UAL Approaches Alpa About 100 Seaters

FlyHossD · Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:22 am

I didn't see this posted elsewhere here - please delete this if it's redundant.

It seems that UAL has approached UAL ALPA about some changes to the current contract and that proposal includes an offer of 100 seat jets to be flown by mainline.

Does anyone have a firm source?

Web500sjc · Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:32 am

United already has rates for crj900s, emb190/195 and cs300s in their current contract. Don't know what they need to talk to the pilots about.

atcsundevil · Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:49 am

Quoting web500sjc (Reply 1):

I thought it was the CS100? The 300 isn't too far off the A319 or B73G. I think it comes down to the E190E2 or CS100/300. The CS gives them more flexibility and I'm sure they could get a killer deal, but then there's commonality with the E-Jet fleet on the UAX side if they go with the 190/195 (if that even matters).

flyDTW1992 · Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:03 am

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 2):
but then there's commonality with the E-Jet fleet on the UAX side if they go with the 190/195

Doesn't really matter much. MX supply chains and operations are completely independent.

a320fan · Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:05 am

Hopefully this leads to a C-Series order

TWA772LR · Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:08 am

If the CSeries can fly LCY-NYC nonstop in all J, then can it fly, say, IAH-BOG in a standard config?

flyDTW1992 · Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:15 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 5):
If the CSeries can fly LCY-NYC nonstop in all J, then can it fly, say, IAH-BOG in a standard config?

That's only 2000 miles or so, should be perfectly doable theoretically.

nikeson13 · Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:21 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 5):
If the CSeries can fly LCY-NYC nonstop in all J, then can it fly, say, IAH-BOG in a standard config?

Yup, with 1930nmi for IAH-BOG, and a range of 3300nmi for the CS300 (3100 for CS100) it seems it can do it pretty well. but would they...?

dc10lover · Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:24 am

I hope they retire the CRJ 200's soon. Seems like the "standard" now is 100 seat aircraft.

Polot · Fri Oct 09, 2015 11:17 am

UA, or any other major airline, is not going to be ordering any C series until BBD gets their financial mess, and future, sorted out. Way too risky with too many unknowns right now.

codc10 · Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:02 pm

The company wants some duty time and scope relief beyond what the current contract permits, and it remains to be seen whether ALPA will even come to the table. Personally, I think they will, but suffice to say there isn't a huge appetite to give ground on very much unless the company is willing to materially improve other aspects of the agreement, starting with profit sharing.

ordbosewr · Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:07 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 10):
Personally, I think they will, but suffice to say there isn't a huge appetite to give ground on very much unless the company is willing to materially improve other aspects of the agreement, starting with profit sharing.

Profit sharing is only a good benefit if the company is profitable!!!
History has shown that if oil prices go back up, which most anybody (in the business) will say it will.

I personally would go a different direction.

LAXintl · Fri Oct 09, 2015 2:15 pm

United asked ALPA for a 2-year extension on the current contract that runs through January 2017.

In return for an extension which would include amendments in 5 narrow areas that parties have already indicated they want to discuss, United would pursue acquisition of a new small narrow body (which the contract already has rates for) and which would be flown by the mainline pilots.

Quoting codc10 (Reply 10):
starting with profit sharing.

Pilots already get nice profit sharing -- 10% of pretax profits if company has margin of up to 6.9% and 20% of pre-tax profits if margin is greater than 6.9%

codc10 · Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:01 pm

It was announced earlier that the MEC will be participating in the negotiations... previously it was in question but I believe one 'no' voter crossed over to secure enough votes to move forward.

The company wants duty time relief to improve schedule reliability for very long haul ops, and with SFO-TLV/AKL announced, they are probably willing to give up some things to get agreement from the pilots.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 12):

Pilots already get nice profit sharing -- 10% of pretax profits if company has margin of up to 6.9% and 20% of pre-tax profits if margin is greater than 6.9%

I wasn't very clear... I think the pilots are probably looking for the company to trade some of the current contractual profit sharing provisions for cash (higher hourly rates). A rich profit sharing plan doesn't matter much in a down-cycle, which everyone seems to be gearing up for.

My view is that the pilots are concerned about new small narrowbody rates being low enough that the company would seriously consider pulling out capacity in the 73G/A319/320 cohort in favor of the CS/E2 down the line.

[Edited 2015-10-09 08:04:16]

exunited · Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:12 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 12):
United asked ALPA for a 2-year extension on the current contract that runs through January 2017.

So the company wants to get a 2 year extension in exchange for ALPA allowing them to do what they already have the ability to do today. Nothing is preventing them from buying all of the 100 seat planes they want right now. Sounds like a win-win as long as you are the company to tie up the contract another 2 yrs in exchange for NOTHING. By limiting it to 5 areas you remove any chance for improvements anywhere other than these areas for another 2 years. Why would anyone think this is any kind of give-take arrangement? ALPA has just said they will engage the company as requested but with a time limit of Nov 20 - yet another bad idea. Period. Just say no and now the company has an incentive to not drag out the next section 6 talks for years and years as they have always done. ALPA = FAIL for even having these discussions.

The real thought process is that by delaying 2 yrs the economy will not be doing as well and oil prices will have returned to higher levels so the company can cry poor rather than negotiate now under good financial times for them. This is where Smi/J failed miserably and left the company unable to cry poor with the mechanics and flight attendants as they normally do during contract talks.

UA444 · Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:20 pm

They already have to bring in a 100 seat aircraft per the current agreement, there is no way the pilots are going to extend a contract that the company hasn't even fully adhered to in the first place.

surfdog75 · Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:26 pm

The majors are seeing the writing on the wall. Their reliance on regional lift is crumbling with the pilot shortage and they're trying to bring the flying back to mainline. Delta has done it with the 717 and tried to bring E-195s onto property with the recent failed pilot TA. Hopefully the United pilots don't bite on a crappy deal to get airplanes on the list. A tired old management tactic that's been tried again and again. The company will buy the planes they need.

adamblang · Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:32 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 16):
They already have to bring in a 100 seat aircraft per the current agreement

Why?

United1 · Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:41 pm

Quoting adamblang (Reply 18):
Quoting UA444 (Reply 16):
They already have to bring in a 100 seat aircraft per the current agreement

Why?

UA does not have to bring any new aircraft onboard however if they want to add any additional large RJs above what they have currently on order UA is required to add a new small aircraft (E190 B712 sized airplane ect) to the mainline fleet.

The language under the current contract already gives UA the option to do this...basically this is UA saying we are willing to place that order if you give us a contract extension (along with a few modifications to the contract that UA and ALPA have already said that they want to discuss during the next round of contract talks.)

codc10 · Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:42 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 16):
They already have to bring in a 100 seat aircraft per the current agreement, there is no way the pilots are going to extend a contract that the company hasn't even fully adhered to in the first place.

Money talks... they will, and the recent goodwill engendered by Smisek's departure and the novelty of Munoz may help, but it's going to require a material raise, for starters.

Rdh3e · Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:43 pm

Quoting exunited (Reply 15):
ALPA = FAIL for even having these discussions.

Glad you're EX UA. Talking, even if it comes to nothing, can help stave off future risk of strife because both sides have a better understanding of the needs and desires of the other.

adamblang · Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:47 pm

Quoting United1 (Reply 19):
The language under the current contract already gives UA the option to do this...basically this is UA saying we are willing to place that order if you give us a contract extension (along with a few modifications to the contract that UA and ALPA have already said that they want to discuss during the next round of contract talks.)

That's a good read on this ask – if it's true 'cuz there's no firm source at this point. "If we order planes, we're gonna keep 'em for a long time. The current contract doesn't go as far out. Can you firm up your commitment to costs before we firm up our commitment to aircraft?"

exunited · Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:51 pm

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 21):
Glad you're EX UA. Talking, even if it comes to nothing, can help stave off future risk of strife because both sides have a better understanding of the needs and desires of the other.

Actually I work for United now but I am "exunited" because the airline I was hired to long ago is gone and we all work for continental with the United name on it. Kind of like the ex-cons who pine for their beloved past.

codc10 · Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:04 pm

Quoting exunited (Reply 23):
Actually I work for United now but I am "exunited" because the airline I was hired to long ago is gone and we all work for continental with the United name on it. Kind of like the ex-cons who pine for their beloved past.

Precisely the mentality that is destroying the airline from the inside out.

You're either part of the problem or part of the solution.

INFINITI329 · Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:06 pm

Can anyone post UA rates for the CS 100/300, 73G & the 319 for comparison?.

LAXintl · Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:28 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 25):
Can anyone post UA rates for the CS 100/300, 73G & the 319 for comparison?.

2015 pay rates by years of seniority are:

CRJ900/E190
Capt:
124.26
125.19
126.22
127.24
128.21
129.25
130.25
131.29
132.29
133.32
134.36
135.36

FO
68.08
68.08
78.38
80.29
82.19
84.27
86.62
88.62
89.56
90.79
91.64
92.44

E195/CS100
Capt
146.06
147.15
148.36
149.58
150.73
151.95
153.12
154.32
155.51
156.71
157.94
159.11

FO
68.08
78.73
92.13
94.38
96.62
99.08
101.82
104.17
105.28
106.73
107.72
108.68

737-500/700/A319/CS300
Capt
185.70
187.23
188.78
190.29
191.83
193.36
194.89
196.42
197.96
199.48
201.01
202.55

FO
68.08
100.17
117.20
120.07
122.97
126.07
129.60
132.58
134.01
135.85
137.09
138.34

=

GreenArc · Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:52 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 26):

The contract has no published pay rates for the CS100. The CS100 is specified as one of the potential “New Small Narrowbody Aircraft” (CS100, E190 or E195 aircraft), but no pay rate is established. A strange oversight, but something that needs to be clarified.

Rdh3e · Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:23 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 26):
2015 pay rates by years of seniority are:

http://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/Desktop...ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=49135

Page 27, which is the 37th page of the document has the full tables.

exunited · Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:53 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 24):

Precisely the mentality that is destroying the airline from the inside out.

You're either part of the problem or part of the solution.

Without this turning into the inevitable urinating olympiad, I will just say it swings both ways and the ex-cons running around with their ex-con tags are just as bad at the ex-ua with the tulip pins.

It seems that ALPA lost the first MEC vote as they needed 16 yes votes but only had 15 and somehow someone must have had a miraculous change of heart after getting schooled a.k.a. strong armed by ALPA and changed to a yes vote which let the discussion with the company get approved. My comment is that when did the company EVER open negotiations early when the pilots wanted something??? They want contract relief now and they are offering to buy and operate planes that they can do anyways without anyone's approval today. Maybe the MEC is not that awake but I can assure you the rank and file won't get another bag of magic beans in exchange for contract relief.

[Edited 2015-10-09 12:55:12]

strfyr51 · Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:18 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 13):
My view is that the pilots are concerned about new small narrowbody rates being low enough that the company would seriously consider pulling out capacity in the 73G/A319/320 cohort in favor of the CS/E2 down the line.

We already have 42 A319's coming from China, I seriously doubt we're going to not take those airplanes though I DO
wonder where these other airplanes are going to be maintained and what stations might be expanded to handle them.
depending on the number? This could be problematic..

Rdh3e · Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:27 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 30):
We already have 42 A319's coming from China,

No we do not. We have 11 coming, with options for a further 14 sometime (undisclosed) in the future.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...p-hldg-lease-idUSKBN0NY2OS20150513

codc10 · Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:29 pm

Quoting exunited (Reply 29):
Without this turning into the inevitable urinating olympiad, I will just say it swings both ways and the ex-cons running around with their ex-con tags are just as bad at the ex-ua with the tulip pins.

Despite my handle, I'm under no delusions about the way things have been run at the company since the merger. I'm just of the opinion that the subsidiary-level thinking has to stop, and that goes for both sides of the house.

FWIW, there's a tulip on my bag, too...

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 30):
We already have 42 A319's coming from China, I seriously doubt we're going to not take those airplanes though I DO
wonder where these other airplanes are going to be maintained and what stations might be expanded to handle them.
depending on the number? This could be problematic..

UA is getting those airplanes on a pretty sweet deal, one that would allow them to be parked a few years down the line with relatively little trouble. I think the concern is that the 73G/319s are cheap stopgaps and the capacity can be replaced in the future with CS300s that pay less.

LAXintl · Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:32 pm

Quoting GreenArc (Reply 27):
The contract has no published pay rates for the CS100. The CS100 is specified as one of the potential “New Small Narrowbody Aircraft” (CS100, E190 or E195 aircraft), but no pay rate is established. A strange oversight, but something that needs to be clarified.

Apparently there was a MOU/side letter that included CS100 in E195 rate band per a note from 2014 when the model was previously being reviewed.

jetblastdubai · Sat Oct 10, 2015 12:40 am

"Bombardier Inc. surged the most among Canadian industrial stocks, buoyed by fresh prospects for a sale of its CSeries model as United Airlines ties the purchase of new small jetliners to a contract extension for pilots."

"United told pilots that it plans to order a fleet of 100-seat jetliners from either Bombardier or Embraer SA, provided it can agree on terms for a two-year contract extension in expedited bargaining"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...et-order-in-pilot-talks?cmpid=yhoo

nikeson13 · Sat Oct 10, 2015 1:04 am

To add fuel to the rumors...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...series-jet-orders/article26763898/
"Canada’s Bombardier Inc. said on Friday it is in advanced discussions to sell its new C Series jet to airlines in North America, without identifying the prospective buyers."

TWA772LR · Sat Oct 10, 2015 1:13 am

The CSeries is more flexible than the 190/195, but if UA wants to minimize costs than they will surely go 190 based on the above pay scale.

I have a feeling that whatever aircraft UA picks is going to speak loudly about their business model in the next decade.

jetblastdubai · Sat Oct 10, 2015 1:34 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 36):
if UA wants to minimize costs than they will surely go 190 based on the above pay scale.

If the primary reason to acquire a new aircraft type (and take on all the additional costs associated with it, including spare parts, training, more complicated crew scheduling etc.) is to allow for an increase in 76-seat Express flying, then the E190 would definitely be the more economical way to go. Not only is the E190 tried and tested in real service, but they could probably be acquired much faster.

As far as passenger perspective, having a cabin nearly identical to the E175 would help with a consistent flying experience although the C-series does provide a roomier cabin. United already does, or will very soon, actually own many E175s that they will lease to one of their regional carriers so they probably already have a pretty good working relationship with Embraer.

The 787 development problems that UA suffered through are probably still fresh in the minds of the execs. looking at the C-series.

B737900ER · Sat Oct 10, 2015 1:50 am

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 37):

The 787 development problems that UA suffered through are probably still fresh in the minds of the execs. looking at the C-series.

The impact with a C-series would be minimal compared to the 787. UA could absorb the problems with the rest of the domestic network. There are two issues in my opinion. Who maintains the aircraft and who are the FAs. Everyone likes to get caught up in pilot pay scales, but what about everyone else. Can the aircraft be flown cost effectively with the existing maineline cost structure?(Dispatchers, mechanics, flight attendants) The second issue is that bombardier makes a junk commercial airplane. It looks pretty on the outside, but this is the same company that brought you the crj 200. The CSeries barely flies right now. Why would you want them?

YYZatcboy · Sat Oct 10, 2015 3:40 am

Quoting B737900ER (Reply 37):
he CSeries barely flies right now. Why would you want them?

What on earth are you going on about. The C series is beating Range and fuel specs and they just raised the MTOW and increased range. Please explain how that could possibly mean it barely flies.

flyDTW1992 · Sat Oct 10, 2015 3:56 am

Quoting B737900ER (Reply 37):
but this is the same company that brought you the crj 200

......Annnnnnnnd the CRJ200 was very, very good at what it was designed for. The market just doesn't favor it the way it used to, and passengers have come to expect a higher level of comfort. Back when the CRJ was introduced it was a giant leap in pax comfort from turboprop regional aircraft of the time. Bombardier has also sold 700+ CR7s 9s, and 1000s, which tells you right there that airlines don't think the series is "crap."

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 38):
What on earth are you going on about. The C series is beating Range and fuel specs and they just raised the MTOW and increased range. Please explain how that could possibly mean it barely flies.

...And this is coming from a self-proclaimed Embraer fanboy.

[Edited 2015-10-09 20:56:44]

tozairport · Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:18 am

Quoting exunited (Reply 28):
It seems that ALPA lost the first MEC vote as they needed 16 yes votes but only had 15 and somehow someone must have had a miraculous change of heart after getting schooled a.k.a. strong armed by ALPA and changed to a yes vote which let the discussion with the company get approved.

That is so funny because you have no flippin idea what you are talking about. The first vote at the special wasn't a vote on the resoulution, just a vote to put it on the agenda. There was no strong arming, that is seriously laughable. You realy need a better source for your info. The resolution to go ahead and talk to management passed 18-2 BTW. It still won't amount to anything IMHO though.

INFINITI329 · Sat Oct 10, 2015 6:30 am

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 20):
Glad you're EX UA. Talking, even if it comes to nothing, can help stave off future risk of strife because both sides have a better understanding of the needs and desires of the other.

Quoting exunited (Reply 22):
Actually I work for United now but I am "exunited" because the airline I was hired to long ago is gone and we all work for continental with the United name on it. Kind of like the ex-cons who pine for their beloved past.

2 points for EXUNITED

Quoting B737900ER (Reply 37):
The impact with a C-series would be minimal compared to the 787. UA could absorb the problems with the rest of the domestic network. There are two issues in my opinion. Who maintains the aircraft and who are the FAs. Everyone likes to get caught up in pilot pay scales, but what about everyone else. Can the aircraft be flown cost effectively with the existing maineline cost structure?(Dispatchers, mechanics, flight attendants) The second issue is that bombardier makes a junk commercial airplane. It looks pretty on the outside, but this is the same company that brought you the crj 200. The CSeries barely flies right now. Why would you want them?

Dude, what are talking about?You make it sound like the C-series has been grounded every other today. Not the case sir. The only 100 seater that has true transcon range. If BBD built junk they wouldn't have been able to build over 3,000 airplanes. Give credit where it is due.

exunited · Sat Oct 10, 2015 12:40 pm

Quoting tozairport (Reply 40):
That is so funny because you have no flippin idea what you are talking about. The first vote at the special wasn't a vote on the resoulution, just a vote to put it on the agenda. There was no strong arming, that is seriously laughable. You realy need a better source for your info. The resolution to go ahead and talk to management passed 18-2 BTW. It still won't amount to anything IMHO though.

Interesting since the MEC Chairman on Oct 6th put out his email message that said this
"During this special meeting, a potential resolution authorizing exploration of these early negotiations was brought forth, and fourteen MEC members voted in favor of those discussions. Six MEC members voted against considering the resolution thereby precluding any clear direction (15 votes were required for the resolution to be considered"

So failure to put it on the agenda does not = fail. If they are not going to condi

sldispatcher · Sat Oct 10, 2015 1:34 pm

Out of curiosity, why on earth would anyone vote against talking with management?

I've always perceived the pilot group as a de facto arm of management anyway. They have that level of swagger and influence. Nothing wrong with that. Because of that, there are times to put your "employee" hat on and other times to put the "owner" hat on. I hope the two sides (which are playing for the same team for goodness sake) can sit down and keep moving the airline forward with new aircraft purchases, fair wages and conditions, and it would be GREAT if the both parties could then look at the flight attendant groups and say it's time to play ball. Fix the culture. Strategy is pretty straightforward. Culture eats strategy for breakfast.

I'm pulling for BOTH sides to win. I have a feeling when that happens, us travelers will reap the benefits as well.

jetblastdubai · Sat Oct 10, 2015 2:09 pm

Quoting sldispatcher (Reply 43):
keep moving the airline forward with new aircraft purchases, fair wages and conditions

You bring up a good point. I'm curious as to what union work groups do not have fair wages and working conditions now. Everyone is working with a contract now (including both AFAs) that they negotiated so obviously the wages and conditions are/were acceptable at some point since they were ratified by the rank and file.

It seems that almost every time UAL wants to proceed with something that will benefit the overall company, and that includes shareholder value, the unions almost always come back to the table with their hands out for more compensation or perks as a reward for allowing the company to better itself. I have the feeling that if UAL were losing money, most work groups would be satisfied with their negotiated pay/benefit package but now that the golden goose is pumping out more eggs, some want to go back and get a bigger piece of the pie.

A rising tide lifts all boats. As long as union members aren't losing anything, give the company some leeway to do what's best now and the benefits will pay off down the road.

tozairport · Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:27 pm

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 44):
It seems that almost every time UAL wants to proceed with something that will benefit the overall company, and that includes shareholder value, the unions almost always come back to the table with their hands out for more compensation or perks as a reward for allowing the company to better itself.

Yes, but every time UAL (or any other airline for that matter) is losing money, they come running to the employees for conssetions. My W2 is less now than it was in 2002, and that is for the same fleet and seat. Difference is that I was on 7th year pay and I'm at the max 12th year pay now. Co-worker Jeff got 22 million for being fired. Are unions really the problem?

Quoting exunited (Reply 42):
So failure to put it on the agenda does not = fail.

No it does not. It just wasn't discussed in open session. Considering that a similar resolution was passed on Thursday 18-2, I think the whole point is mute. But I was probably strong armed...

DualQual · Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:41 pm

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 44):

As a point of order, the company approached the union. Additionally, as it involves an extension to the current agreement becoming amendable it stands to reason that something should be offered.

jetblastdubai · Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:58 pm

Quoting tozairport (Reply 45):
My W2 is less now than it was in 2002, and that is for the same fleet and seat. Difference is that I was on 7th year pay and I'm at the max 12th year pay now. Co-worker Jeff got 22 million for being fired. Are unions really the problem?

That was my point. Your wages were negotiated and ratified/accepted by your fellow union members. Just because they're different/lower than previous years is no fault of the company...they're the result of negotiations by both parties....just like the B scale was.

I understand than when the contract is up for renewal there might be some very valid points for negotiating pay/benefit adjustments but just because the company is making money now, it doesn't seem right to ask for a compensation increase mid-contract without some benefit to the guy writing the checks.

I have no idea what all UAL is asking ALPA for with regards to the 100-seat issue. If they're asking to extend the contract by 2 years, thereby locking in current wages for 2 more years, then I understand your concern. If they can sweeten the contract a bit in exchange for the extension and gain 2 more years of contract "peace", then I'd think it might be good for everyone.

If UA plans to order a bunch of 100-seaters, the last thing they need is uncertainty with the pilot group on their willingness to operate the new aircraft at or near the previous contract pay rates which is what they probably used to justify buying the new aircraft.

Pretty sure the CEO pay packages were all negotiated ahead of time as well. Never was a fan of Mr. Smisek and I consider $22 million a bargain just to see him gone.

planemaker · Sat Oct 10, 2015 6:18 pm

Quoting ordbosewr (Reply 11):
History has shown that if oil prices go back up, which most anybody (in the business) will say it will.

Many oil companies are saying that we will be in a a low oil price environment for the next 10 to 15 years. Only a handful of analysis got the drop right with Adam Pilarski correctly predicting that it would reach below $50. His prediction was 5 years ago and people lampooned him. Now who has the last laugh?

People forget just what a huge impact the reduction in oil prices have resulted in. Compare the over 50% reduction in oil prices from a year ago versus the "puny" 10-15% reduction that the NEO and MAX are going to provide.

Unfortunately, most players in the industry couldn't understand the dynamics of the oil market but if they did we would be seeing an all-new NB design on the drawing board instead of the MAX (as Boeing preferred).

RyanairGuru · Sat Oct 10, 2015 6:41 pm

Quoting B737900ER (Reply 37):

"Junk airplanes"? Their dispatch reliability is a lot better than Embraer, the E190 is a notorious hangar queen.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net