Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Delta to Drop CHQ?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
well after reading 4 pages I had to just reply without reading the rest of the pages (got annoying) so sorry if this is said...

As far as our on time numbers with the 170..that has already changed because interesting a new load went into the FMS of the airplanes that if a cargo door is still open....either cargo door, forward or aft..as long as all 4 doors are armed/vent flap closed) when the captain releases the parking brake...airplane is considered in flight....even though forward or aft cargo door is open.

Had all delta trips for feb and 1st and 2nd week of feb the upload wasn't in the FMS but this last delta trip I just did...we were not late at all :) :) :) :)

I guess we are going to have to do what we did with United when we got the 170s for them under chautauqua. It worked with United b/c we were threaten to lose the united flying because our on time perf was horrible. Turns out the real reason was b/c we had to call 10 times for paperwork...5 times for fuel and 3 or 4 times for catering. once we had documented proof of this...United shut their pie holes! I am sure we will start doing the same for Delta but at least its great now we can clock out on time now with this new upload.
 
I hope DL doesnt want us, then we can take away their 170 b/c every other airline would pick them up in a heartbeat. If DL wants to give away agreat plane and product more power to them. I cant wait to see pax reaction when they get to the gate in CLE and see a 700 waiting to take them on their 4 hour trip to SLC.
I actually had a pax in CLE ask me is this plane is the 170 he heard about, i told him yest and he said how excited he was about flying on it, and he has heard great things about it.

just my 2 cents
 
ilinipilot said:
I hope DL doesnt want us, then we can take away their 170 b/c every other airline would pick them up in a heartbeat. If DL wants to give away agreat plane and product more power to them. I cant wait to see pax reaction when they get to the gate in CLE and see a 700 waiting to take them on their 4 hour trip to SLC.
I actually had a pax in CLE ask me is this plane is the 170 he heard about, i told him yest and he said how excited he was about flying on it, and he has heard great things about it.

just my 2 cents
Your 2 cents are worthless.

EMB170Pilot said:
I guess we are going to have to do what we did with United when we got the 170s for them under chautauqua. It worked with United b/c we were threaten to lose the united flying because our on time perf was horrible. Turns out the real reason was b/c we had to call 10 times for paperwork...5 times for fuel and 3 or 4 times for catering. once we had documented proof of this...United shut their pie holes! I am sure we will start doing the same for Delta but at least its great now we can clock out on time now with this new upload.
This is not the problem with the SA DL flying. The problem is everything is blocked incorrectly. 4 hours for DTW-SLC when the flight time is 4+10 is not going to help our on-time performance.

Plus having the maintenance spare in CMH when almost everything goes in and out of SLC does not make much sense to me. Why not put the spare in SLC?
 
The 170 is a great airplane, and the frequent flyers out of SLC are loving them. The on time issues will iron themselves out...
 
SlapShot said:
Your 2 cents are worthless.


This is not the problem with the SA DL flying. The problem is everything is blocked incorrectly. 4 hours for DTW-SLC when the flight time is 4+10 is not going to help our on-time performance.

Plus having the maintenance spare in CMH when almost everything goes in and out of SLC does not make much sense to me. Why not put the spare in SLC?
B.C you dont have a base in SLC, and thus cant have anyone there standing by to fly it.
 
If a crew brings a broke airplane into SLC, they can then fly the spare. You do not need to have a crew standing by.
 
TH45 said:
soon enough 190's for 50 seat pay it never ends... we are ruining our future IMHO

Never happen. DL will sink before that happens. We are working on a 100 seat pay rate anyway, and we won't give up on scope. ALL of the FOs and half of the Captains will agree.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 

Latest resources

Back
Top