AT7^DRIVER
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2003
- Posts
- 32
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
jetblue EMB-190 pay??!!!
- Thread starter Dizel8
- Start date
- Watchers 48
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
CatYaaak
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2002
- Posts
- 809
As you have alluded to, flying boxes and flying passengers are two completely seperate industries, similar aircraft notwithstanding. What's next, someone who's never had experience with cabin crews or pax giving sage advice on whether a pilot should help the F/As tidy up a cabin, or the criteria and appropriate use of a Captain's authority to de-plane a passenger? Nah, that wouldn't happen...would it?Dizel8 said:
Last edited:
Finally
Finally someone else listens to Calvin.
G4G5, whether or not you read my rants on this "shot himself in the foot" move by Neeleman, or not. I couldn't agree more. Like I said, I imagine that airline CEO's nationwide are jumping for joy to have this new scale to bargain with. If the competion gets those wages now, they will have effectively negated B6's advantage and gained a twelve month head start.
Again, I say that publishing the scale was a STUPID move. Now their own pilots are pissed, and the competition gets a head start. For that kind of inside information, Martha Stewart is going to jail!!!!!!!!!
But what do I know, I just drive airplanes.
Hobbes
G4G5 said:
Finally someone else listens to Calvin.
G4G5, whether or not you read my rants on this "shot himself in the foot" move by Neeleman, or not. I couldn't agree more. Like I said, I imagine that airline CEO's nationwide are jumping for joy to have this new scale to bargain with. If the competion gets those wages now, they will have effectively negated B6's advantage and gained a twelve month head start.
Again, I say that publishing the scale was a STUPID move. Now their own pilots are pissed, and the competition gets a head start. For that kind of inside information, Martha Stewart is going to jail!!!!!!!!!
But what do I know, I just drive airplanes.
Hobbes
767-300ER
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2003
- Posts
- 156
Chautauqua EMB170/190 Rates
I just put up Chautauqua's new EMB170/190 rates tonight:
www.airlinepilotpay.com
I just put up Chautauqua's new EMB170/190 rates tonight:
www.airlinepilotpay.com
Lowcur
Are you insinuating that UAIR will liquidate by then? I'll take that bet.
G4G5
The long term prospects of USA remaining in anything that resembles it's current size and shape are not good. To quote Larkfield from last week.
"We haven't yet closed the books on the second quarter, but it looks like there may even be a chance that we break even," said Bruce Lakefield.He quickly offered a caveat: "While that's a glimmer of good news, remember that the second quarter is traditionally US Airways' strongest, and we count on it to help carry us through the year."
So, no money made during their strongest quater and SWA smells blood (see recent fare sale), the tough fall and winter yet to go. Are you actually telling me that they will be able to maintain their ATSB required $800 million, when they only have $1.1 billion. That equates to having just $300 mil in cash to get them through another year.
Bet taken, where are you located so I can get my free beer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So your point is the 175 would be a totally new a/c from the 170, and subject to a whole new shakeout than the 170. That's funny. You mention the 175 let's look at Airbus. Knock Knock McFly? Now you're talking to yourself.
G4G5
No, I am talking to you and the ironic thing is that you answered. What I am saying is that they are planning on bring 4 totally new, different airframes to the market place at one time, the 170/175/190 &195. Are you telling me that this can be done with out ANY difficulties?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
How popular is the A319? Pretty popular.
G4G5
Really what percentage of 319s do you think are sold Vs the 320? Even better how may A318's are out there? History has taught us that the smallest airframe traditionally sells the worst. Are you saying that this is not the case?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That for the first time the 175 will out sell the 190? No.
G4G5
Then why are you arguing that LUV will eventually purchase the smaller airframe? If history has taught us one thing more people will be flying in the future. LUV can create demand with their ticket prices if they have the supply. You said "the CASM's on the 190 were on par with those of the 175." If the costs of flying the 195 are even remotely close to the 170/175, why choose the smaller aircraft? Jetblue seems to think along those lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I believe the decision at LGB to reduce B6's slots to 22 had something to do with that deal. But they still run a handful of flights down from OAK that do quite nicely, thankyou. B6 has chosen to use their assets for most of the slots at LGB for transcon. Are they making money? Well most of the flights are full, but yields are small, but I believe yes they are. The key for B6 by 2007 on the West Coast will be attrition of the other majors. Gates will begin to open up an LAX as UAL, UAIR, ATA, DL reduce flights or liquidate. As the infrastructure opens up, you will see B6 take on WN directly......it's inevitable.
G4G5
Again you ignore the question, how did they do in a fare war with LUV? You can talk slots out of LGB, the bottom line is they got their butts kicked because LUV has the assets to sell $39 seats to and from LAS all day long. I'm not bashing B6. In fact it's smart to get out. Why put an aircraft into a money losing fare war when you can get higher yield someplace else? But yet you continue to suggest this, is a good idea. My point is, you can put the 190 or the A320 or AA can put an MD80 up against LUV. Whomever whatever, they will lose. They are then low, cost 800 pound guerilla that drives the domestic fare structure.
As far as gate space, it doesn't come for free. It costs big money. IF UAL ever decides to reduce on the West coast those gates will no doubt be part of an asset sale, not just returned for free so that B6 can have them. The same goes for all the others. I will spell it out for you, its very rudimentary. If people want to go there and it has the possibility of making money, like your example LAX. Then it is worth something of value. Hence it will not be for free and their will be quite a lot of competition. LUV and AA are not just going to say, "we don't need the gates, give them to B6." If B6 or anyone else wants to expand their presence in LAX they will do it by paying big for a single gate or two just to get a foot in the door, subsequently they will face the vex of the others vying to maintain market share. This does not sound like a high yield proposition to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 737 is still cheaper the then 190.
Then why don't they publicly refute Embraer on their website? I guess that would cost too much money.
G4G5
No,
How many 190/195's are out on the line flying for air carriers? How do you expect Boeing or Airbus to publicly refute the numbers that another mfr., their is no real data, their are none out on the line, it's still a paper aircraft to Boeing and Airbus. The question becomes, why would you even acknoledge a paper aircraft, that has not effected you? They are not about to spend on cent helping to market the 190. Can you please provide a link to where Embraer compairs the costs of the 737-800 to the 190? I could not find anything on their web site. thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
G4G5
Years. Let's take the G4 that I fly. It has RR Tays on it. Their are over 500 G4's currently flying not to mention all the Foker 100's that are flying with RR Tays. FACT, the cost to overhaul the GE's on the 737 is still cheaper then the cost to overhaul the RR TAY. The same goes for brakes and associated rotable components. Training, what could be cheaper then FREE. All LUV pilots come with their type ratings. Are you actually going to try and tell us that their is an airline out there that has the resources available to get fuel at better hedged prices then LUV? If you are then you creditability is dropping quickly.
Lowcur
Talk about being all over the place, stop rambling. Buying futures is dependent upon the continued up-tick of oil. If it continues, then LUV will do quite nicely. If it flatens out or recedes, then the advantage eventually goes away.
G4G5,
I see that I need to keep it simple for you. The CF34 is an expensive motor to operate! Normal wear and tear items like engine overhauls, brakes, & rotable components are not covered under warranty. They cost money and come directly out of the operators pocket. When I was working as an A&P I had to send out a Challenger with CF34's for an overhaul, 10 years ago my cost for 2 motor's at TBO was $1.2 million. If you compare this to the R/R Tay on the 500+ G4's and the too many to name F100s, it is significantly greater. My cost for two Tays at overhaul 10 years ago was $750 million. The original design application for the CF34 was the A10 warthog. The gov does not care about the cost of engine overhauls. They wanted an extremely high bypass engine. The logic was that ground fire, shrapnel or FOD would be directed through the bypass not effecting the core. Subsequently what you have is an engine that's core is very small and has to work tremendously hard. It next application was the Challenger 601. Corporate flt dept's typically do not care about the cost of the overhaul either (if they can afford to operate one, one assumes they have the money). Typical TBO's for the CF34 are between 6000-7000 hours. It's third application, some 10 years later, was for the airlines, the Bombardier CRJ.
Unlike the CFM56 on the 737, that engine was originally designed for the commerical market. The typical TBO break down on the CFM56 run between 10,000 and 14,000 hours. It can stay on the aircraft 30-50% longer, before needing an overhaul! This is huge.
You can try and spin it anyway you want the CF56 is a cheaper motor to operate. That's just the way it is for motor's they are not all created equal and do not cost the same amounts to repair.
Now what about other components like brakes and pumps? How many rebuilt hyd pumps are available for the Embraer 170 series? What about vendors capable of rebuilding brakes? These are huge advantages that the 737 has and will take years if ever for the 170 series to catch up.
Are you insinuating that UAIR will liquidate by then? I'll take that bet.
G4G5
The long term prospects of USA remaining in anything that resembles it's current size and shape are not good. To quote Larkfield from last week.
"We haven't yet closed the books on the second quarter, but it looks like there may even be a chance that we break even," said Bruce Lakefield.He quickly offered a caveat: "While that's a glimmer of good news, remember that the second quarter is traditionally US Airways' strongest, and we count on it to help carry us through the year."
So, no money made during their strongest quater and SWA smells blood (see recent fare sale), the tough fall and winter yet to go. Are you actually telling me that they will be able to maintain their ATSB required $800 million, when they only have $1.1 billion. That equates to having just $300 mil in cash to get them through another year.
Bet taken, where are you located so I can get my free beer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So your point is the 175 would be a totally new a/c from the 170, and subject to a whole new shakeout than the 170. That's funny. You mention the 175 let's look at Airbus. Knock Knock McFly? Now you're talking to yourself.
G4G5
No, I am talking to you and the ironic thing is that you answered. What I am saying is that they are planning on bring 4 totally new, different airframes to the market place at one time, the 170/175/190 &195. Are you telling me that this can be done with out ANY difficulties?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
How popular is the A319? Pretty popular.
G4G5
Really what percentage of 319s do you think are sold Vs the 320? Even better how may A318's are out there? History has taught us that the smallest airframe traditionally sells the worst. Are you saying that this is not the case?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That for the first time the 175 will out sell the 190? No.
G4G5
Then why are you arguing that LUV will eventually purchase the smaller airframe? If history has taught us one thing more people will be flying in the future. LUV can create demand with their ticket prices if they have the supply. You said "the CASM's on the 190 were on par with those of the 175." If the costs of flying the 195 are even remotely close to the 170/175, why choose the smaller aircraft? Jetblue seems to think along those lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I believe the decision at LGB to reduce B6's slots to 22 had something to do with that deal. But they still run a handful of flights down from OAK that do quite nicely, thankyou. B6 has chosen to use their assets for most of the slots at LGB for transcon. Are they making money? Well most of the flights are full, but yields are small, but I believe yes they are. The key for B6 by 2007 on the West Coast will be attrition of the other majors. Gates will begin to open up an LAX as UAL, UAIR, ATA, DL reduce flights or liquidate. As the infrastructure opens up, you will see B6 take on WN directly......it's inevitable.
G4G5
Again you ignore the question, how did they do in a fare war with LUV? You can talk slots out of LGB, the bottom line is they got their butts kicked because LUV has the assets to sell $39 seats to and from LAS all day long. I'm not bashing B6. In fact it's smart to get out. Why put an aircraft into a money losing fare war when you can get higher yield someplace else? But yet you continue to suggest this, is a good idea. My point is, you can put the 190 or the A320 or AA can put an MD80 up against LUV. Whomever whatever, they will lose. They are then low, cost 800 pound guerilla that drives the domestic fare structure.
As far as gate space, it doesn't come for free. It costs big money. IF UAL ever decides to reduce on the West coast those gates will no doubt be part of an asset sale, not just returned for free so that B6 can have them. The same goes for all the others. I will spell it out for you, its very rudimentary. If people want to go there and it has the possibility of making money, like your example LAX. Then it is worth something of value. Hence it will not be for free and their will be quite a lot of competition. LUV and AA are not just going to say, "we don't need the gates, give them to B6." If B6 or anyone else wants to expand their presence in LAX they will do it by paying big for a single gate or two just to get a foot in the door, subsequently they will face the vex of the others vying to maintain market share. This does not sound like a high yield proposition to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 737 is still cheaper the then 190.
Then why don't they publicly refute Embraer on their website? I guess that would cost too much money.
G4G5
No,
How many 190/195's are out on the line flying for air carriers? How do you expect Boeing or Airbus to publicly refute the numbers that another mfr., their is no real data, their are none out on the line, it's still a paper aircraft to Boeing and Airbus. The question becomes, why would you even acknoledge a paper aircraft, that has not effected you? They are not about to spend on cent helping to market the 190. Can you please provide a link to where Embraer compairs the costs of the 737-800 to the 190? I could not find anything on their web site. thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
G4G5
Years. Let's take the G4 that I fly. It has RR Tays on it. Their are over 500 G4's currently flying not to mention all the Foker 100's that are flying with RR Tays. FACT, the cost to overhaul the GE's on the 737 is still cheaper then the cost to overhaul the RR TAY. The same goes for brakes and associated rotable components. Training, what could be cheaper then FREE. All LUV pilots come with their type ratings. Are you actually going to try and tell us that their is an airline out there that has the resources available to get fuel at better hedged prices then LUV? If you are then you creditability is dropping quickly.
Lowcur
Talk about being all over the place, stop rambling. Buying futures is dependent upon the continued up-tick of oil. If it continues, then LUV will do quite nicely. If it flatens out or recedes, then the advantage eventually goes away.
G4G5,
I see that I need to keep it simple for you. The CF34 is an expensive motor to operate! Normal wear and tear items like engine overhauls, brakes, & rotable components are not covered under warranty. They cost money and come directly out of the operators pocket. When I was working as an A&P I had to send out a Challenger with CF34's for an overhaul, 10 years ago my cost for 2 motor's at TBO was $1.2 million. If you compare this to the R/R Tay on the 500+ G4's and the too many to name F100s, it is significantly greater. My cost for two Tays at overhaul 10 years ago was $750 million. The original design application for the CF34 was the A10 warthog. The gov does not care about the cost of engine overhauls. They wanted an extremely high bypass engine. The logic was that ground fire, shrapnel or FOD would be directed through the bypass not effecting the core. Subsequently what you have is an engine that's core is very small and has to work tremendously hard. It next application was the Challenger 601. Corporate flt dept's typically do not care about the cost of the overhaul either (if they can afford to operate one, one assumes they have the money). Typical TBO's for the CF34 are between 6000-7000 hours. It's third application, some 10 years later, was for the airlines, the Bombardier CRJ.
Unlike the CFM56 on the 737, that engine was originally designed for the commerical market. The typical TBO break down on the CFM56 run between 10,000 and 14,000 hours. It can stay on the aircraft 30-50% longer, before needing an overhaul! This is huge.
You can try and spin it anyway you want the CF56 is a cheaper motor to operate. That's just the way it is for motor's they are not all created equal and do not cost the same amounts to repair.
Now what about other components like brakes and pumps? How many rebuilt hyd pumps are available for the Embraer 170 series? What about vendors capable of rebuilding brakes? These are huge advantages that the 737 has and will take years if ever for the 170 series to catch up.
continued
Lowcur
Talk about being all over the place, stop rambling. Buying futures is dependent upon the continued up-tick of oil. If it continues, then LUV will do quite nicely. If it flatens out or recedes, then the advantage eventually goes away.
G4G5
So buying oil futures "depends upon the continued up-tick of oil." Hummmm. If it's that simple then tell me why UAL, USAir and Delta have no oil futures? Could it have something to do with CASH! I again will make it simple. How has a better balance sheet then LUV. Who out there is going to be able to hedge fuel better then LUV? They will always be able to purchase fuel cheaper, hence offsetting any fuel saving that the 190 may have. The eventual fleet size of 700+ aircraft, when combined with LUV's market cap, available cash and cash flow will allow them to pay the fuel hedging market to it's fullest. They will allow LUV to get the best price for fuel, despite the "continued uptick of oil".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There has just been a major flip on rates. Do you think the pilots at LUV will agree to a 15-20% drop in pay to compete against the 190? The next 5 years for LUV are going to be difficult. If you thought the FA contract hassle was a problem for LUV, wait till you get a load of what happens with the pilots contract. Have you noticed that there has been very little discussion about this contract from WN pilots on this board. I'll bet if you go to the SWAPA board, it's like a Chinese fire drill of activity, as they discus what they can do to protect their pay rates. Again, you will see why male tigers eat their young.
G4G5
You and I will just have to agree to disagree. Do you think that the B6 pilots will be flying the 190 for those rates for an extended period of time. Do you think that, long term they will continue to be the only airline without a union? No, eventually their costs will come up, so it''s not necessarily a fact that LUV pilots will have to take a "15-20%" drop in pay. In fact the reality is if LUV continues to take market share form USAir out of places like PHL, continues to take market share from legacy carriers like AA in places like STL. They will continue to grow. If they eventually wind up doubling their fleet size over the next few years, as planned and continue to make money it will be extremely difficult to do what you suggest.
Lowcur
Talk about being all over the place, stop rambling. Buying futures is dependent upon the continued up-tick of oil. If it continues, then LUV will do quite nicely. If it flatens out or recedes, then the advantage eventually goes away.
G4G5
So buying oil futures "depends upon the continued up-tick of oil." Hummmm. If it's that simple then tell me why UAL, USAir and Delta have no oil futures? Could it have something to do with CASH! I again will make it simple. How has a better balance sheet then LUV. Who out there is going to be able to hedge fuel better then LUV? They will always be able to purchase fuel cheaper, hence offsetting any fuel saving that the 190 may have. The eventual fleet size of 700+ aircraft, when combined with LUV's market cap, available cash and cash flow will allow them to pay the fuel hedging market to it's fullest. They will allow LUV to get the best price for fuel, despite the "continued uptick of oil".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There has just been a major flip on rates. Do you think the pilots at LUV will agree to a 15-20% drop in pay to compete against the 190? The next 5 years for LUV are going to be difficult. If you thought the FA contract hassle was a problem for LUV, wait till you get a load of what happens with the pilots contract. Have you noticed that there has been very little discussion about this contract from WN pilots on this board. I'll bet if you go to the SWAPA board, it's like a Chinese fire drill of activity, as they discus what they can do to protect their pay rates. Again, you will see why male tigers eat their young.
G4G5
You and I will just have to agree to disagree. Do you think that the B6 pilots will be flying the 190 for those rates for an extended period of time. Do you think that, long term they will continue to be the only airline without a union? No, eventually their costs will come up, so it''s not necessarily a fact that LUV pilots will have to take a "15-20%" drop in pay. In fact the reality is if LUV continues to take market share form USAir out of places like PHL, continues to take market share from legacy carriers like AA in places like STL. They will continue to grow. If they eventually wind up doubling their fleet size over the next few years, as planned and continue to make money it will be extremely difficult to do what you suggest.
Hi Calvin,:-) said:Finally someone else listens to Calvin.
G4G5, whether or not you read my rants on this "shot himself in the foot" move by Neeleman, or not. I couldn't agree more. Like I said, I imagine that airline CEO's nationwide are jumping for joy to have this new scale to bargain with. If the competion gets those wages now, they will have effectively negated B6's advantage and gained a twelve month head start.
Again, I say that publishing the scale was a STUPID move. Now their own pilots are pissed, and the competition gets a head start. For that kind of inside information, Martha Stewart is going to jail!!!!!!!!!
But what do I know, I just drive airplanes.
Hobbes
Yes, I do read you and thanks.
Thanks,bayoubandit said:
My guess is it will go somewhat junior. AMR may try to locate the 190 bases in smaller, lower cost of living cities, like RDU and STL. For some pilots it, the desire for the left seat in their home town may far out weigh sitting on reserve in ORD or LGA on a bigger piece of equipment.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
