Southernjets 787

Autothrust Blue said:
ahem the 737-900ERs are our newest 737s (~10 years average), so they aren't going anywhere for a bit.

The -10Max is meant to be a 757 replacement, and you could hear me laughing from here, etc.
Click to expand...

The MAX10s were also going to allow retirement of at least some of the older 737-800s. But thanks to delays those 800s got sent to overhaul and will be here til 2030something.
 
Karnage said:
The MAX10s were also going to allow retirement of at least some of the older 737-800s. But thanks to delays those 800s got sent to overhaul and will be here til 2030something.
Click to expand...
They could use some alongside time. I think my commute a few weeks back was on the new interior on an -800 (I think?), but I was too zapped to notice in any detail.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
They could use some alongside time. I think my commute a few weeks back was on the new interior on an -800 (I think?), but I was too zapped to notice in any detail.
Click to expand...

The last of the old tiny white ex-Song screens has been sent to refurb, all the 800s now should have completed the refresh, though there's still like three or four variations so...
 
jhugz said:
Interesting that you guys are going for the -10. Listening to the higher ups at globe airlines it sounds like they only want the -9’s going forward. They state it’s the perfect combination of range, cargo, and pax.
Click to expand...

I think this is like the 320 vs. 321 thing.

Airlines mostly purchased the A320 early on and saved the A321 for short high density routes. But as time went on and the cost to operate a 321 became about the same as a 320, and the range went up a bit on the 321, the mindset switched and pretty much everyone wanted 321s except in cases you need the range.


phill1174 said:
Really, so if you call the dispatcher and want to speak with MX they won’t allow it? Or do you just have to go through dispatch to talk with MX?
Click to expand...
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Dispatch to patch FODO, and then they’ll be the middle man to if you want MX on the line.


The general idea that most of MX procedures involve ground-based kind of work, not air based. That most air based should be limited to QRH and FH stuff.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind Alaska has been (up until now) a large regional airline, where almost every flight was operated over a ton of online divert options has dissuaded them from airborne troubleshooting.

Also the ghosts of 261 still haunt a lot of places in the operation.
 
BobDDuck said:
Airlines mostly purchased the A320 early on and saved the A321 for short high density routes. But as time went on and the cost to operate a 321 became about the same as a 320, and the range went up a bit on the 321, the mindset switched and pretty much everyone wanted 321s except in cases you need the range.
Click to expand...
I had the distinct pleasure of being reminded that the original 321 was not a great machine on an offline deAAdheAAd while we crossed the Gulf of Mexico at like, FL 210.
 
BobDDuck said:
I think this is like the 320 vs. 321 thing.

Airlines mostly purchased the A320 early on and saved the A321 for short high density routes. But as time went on and the cost to operate a 321 became about the same as a 320, and the range went up a bit on the 321, the mindset switched and pretty much everyone wanted 321s except in cases you need the range.





Keep in mind Alaska has been (up until now) a large regional airline, where almost every flight was operated over a ton of online divert options has dissuaded them from airborne troubleshooting.

Also the ghosts of 261 still haunt a lot of places in the operation.
Click to expand...


There really shouldn’t be any trouble shooting beyond the QRH and FH inflight anyway. Eg, start resetting CBs because someone on the ground says it’s ok. Keeping in mind, their entire procedure system is based on the general idea the plane is on the ground.


2 engine airplane and one engine fails over FAI, are you really continuing to SEA because some guy on the ground says do that? And overfly suitable airports along the way?
 
jhugz said:
Interesting that you guys are going for the -10. Listening to the higher ups at globe airlines it sounds like they only want the -9’s going forward. They state it’s the perfect combination of range, cargo, and pax.
Click to expand...
Some QCL guy I flew with the other day said we’re converting all our remaining 789 orders to the -10 variant.
 
BobDDuck said:
I think this is like the 320 vs. 321 thing.

Airlines mostly purchased the A320 early on and saved the A321 for short high density routes. But as time went on and the cost to operate a 321 became about the same as a 320, and the range went up a bit on the 321, the mindset switched and pretty much everyone wanted 321s except in cases you need the range.





Keep in mind Alaska has been (up until now) a large regional airline, where almost every flight was operated over a ton of online divert options has dissuaded them from airborne troubleshooting.

Also the ghosts of 261 still haunt a lot of places in the operation.
Click to expand...


Also we are one FOM now right, so doesn’t 3.1.1.2 apply to you too?

Don’t talk directly to MX inflight. FODO is the person they can be your go-to link.


You will assimilate and like it :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top