NWA MEC Buffoons

[FDJ2]

Golly! That's how it works?

Veritas #2008-01, published by your MEC, claims it's "...designed to counter these misstatements of the facts."

Veritas #2008-02 tells us "A half-truth is the most cowardly of lies"

You made a misstatement of the facts and expect a pass. Had my MEC done what you did, we'd all be reading Veritas #2008-03 regarding selective use of fuel efficiency data. Then a thread would be started here proclaiming the NWA MEC to be "buffoons", and you'd jump in...strictly in the interests of fraternity and brotherhood, of course.

See the real issue here?

I simply misunderstood which post you were replying too. That's it. My bad. I admit it. Not a lie, just a misunderstanding and certainly not MEC communications.

While I don't believe its required to post the entire 17 or 18 page study, complete with graphs and figures, I have provided a link to the entire study done by Unisys so that anyone can look at the data and debate it if they choose. Does that make me a liar?


I provided the entire study for anyone to examine, did your own MEC provide all the information about what went on at the Senate hearings? I know they mentioned that Delta paid for line standers to ensure availability of limited seating, did your MEC mention that DALPA legislative affairs coordinated with management to ensure that NWA pilots got access to some of the seats that Delta management paid line standers to reserve? Did your MEC mention anything about some Delta pilots giving up their place in line so that an even mix of NWA pilots and Delta pilots could attend the hearing?

You extracted one data point from the analysis, and stated it as a factual conclusion: DC-9's provide 28 ASM's per gallon. The data point happened to be irrelevant, since the aircraft you chose to reference hasn't been here in many years. You did it because it made your case appear stronger. According to your MEC, you are a cowardly liar. I merely saved them having to accuse one of their own o being such.

Actually, throughout this thread I've extracted more than one data point and engaged in debate on it with others. I also provided a link to the entire study so that you could extract whatever data you or anyone else wanted in order to engage in the debate. I didn't hide anything, it was available, maybe not in post #80, but in post #78 and others. Does that make me a liar, was I hiding some bit of information? Does it make you a liar because you extracted just one post and ignored the previous post to state that I only extracted one data point and only of an aircraft you no longer fly? Are you a liar?

To your point on MEC communications, both sides need to be heard, you may not like what you heard in Veritas, but it is our side of the story. Will there be more Veritas publications? I don't know, maybe.

I hope we are back on track. I think that the latest NALPA hot line that I heard, May 20th I believe, was encouraging. Hopefully we can build on that and towards the future. I'll leave it at that for now.

BTW, here's a link to the unisys study:

http://www.unisys.com/eprise/main/admin/micro/doc/Feb_Mar.pdf

 

[FDJ2]

FDJ2,

As it seems you like to crunch numbers, could you do a comparison btw your different versions of 76s and our 330s?

Go for it. Both great wide bodied aircraft, both do international, both pay about the same. Have a party with it.

 

[Cobraair75drvr]

Not a numbers guy myself. But you and alot of your brothers constantly harp on the 9 and freightors. I agree the 76 is a great airplane(not as great as the 75 though But, I would bet that the 330 beats the 76 the way the 80s beat the 9s in casm.

Go for it. Both great wide bodied aircraft, both do international, both pay about the same. Have a party with it.

 

[Cobraair75drvr]

And just to add this from our company rag newswire:

Friday Fuel Fact
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Northwest Airlines was the most fuel-efficient major U.S. airline across both the Atlantic and the Pacific, and second overall for major U.S. carriers in 2007.

 

[FDJ2]

And just to add this from our company rag newswire:

Friday Fuel Fact
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Northwest Airlines was the most fuel-efficient major U.S. airline across both the Atlantic and the Pacific, and second overall for major U.S. carriers in 2007.

That's great news. Congratulations. The combination of our 777s, 767s and your 747s and A330s will have us spanning the globe.

 

[Schwanker]

Not a numbers guy myself. But you and alot of your brothers constantly harp on the 9 and freightors. I agree the 76 is a great airplane(not as great as the 75 though But, I would bet that the 330 beats the 76 the way the 80s beat the 9s in casm.

Ask the Air Force as they just did the analysis. I'm sure it had to be quite convincing to go to Airbus. Here's the NWA summary comparing the A330 to the B777. Didn't DAL just acquire their 10th 777? When is DAL going to retire those old 767s?

[FONT=&quot]Perspective on NW's Recent Selection of the A330 over the
777

By Tim Campbell, Managing Director- Performance
Analysis

From On Course, Northwest Fligiht Operations Magazine
May/June 2001

The January February issue of On Course contained an
article by Capt. Jeff Carlson that outlined the
details of Northwest's multibillion-dollar ivestment
in new aircraft. A large component of this order
includes 24 PW4168A-powered A330-300s. Numerous
questions have arisen since the announcement of this
order, specifically why the A330 was selected instead
of the 777.

This article will address these questions by
summarizing our assessment of the performance
characteristics of the A330 relative to the 777 and
how this information was used in the final evaluation
of these two aircraft.

The competition between the 777 and A330 was for a new
aircraft that would replace our DC-10-30s on dedicated
transatlantic missions.

Perhaps the most important performance-related aspect
of this aircraft evaluation was finding the best match
between aircraft payload-range capability and
forecasted payload demand. We were seeking an aircraft
that efficiently meets our projected requirements. As
shown in the graphs, the A330 most optimally meets our
payload requirements in the Atlantic. This payload
capability, when coupled with operating costs and
projected market requirements (demand) for both
passenger and cargo traffic, offers the highest
earnings potential.

The match between capability and market requirements
is important because it is inefficient to operate
aircraft with excess capability. Our evaluation clearly
shows that the 777-200ER aircraft has significantly
more payload-range capability than the A330-300.

The additional range capability could be helpful if
the same aircraft were also flown across the Pacific.
However this possible dual mission capability was
determined to be impractical because Pacific aircraft
require a much greater share of World Business Class
seats than Atlantic aircraft. Furthermore, the Pratt
powered 777-200ER could not fly many critical Pacific
missions with full passenger load, and most missions
required weight limits on cargo.

This is not necessarily apparent if one looks from the
generic marketing material from Boeing because the
range of the 777-200, evaluated with Northwest rules
and interiors, is approximately 1,100 miles less than
advertised.

The 777 can carry more seats than the A330 although
the A330 already carries 29 more seats than our
current DC-10-30s. The optimal 777-200 configuration
we modeled had 27 more seats than the A330-300
(329-302) and 56 seats more than the DC-10-30
(329-273). However, these additional seats were
economy seats that typically would be filled with
lower yielding passengers.

The 777 has the same empty weight for all available
MTOW's (580,000-656,000 lbs). Northwest requires only
the lowest weight for nearly all markets, roughly
comparable to the A330. The net result to Northwest is
that the 777 is more than 41,000 pounds heavier than
the A330 yet provides minimal additional revenue
capacity.

The heavier weight of the 777 translates directly into
a fuel burn penalty. On a typical 3,500 nm mission,
the A330 burns approximately 28% less fuel than a
DC-10-30; accounting for its higher seating capacity,
it burns 35% less on a per seat basis. The much
heavier 777 burns approximately 16% more fuel than the
A330 on a per trip basis, and 6% more on a per seat
basis.

Questions have arisen about the cruise speed of the
A330, largely due to issues surrounding the cruise
speed of the A340. NW intends to operate the A330 at a
cruise speed of Mach 0.82. This speed corresponds to
the aircraft's LRC (long range cruise) Mach number for
most gross weight/altitude combinations. While the
published cruise speed of the A340 is Mach 0.82, our
analysis substantiates the experience of line pilots
taht certain operators fly slower to avoid excessive
fuel burn. Airbus has implicitly recognized the cruise
speed issue with the "first generation" A340's by
redesigning the wing on the A340-500 and -600.

757/767 DC10-30 A330 777/747-200
Cruise speed .80 .82 .82 .84


As shown in the table, the A33's cruise speed is
slower than the 777, but it is consistent with our
DC-10-30 and faster than other aircraft operating
across the Atlantic. The cruise speed differences
between the 777 and A330 equates to a trip length
difference of approximately 10 minutes on a typical
Atlantic mission. It may be interesting to note that
Northwest negotiated stringent, comprehensive
contractual commitments from Airbus to ensure the A330
will meet our performance expectations both at the
time of deliver and for several years thereafter.
This is a requirement we make of airframe/engine
manufacturers, including Boeing. The performance level
of the new 757-300's has a similar level of
protection. Our agreement with Airbus also provides us
with mission flexibility we could not achieve with
Boeing. The Airbus agreement is structured to allow us
to take delivery of other members of the A330 family
if our requirements change over time. A shorter
member of the A330 family, the A330-200, has 257
seats in the Northwest configuration. It has
approximately 900 nm more range than the A330-300.
This added flexibility to tailor capacity to market
requirements not offered by the 777 since Boeing was
unwilling to formally offer a smaller, lower priced
version of the 777.

In summary, the excess capacity of the 777 leads to
operating economics inferior to the A330. This
situation is further degraded when the notably higher
puchase price of the 777 is factored into the
analysis. The marginal improvement in revenue the
777's size offers simply cannot overcome its increased
operating and ownership costs. Our Atlantic
replacement decision does not mean that the 777 will
be excluded from future aircraft competitions. The
longer range version of the 777-200 and 777-300 will
be evaluated against the A340-500 and A340-600 when we
begin the 747-200 replacement analysis.[/FONT]

 

[Frank Lorenzo]

That's great news. Congratulations. The combination of our 777s, 767s and your 747s and A330s will have us spanning the globe.

The only place you'll be spanning is the unemployment line. It's only a matter of time before the cutbacks, aircraft groundings, base closures, and furloughs.

Even after 8 pages of back and forth hatred, guys like you still think that this "merger" is going to be basically painless. Amazing.

The funny part is, the vitriol on this MB is tame in comparison from what I am hearing from line pilots. This ship is sinking before it even leaves the dock.

Good luck to you all at USAirways Part 2.

 

[DTW320]

I provided the entire study for anyone to examine, did your own MEC provide all the information about what went on at the Senate hearings? I know they mentioned that Delta paid for line standers to ensure availability of limited seating, did your MEC mention that DALPA legislative affairs coordinated with management to ensure that NWA pilots got access to some of the seats that Delta management paid line standers to reserve? Did your MEC mention anything about some Delta pilots giving up their place in line so that an even mix of NWA pilots and Delta pilots could attend the hearing?

Now THAT'S funny. I have personally spoken with our legislative affairs chairman, at length, about what happened at the hearings. Suffice it to say there is A LOT more to the story than you are aware of, or willing to admit, and it is not even remotely as you and DALPA are trying to claim. Based on my conversation with him, YOU could call a couple of YOUR people and find out the real truth.....if they are OK with the embarrassment that is. I've had no real first hand info about many of the issues you have written about over the months.......but in this case I do.....and, lets just say it affords me a whole new perspective on your level of "uninformedness" and/or the true RPM of your spin cycle.

 

[Occam's Razor]

While I don't believe its required to post the entire 17 or 18 page study, complete with graphs and figures, I have provided a link to the entire study done by Unisys so that anyone can look at the data and debate it if they choose. Does that make me a liar?

According to your own MEC....yes! A "cowardly liar".

You had, ahem, 17 pages of data to choose from, and you chose the absolute worst comparison, which just happened to be for an aircraft we don't operate.

Now you brush off your partisan misstatement (your MEC's definition), as a "Whoa, my bad!" moment that doesn't deserve scrutiny.

Tell me you understand my point.

If your overtly partisan behavior should be dismissed as a "boo boo", then I expect you to offer the same consideration to those from my pilot group. I also expect you to remind your MEC that they've made "cowardly liar" misstatements too (I've given you one. I have several more) and should ceasebuzzer with the Holier Than Thou rhetoric.

I expect lame analysis and infantile sniping from the trolls who infest this Forum, but you're more connected to the process, and should know better.

 

[Heavy Set]

According to your own MEC....yes! A "cowardly liar".

You had, ahem, 17 pages of data to choose from, and you chose the absolute worst comparison, which just happened to be for an aircraft we don't operate.

Now you brush off your partisan misstatement (your MEC's definition), as a "Whoa, my bad!" moment that doesn't deserve scrutiny.

Tell me you understand my point.

If your overtly partisan behavior should be dismissed as a "boo boo", then I expect you to offer the same consideration to those from my pilot group. I also expect you to remind your MEC that they've made "cowardly liar" misstatements too (I've given you one. I have several more) and should ceasebuzzer with the Holier Than Thou rhetoric.

I expect lame analysis and infantile sniping from the trolls who infest this Forum, but you're more connected to the process, and should know better.

This guy Occam really thinks a lot of himself. I would not want to fly with him, with his inflated ego times ten. Thank God I never will.