First its all Neeleman...no pilots wanted to do this. Sounds like you need to get your story straight.

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.

Of course you do.

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.

Thank you for your honesty. Amazing how revisionist history has taken hold with the junior pilots at jetBlue.

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.

Exactly the point I brought up at the time. If jetBlue was granted the waiver, Alaska Airlines would have been in there the next day asking for the same thing. And so would every other carrier who had transcon service on the schedule. And the results would have been exactly what Chunky describes.

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.

Nice backpedal. But I bet you would have done it without saying boo. Perhaps you need to listen to some of you older, wiser Captains.

The reality is that neither jetblue nor any other airline that I know of has the integrity to operate the flights as tested. One mx delay, one tech stop, one medical divert, etc, and it would have become a 16 hour duty day with a transcon turn.

I disagree. As long as the glitches were infrequent, EVERY airline would have loved this kind of waiver. Sure, they might occasionally run into a problem, but airlines deal with that every day. And as long as you have pilots willing to extend their duty periods and/or reserves on both coasts to cover these eventualities, the program is ON.

Quietly or not, I'm glad it was stillborn.

Amen to that. Personally, I wish the "experiment" had never taken place. Pilot Unions (not just ALPA) have fought for flight time/duty time limits, WOCL limits and adequate rest requirements for 75 years only to ALMOST having the whole thing undone by a bunch of rah-rah non-Union jamokes trying to kiss up to jetBlue management. And why did they do it? Because AT THE TIME the wage rate was such that maxing out on overtime was the only way to come close to Legacy wages.

 

[Hair-on-Fire]

While JetBlue did a few test flights, nothing became of this. However, over at Delta, about the same time, they got FAA approval to exceed the 16 hour duty limit to operate their JFK-BOM flight.

 

[curtaindriver]

First its all Neeleman...no pilots wanted to do this. Sounds like you need to get your story straight.



Of course you do.



Thank you for your honesty. Amazing how revisionist history has taken hold with the junior pilots at jetBlue.



Exactly the point I brought up at the time. If jetBlue was granted the waiver, Alaska Airlines would have been in there the next day asking for the same thing. And so would every other carrier who had transcon service on the schedule. And the results would have been exactly what Chunky describes.



Nice backpedal. But I bet you would have done it without saying boo. Perhaps you need to listen to some of you older, wiser Captains.



I disagree. As long as the glitches were infrequent, EVERY airline would have loved this kind of waiver. Sure, they might occasionally run into a problem, but airlines deal with that every day. And as long as you have pilots willing to extend their duty periods and/or reserves on both coasts to cover these eventualities, the program is ON.



Amen to that. Personally, I wish the "experiment" had never taken place. Pilot Unions (not just ALPA) have fought for flight time/duty time limits, WOCL limits and adequate rest requirements for 75 years only to ALMOST having the whole thing undone by a bunch of rah-rah non-Union jamokes trying to kiss up to jetBlue management. And why did they do it? Because AT THE TIME the wage rate was such that maxing out on overtime was the only way to come close to Legacy wages.

Back pedal? I said it was dangerous in both of my posts. Somebody, maybe you said 28 pilots, obviously know more than I do about it. I referred to your post when you painted this whole pilot group with the same brush. So, are you one of those older and wiser captains I should be listening to? I'll grant you the older. Anybody who doesn't think 10 days of work for 90 hours of pay is enticing is a liar. And again, just so you can sink this in.......myself and anybody else that I know here DID NOT know this was happening, 28 pilots don't represent this pilot group.

CD

 

[Hair-on-Fire]

Fubijaakr has obviously made a lot of poor choices in his life and is looking for someone to blame for the outcome.