redflyer65
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2004
- Posts
- 4,456
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well you can't have it both ways can General. I will gladly take SWA approach to single fleet at the expense of pilot movement. Especially when the fleet is transport category. We actually wanted Boeing to add a aux tank and a fuselage plug to the 717 so we could stay single fleet. But there just weren't any other buyers. Plus the 800 and 900 open some doors too. It seems to be working for Alaska too. I get what your saying, but profitability is way more important to me than flying twin aisle.
Single fleet type is a massive cost difference. Not just the huge number of parts that are need to keep on-hand, but just as the General states above, the training cost are exorbitant. (remember there are eleven training events for one retirement).
General, I'm not sure that either of our carriers are doing it exactly right. We should probably end up with another aircraft type or two when we start expanding internationally, but you should probably scale back to fewer aircraft types. There really isn't any need for an airline to operate the DC-9, the MD-88, the MD-90, the 737, and the A319/320. I mean, seriously? On the other hand, flying to Europe or South America in a stretch 737 isn't really an appealing idea, either. There should be a happy middle ground in there somewhere.
Not really. Even though we have an all 737 fleet, they consist of different blocks of 300, 500, 700, and now 800. Example, when the convertible option became a problem in the 300, we only had to look at 100 or so airframes 300's, not every 300 and not any 5's or 7's.However, our single fleet type poses some risks too!
Take a look at www.myseniority.com