AirTran in talks with Airbus

[-9Capt]

The rumor was just confirmed by our union.

Klaus Gorsch, VP of Flt Ops, is in Europe talking with Airbus. Some think management is trying to twist Boeings arm for some cheap 737's.

Personally I'd be suprised to see anything Airbus on the property with Boeing as heavly invested in AirTran as it is.

 

[ifly4food]

Sounds like a scheme to me. I'll believe it when I see A320s pulled up to Concourse C.

 

[Pilot69]

I would like to see B757 or B737-800 at concourse C That would be better than Airbus since Boeing has alot in us right now.

 

[jackofdiamonds]

airbus

actually you wont see the airbus pulling up to the "C" concourse but going over to the maintainence area!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TurboS7]

You will see a B737-800 at concourse C in about 3 weeks, it was on our bid sheets.Done deal. I agree with the above, you guys are getting B737-800's but they are checking out Airbus just to make sure. Personally for Airtran the 738 is perfect, you can make non-stop ATL-LAX with 174 pax and land with about 5K on the fuel, or 12,000 pounds. There are a lot of cheap( if you want to call 150,000 per month cheap) leases out there right now.

 

[DCitrus9]

turbos7, what is the seating configuration on your -800's? Just wondering how many seats we could run if we had 12 or 16 business class seats.
Although 757's would be great, I'm fairly sure the 737-800 is going to be our best priced deal out there- and they're shopping for new or at least young airplanes.

 

[TurboS7]

When we do contract work in Europe we have the aircraft in 189 seat configuration. The Brits don't seem to mind, they are going on holiday. We have ours in 174 seat configuration no first class. I heard from a bird on the wall that we are going to configure the airplane with a first class for you guys( we have authorization from the FAA to do all kinds of configurations) My guess is that you would have 12 to 16 first class with 130 to 140 in the back. I have about 1000 hours in the 737-800 now and it would be a dynamite airplane for your type operation. I wish that we had 757 as we do a lot of long haul flights and we have to still make a fuel stop to get to Europe from the U.S. I call it the Voltswagon, cause that is what it is. Reliable and cheap to operate. I didn't bid Airtran stuff for personal reasons, it is just FLL-ATL-FLL anyway, maybe I'll pick some of it up on my days off. My guess is that you guys will use us as a stepping stone to getting your own. All that is left is a security and ground handling training for your people. Part of the deal is we give you all the numbers so they can use the airplane for analyis.

 

[sabreliner]

Is that Miami Air that will be doing that -800 flying? If it is, then they were here a bunch this summer with the -800 and 727's. Also saw Trans-Meridian on AirTran gates a bunch.

Sounds like the AirTran guys have the same problem we do at ASA-

WE NEED SCOPE!!!

 

[Flynfish]

It's my understanding that the only 73-800's you'll see on concourse C will be Miami Air's planes. At least for the time being. I heard that there won't be any new types of planes till next year.

 

[TurboS7]

We fly for everyone, AA,Airtran, Suriname Airways, Bahamasair, etc. etc. Your scope stuff doesn't work very well when you write something up and ground and airplane and go home. The people have to move and if you don't have the equipment you call a charter operator. Once your equipment is on line, or your training is done we disappear, this has nothing to do with scope.

 

[Boeingman]

The people have to move and if you don't have the equipment you call a charter operator. Once your equipment is on line, or your training is done we disappear, this has nothing to do with scope.

Moving any revenue passenger of another carrier, for whatever reason or excuse, is a scope issue.

 

[TurboS7]

Sorry guy, free skies, free country, and everything is deregulated SCOPE in your context went out in the 70's.

 

[DougCorp-9]

Miami Air at Airtran

Our contract at Airtran allows management to contract out a certain amount of flying for 6 months in a 12 month period. This was allowed so that when a market opportunity arises that we can get in even if we don't have the crews or equipment available. The contracting is only used until we can get the new equipment and crews to operate the route ourselves. We make more cash when we operate them ourselves. If we did not allow this then opportunities would pass and be taken by other carriers. We have been doing alot of expanding in the BMI market and cannot train the crews fast enough. Miami Air has been contracted to to do some of our ATL-FLL routes. It just so happens that these routes are usually overbooked. With Miami Air using a 738 we will be able to sell more seats in that market and generate more revenue untill we can increase the frequency ourselves.

 

[TurboS7]

Thankyou. I did start a new thread with some issues that we are dealing with more than U.S. carrier to carrier scope. We should all be concerned about these issues as the world gets smaller and smaller. Check it out.

 

[Boeingman]

Sorry guy, free skies, free country, and everything is deregulated SCOPE in your context went out in the 70's.

Youre talking in circles here. It has nothing to do with deregulation.

Our contract still has Scope clauses in black and white terminology and it was negotiated in the 90's.

I would expect you to argue about it because it is a threat to your type of operation.

 

[Ty Webb]

Sorry, Guy, but your beef is not with Turbo, it's with your company and your union.

At AirTran, it is not a scope issue at all, as another person pointed out. We have protection against that, if we needed it, but we don't need it- the Company could operate our own equipment cheaper than we can ACMI it.

We simply don't have the crews to fly the airplanes we have parked at ATL right now. Crews are being hired and trained, but until they are on-line, Miami Air will fill that gap.

I don't want to see the Company pass on the $$$ or turn away business. When we have the manpower, we'll do it ourselves.

We have hired 120 since Nov. and will have hired 300+ by the end of the year. You can only train a certain amount of people with the limited sim and training facilities we have in place.

PS., For what it's worth, the rumor around the training center was that we were looking at -700, not -800.

 

[TurboS7]

700 has another 500nm of range over the 800 and for all pratical purposes carries the same amount of people.

 

[Boeingman]

Sorry, Guy, but your beef is not with Turbo, it's with your company and your union.

I don't have a beef with either of you guys. If you want to farm out your flying and cut your own throats...have at it. In the long run it will work against you.

All I am saying is a solid scope clause prevents this scenario from happening (and then some) and keeps OUR pilots flying OUR passengers on OUR aircraft.

My point to Turbo is no matter how he sugarcoats it, at an airline with scope protection, this would not happen.

 

[-9Capt]

Boeingman,

Believe me, I understand your point.

However, AirTran does have a scope clause covering sub-service by other carriers which puts limits on the ammount of flying and duration it can go on.

If the company (AirTran) was not hiring, not expanding, and not recieving new aircraft, I would agree with you 100%. The fact of the matter is the company is growing and hiring as fast as they can, some would argue faster than they can.

In this case I don't see a problem farming out some flying (up to the limits of the scope clause) while the company expands to eventually handle it themselves.

In the long run every pilot on the property will be better off beacuse of it.

Happy Flying.