jetblue EMB-190 pay??!!!

[lowecur]

Dude the twain HAVE met and despite all of the JBs cost advantages (young labor, new jets ...) WN CASM is cheaper on like stage lenghts. Show me how to figure that out? I want to do all my own math. THAT is the key to this whole thing. The E jet is interesting, but in 2012 WN will be twice its current size flying 100% 24K/winglet -700s. Haven't heard a firm no on the E-jet yet, and those numbers you're talking about are options. It makes NO sense to add an airtcraft type that is similar in size but reduces our cost advantage by taking away fleet commonality - WN has been/is/and will be all about COST. Yes, and that's rising. Adding any aircraft type currently imagined would increase our costs ... so forget it. I don't buy that arguement, especially since labor makes up 45% of total costs. Now adding the 175 at $65. - $95. per hour would not only make LUV's labor costs go down, but allow the pilots today to hold off on a haircut.

BTW ISP to Florida keeps filling up ... transcons keep filling up. Oh, please. You guys are a drop in the bucket measured against total capacity on these routes. Maybe IFE/assigned seat is important to you, but there will always be somebody that wants to save a buck and bring a lap top or DVD player. Tell me how are they saving a buck at WN. Everyone has either matched or gone lower. In fact, Spirit is offering $39. one way to NY. They must have been getting killed on their bookings with the B6 sale.

.....

 

[G4G5]

Time to quit while you are behind, If the last 4 posts have agreed with everything that I have said and all you keep doing is taking up bandwidth, with you opinion.
--------------------------------
Lowcur
Do the 733 and 737NG share any major parts commonality that would save WN money? NO. Therefore, other than type sharing amongst pilots, where's the cost advantage? Sure once the 733 is gone, they will eventually have the parts commonality that is supposedly saving them so much money G4, but not for a long time.

G4G5
Wrong again! SWA save money on maintenance, brakes, wheels, tires, just about every consumable in the aircraft maintenance storage bin is used on both aircraft. this won't happen at JetBlue because they will need to stock two sets of everything because they will be operating two different fleet types.
Now what about training? Go for a sim check at LUV on the 733 and come out checked and ready to fly ALL THE AIRCRAFT that LUV fly's. This won't happen at JetBlue.
Fleet commonality goes far beyond these issues. Just think of how easy it is for LUV to substitute a 733 for a 737NG on any route they fly. How easy is it for them to enter a new market, with a single type.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Lowcur
The argument of whether the 170 or 190 will receive more orders is a fabrication of G4's literary imagination. What started out as a comparison between the 318, 736, against the 170, has now turned into a comparison between all first born. My original thoughts still remain, the 736 and 318 are losers, and the 170 is a winner.
G4G5
Now you have lost total credibility. Fabrication? I offer you fact, The 727-100, 737-100, 747-100, 737-600, A318. All aircraft build by their respective mfr's that were out sold by their larger brother and sisters. I am stating that based upon history the 170/175 will NEVER sell as well as the 190/195. I even offer the recent orders for the 190 by airlines such as Jetblue as proof. Tell us again what you offering to support your argument? The 170 is the loser, prove me wrong.
Airlines like MAA only purchase the 170 because it's the only thing available, once the 190 becomes readily available the 170 will go the way of the -100 Boeings. Luv would never purchase this aircraft while they can continue to make money with the 737NG.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Lowcur
Will the transcons for WN be a winner? I don't see how any sane person would take WN transcon when they have the option of traveling in a reserved seat for the same price, and the addition of IFE.
G4G5
Then what do you categorize the millions of people who do it day in and day out on airlines without IFE? Crazy? Once again people don't go on vacation for the movie or the blue chips (or peanuts) served in coach. They choose an airline based on price. That's why their are web site named priceline.com and cheap tickets.com. Their are no web site named best IFE for Transcons.com That's why when you purchase a ticket their are two way to sort you purchase, price and schedule. No airline has another option, best IFE and blue chips or pick this flight because we will be showing Spiderman. No, the fact is Price Rules. Prove me wrong.
------------------------------------------------------
Lowcur
ISP has ns to Florida & Vegas. These are the only matchup with B6. Are you telling me that Islanders prefer WN to B6 on these routes. You better check the schedule for WN, and their weak frequency ns. What a laugh.

G4G5
You are missing out on the big picture. People chose LUV because they depart out of suburban user friendly airports. ISP vs JFK, MDW vs ORD, FLL vs MIA, PVD vs BOS, LGA vs HFD, BWI vs DCA, BHM vs ATL, need I continue? People chose these airports because they are more convenient. If prices are the same they will always go with convenience VS IFE. Therefore to take market share away from LUV you need to operate out of the more costly airports cheaper then luv does out of the smaller airports. Let me fill you in, it can't be done.

 

[lowecur]

Time to quit while you are behind, If the last 4 posts have agreed with everything that I have said and all you keep doing is taking up bandwidth, with you opinion.

G4G5
Wrong again! SWA save money on maintenance, brakes, wheels, tires, just about every consumable in the aircraft maintenance storage bin is used on both aircraft. So what part of major overhaul don't you understand. What part of major parts don't you understand? Care to give me a cost percentage comparison between compatable and non compatable parts between the aircraft? I didn't think so. I'm sure many major parts need replacement before a major overhaul, so that cost is significant. When you add in the cost of a major overhaul, and the fact you have to stock major parts from two different types of 737's, then the compatability issue is a non-issue. Get it? because they will need to stock two sets of everything because they will be operating two different fleet types.

Now what about training? Go for a sim check at LUV on the 733 and come out checked and ready to fly ALL THE AIRCRAFT that LUV fly's. This won't happen at JetBlue. Didn't I just say that pilot costs are compatable? Why do I have to keep repeating myself to you?

Fleet commonality goes far beyond these issues. Just think of how easy it is for LUV to substitute a 733 for a 737NG on any route they fly. How easy is it for them to enter a new market, with a single type.
--------------------------------------------------------------

G4G5
Now you have lost total credibility. Fabrication? I offer you fact, The 727-100, 737-100, 747-100, 737-600, A318. All aircraft build by their respective mfr's that were out sold by their larger brother and sisters. I am stating that based upon history the 170/175 will NEVER sell as well as the 190/195. I agree. Now please point out where I ever said it would? You know what, you can't. You know why, because you brain loses it's train of thought. Your point is the 170 will fade as the 190 starts production. My point is the 170 has 115 firm orders from 8 different carriers, and the 190 has 155 firm order from 2. Now will the 190 outsell the 170 by 3 or 4 to one. Probably, but that doesn't put it in the same class as a 736 or 318. These airplanes are losers. Boeing and Airbus only wish they could sell 25% of the series with these a/c. Stop changing the subject to suite your point of view. I even offer the recent orders for the 190 by airlines such as Jetblue as proof. Tell us again what you offering to support your argument? OK, genius. The 170 has 115 orders from 8 different carriers, and the 190 has 155 from 2.The 170 is the loser, prove me wrong.

Airlines like MAA only purchase the 170 because it's the only thing available, once the 190 becomes readily available the 170 will go the way of the -100 Boeings. Luv would never purchase this aircraft while they can continue to make money with the 737NG.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

G4G5
Then what do you categorize the millions of people who do it day in and day out on airlines without IFE? Crazy? We are talking about a comparison here between Jetblue and WN, are we not? Then talk to your SS friend and have him speak to the route planners in Dallas about doing some ISP to OAK, San Jose, Sacramento, LAX, and San Diego. Afterall, people on the Island just luv flying WN, right? While he's at it, have him plug in some ns' from PVD/Manchester to the West Coast. Jetblue, also has some NS' from FLL to LGB. See how well WN does out of FLL to LAX. Once again people don't go on vacation for the movie or the blue chips (or peanuts) served in coach. They choose an airline based on price. Oh, I thought they choose an airline and airport based on convenience. Which is it? That's why their are web site named priceline.com and cheap tickets.com. Their are no web site named best IFE for Transcons.com That's why when you purchase a ticket their are two way to sort you purchase, price and schedule. No airline has another option, best IFE and blue chips or pick this flight because we will be showing Spiderman. No, the fact is Price Rules. Prove me wrong. When WN starts matching up against B6 on transcons, then we'll talk. Right now, WN picks their fights very carefully.
------------------------------------------------------

G4G5
You are missing out on the big picture. People chose LUV because they depart out of suburban user friendly airports. ISP(Islip?) vs JFK, MDW(suburban?) vs ORD, FLL(suburban?) vs MIA, PVD vs BOS, LGA vs HFD, BWI vs DCA, BHM vs ATL, need I continue? People chose these airports because they are more convenient. If prices are the same they will always go with convenience VS IFE. Oh, I thought they choose an airline and airport based on price. Which is it? I guess Neeleman better get out of town before the repo man shows. Therefore to take market share away from LUV you need to operate out of the more costly airports cheaper then luv does out of the smaller airports. Gee, I wonder why Wn went in to PHL, DTW, and LAX? I guess the model doesn't work in every city, huh? Let me fill you in, it can't be done.

.....

 

[ivauir]

Talk to you tomorrow night. Hope Peg let's you on the computer, Al?

Now you go to insults .... and I actually thought you'd made a couple of good points. Oh well I guess you didn't feel secure enough.

I was gonna rebut some points but now I see that would be a waste of time. I'm gonna get back to trying to help people interview/get hired. I think that is what this board is for ...

 

[lowecur]

Now you go to insults .... and I actually thought you'd made a couple of good points. Oh well I guess you didn't feel secure enough.

I was gonna rebut some points but now I see that would be a waste of time. I'm gonna get back to trying to help people interview/get hired. I think that is what this board is for ...

You're right. I just got tired of repeating myself. This discussion has gone on long enough.

The insults have been edited. Feel free to rebut all you want, as I'm on to the next thread.

 

[TonyC]

Edited almost 8 hours later? How'd THAT happen?!?!?

 

[G4G5]

Lowcur,

Care to coment? The post is over on USAviation, the poster claims to be a B6 A320 pilot who quotes the source as a B6 VP

"No firm facts here but I am hearing through fairly reliable sources that the Embraer is not coming to fruition as originally advertised. The 170 is already coming up short on performance from the predicted numbers. What I am hearing is that the fuselage is not large enough to carry the antennae dome for the live TV system and there was no overhead aisle space provided for the life rafts. The logistics effect is that the range has been reduced considerably with utilization of the bins for overwater equipment therefore reducing overhead storage, a different antennae must be designed and incorporated. Apparently there was no calculation for overwater operations in the original plans. This all adds up to a reduction in range of over 600NM from what I understand. Thus, making the E190 unable to serve the cities in the Carribean and Central America that JB wanted to operate to from JFK. I have also heard that the production is around 6 months behind promised delivery dates. Whether this is enough for the carrier to back off on their orders and let the leasing companies take the first 100 orders or justify taking on a different aircraft remains to be seen. "

 

[lowecur]

Lowcur,

Care to coment? The post is over on USAviation, the poster claims to be a B6 A320 pilot who quotes the source as a B6 VP

"No firm facts here but I am hearing through fairly reliable sources that the Embraer is not coming to fruition as originally advertised. The 170 is already coming up short on performance from the predicted numbers. What I am hearing is that the fuselage is not large enough to carry the antennae dome for the live TV system and there was no overhead aisle space provided for the life rafts. The logistics effect is that the range has been reduced considerably with utilization of the bins for overwater equipment therefore reducing overhead storage, a different antennae must be designed and incorporated. Apparently there was no calculation for overwater operations in the original plans. This all adds up to a reduction in range of over 600NM from what I understand. Thus, making the E190 unable to serve the cities in the Carribean and Central America that JB wanted to operate to from JFK. I have also heard that the production is around 6 months behind promised delivery dates. Whether this is enough for the carrier to back off on their orders and let the leasing companies take the first 100 orders or justify taking on a different aircraft remains to be seen. "

I'll take it over to the Yahoo board and see what comes back. Haven't heard any of this. If it's true, this will obviously hurt those Carribean and Central American Plans. They would have to set aside a certain number of a/c for these trips, and probably schedule them out of FLL. As far as the antenna, I would think the engineers can make adjustments, but that is just speculation for now. Losing 600nm is ridiculous.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Based on the airframe weight & design, NG engines, and Avionics, the 170 certified out at 2000nm (100 under original estimate). They then adjusted the 190's estimate downward to I believe 2200nm. It has already been discussed that the realistic operational range of the 190 will be about 1700-1800nm, taking into consideration reserve requirements. You will never get a realistic operational range on any of these a/c until probably 12 months after initial delivery. It will take that long to fine tune the a/c.

The fact the author brought up the 170 in the paragraph makes you wonder about the credibility. Also, the 6 month behind promised delivery dates is a bit too premature at this point. The production facilities are in place as they have produced 3 a/c I believe, and B6 will only be receiving 6 or 7 in 2005. Failure to get the a/c certified by next June should be the only obstacle.

B6 is not going to back off on their orders and take a different a/c. That's just pure speculation on the author's part, and adds another minus to his credibility.

 

[lowecur]

Lowcur,

Care to coment? The post is over on USAviation, the poster claims to be a B6 A320 pilot who quotes the source as a B6 VP

"No firm facts here but I am hearing through fairly reliable sources that the Embraer is not coming to fruition as originally advertised. The 170 is already coming up short on performance from the predicted numbers. What I am hearing is that the fuselage is not large enough to carry the antennae dome for the live TV system and there was no overhead aisle space provided for the life rafts. The logistics effect is that the range has been reduced considerably with utilization of the bins for overwater equipment therefore reducing overhead storage, a different antennae must be designed and incorporated. Apparently there was no calculation for overwater operations in the original plans. This all adds up to a reduction in range of over 600NM from what I understand. Thus, making the E190 unable to serve the cities in the Carribean and Central America that JB wanted to operate to from JFK. I have also heard that the production is around 6 months behind promised delivery dates. Whether this is enough for the carrier to back off on their orders and let the leasing companies take the first 100 orders or justify taking on a different aircraft remains to be seen. "

Well, here's a reply from someone from Brazil. Can't vouch for his credibility, but I think he pretty much said what I did.

I did hear a rumor that ERJ will be announcing an ER version in the near future for both the 170 & 190. It will give both a/c transcon range. This will undoubtably require larger fuel storage and more powerful and efficient engines. My guess is GE is working to that end as I speak. I would look for B6 to have the option to upgrade as these ER's become available.

Also, with Bombardier looking into bldg a competing a/c, you can be assured the E-series will be extended to the 135 pax size to compete with them. Bombardier is hoping for certification by 2010, barring no problems. I will bet ERJ will have one certified in the 135 pax range by 2009. I wonder what this will do to the 737 pay scale? In any case, it will give present and future 190 pilots an easier flow thru to a better pay scale that will be offered on the 210

[size=-1]This post has 1 recommendation[/size] [size=-1]Ignore this User | Report Abuse[/size] Re: 190 problems regarding Jetblue?
by: mrocktor (M/SP/Brazil) 07/26/04 10:28 am
Msg: 1670 of 1670
All of his "issues" are bullshat. I will not deconstruct his arguments one by one because I'd have to disclose company information.

With an ounce of common sense anyone can realize that no matter how many rafts you cram into an overhead bin there is no way you are going to reduce a plane's range from 2200nm to 1600nm.


Posted as a reply to: Msg 1667 by lowecur

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Let's see the MAA guys & gals are getting $58 for the 170. Skywest is getting $58 for anything up to 99 seats. I think Republic is in the same area up to 100 seats. Did B6 really have a choice? These rates refect the "going rate" based on todays market.

What will be interesting is how DL, AMR, and SWA will handle this? Arpy and Greenjeans have been waiting to see what B6 will do, and now they will be able to sit down with the pilot groups and see who will fly the 190. My guess is the rates for both DL and AMR will be about 10% higher than B6. I believe the plane will be flown by mainline in both cases. They don't have a choice in the matter, they will have to buy the plane and fly it cheaply.

Now this will really put pressure on WN.

The 190 will absolutely destroy WN when B6 begins to match up on routes in probably 2007. This plane will be used against WN out west between OAK and LAS at first, and they will spider web the routes out of LAS as they grow. These routes will also put tremendous pressure on AWA's bid to survive.

It's gonna be a great future for Embraer.

C'mon. The 190 will destroy WN? Have you forgotten Airtran's 717's? They are pretty efficient and they will do what it takes to keep their market. I believe SWA will too. No, the 190 will put pressure on the hub and spoke model. The smaller markets are the one's making regionals good money. WN vs. JB vs. Airtran will not be very smart. Remember that JB is modeled after WN and WN can play a pretty mean game.

And don't bet that JB won't see a union. These low pay rates assure it.