Prepare yourselves… 2023 AEs
#4091
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,233
We'll, lets look at our orderbook…
289 NBs(+84 options)
+32 WBs
=321 (405 w/options)
By EOY 2027: ~270 deliveries. We certainly will retire out some old 320s, 757s and 767s. Also, we've seen plenty of missed targets on deliveries. So it's unclear what the actual fleet size will be. But from a network/fleet perspective, 4% growth is about +35-40 new hulls per year (we have about 915 mainline now).
Add 270 jets, retire out about 80 (whispers of about 11 767s, 30 320s, 40 757s)..thats about 1100 mainline by 2027, or 4% annual growth. And I'm not totally sure what they mean by 4%. Could be seats (ASMs), revenue (RSMs) or fleet size. Either way, yes, barring a recession, we have firm commitments to grow mainline. Pilot group size will expand. Hiring 1000+ per year makes sense through this decade.
289 NBs(+84 options)
+32 WBs
=321 (405 w/options)
By EOY 2027: ~270 deliveries. We certainly will retire out some old 320s, 757s and 767s. Also, we've seen plenty of missed targets on deliveries. So it's unclear what the actual fleet size will be. But from a network/fleet perspective, 4% growth is about +35-40 new hulls per year (we have about 915 mainline now).
Add 270 jets, retire out about 80 (whispers of about 11 767s, 30 320s, 40 757s)..thats about 1100 mainline by 2027, or 4% annual growth. And I'm not totally sure what they mean by 4%. Could be seats (ASMs), revenue (RSMs) or fleet size. Either way, yes, barring a recession, we have firm commitments to grow mainline. Pilot group size will expand. Hiring 1000+ per year makes sense through this decade.
#4092
So first, I'm just the messenger. These are the numbers they used when discussing future hiring. I claim no responsibility for the company's assumptions or plans.
But...with those numbers, that's 5000 new pilots by the end of 2026, minus a little over 1800 mandatory retirements (67 not included...). So yeah, somewhere about 19,000 by then. I wanted to ask what their goal size was, but the conversation drifted away from that topic.
But...with those numbers, that's 5000 new pilots by the end of 2026, minus a little over 1800 mandatory retirements (67 not included...). So yeah, somewhere about 19,000 by then. I wanted to ask what their goal size was, but the conversation drifted away from that topic.
https://news.delta.com/delta-continu...irbus-a321neos
Another great resource is the quarterly 10Q report..and the annual 10k report. Shows breakdowns of fleet, outstanding orders, and delivery schedule by year.
https://ir.delta.com/financials/default.aspx
#4094
4% growth seems to be a great shareholder report. Concerns lie in continued passenger growth, WB delivery ability, TOP ability (mainly parts)…another black swan, age 67, and what the regionals will be? If existing at all? Still need pilots. I’m against age 67, but the point remains that growth will need pilots. A 2 year change won’t change that fact and TBH, everyone I talk to has an ailment lined up for disability payments if 65 passes (I’m a NB guy). Common story- pension lost, “I’m getting mine..” yea, still a no on my end.
So where is the AE?
#4096
I also think that they're planning for best case scenario here. It'd be a lot easier to slow or stop hiring if something happens and the company doesn't reach targets than having to spool it up and hire more than planned if they find they need it. Better to overshoot, methinks.
#4097
That's a good point. The 4% number was just thrown out mid-sentence in the middle of an answer about how big our pilot hiring pool is. The context was entirely around the number of pilots required, so I just assumed that's what they were referring to. In that scenario, 'growth' pilots would be about 600-700/yr, on top of retirement replacement of 400-500/yr, so that gets us pretty close to their 1300/yr number.
I also think that they're planning for best case scenario here. It'd be a lot easier to slow or stop hiring if something happens and the company doesn't reach targets than having to spool it up and hire more than planned if they find they need it. Better to overshoot, methinks.
I also think that they're planning for best case scenario here. It'd be a lot easier to slow or stop hiring if something happens and the company doesn't reach targets than having to spool it up and hire more than planned if they find they need it. Better to overshoot, methinks.
#4098
There was another email that wasn’t from BK and from the RCC which I was referencing. I went digging back and see the email from BK and other C16, which I didn’t remember. Not the best look for all of us either.
anyways, I always felt it was a stupid point to argue over. I wasn’t trying to come off as a supporter of all this stuff said but it definitely comes off that way as I read it back. So I apologize.
anyways, I always felt it was a stupid point to argue over. I wasn’t trying to come off as a supporter of all this stuff said but it definitely comes off that way as I read it back. So I apologize.
But seriously, no worries. It’s good to hash out history and make sure it’s accurate for the lurkers.
#4099
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Position: Looking left
Posts: 3,378
The original order was 100/100. We converted 25 to firm + added 25 more options in Apr '21. In August '21 we converted 30 options. 70 options remain.
https://news.delta.com/delta-continu...irbus-a321neos
Another great resource is the quarterly 10Q report..and the annual 10k report. Shows breakdowns of fleet, outstanding orders, and delivery schedule by year.
https://ir.delta.com/financials/default.aspx
https://news.delta.com/delta-continu...irbus-a321neos
Another great resource is the quarterly 10Q report..and the annual 10k report. Shows breakdowns of fleet, outstanding orders, and delivery schedule by year.
https://ir.delta.com/financials/default.aspx
My math in public should always be doubted, so thanks for the corrections and source links.
#4100
The RJ claim to fame was being available in large numbers right around 9/11 when airlines decided their capacity was too much. Also, in the late 90s there was slew of turboprop accidents that soured the view of the TP (I flew the ATR and liked it, so it's not turboprop hating) so the RJ was seen as a "safer" solution often using a jet bridge that provided strong revenue. Well - that's until SWA decided to expand after 9/11 and the majors shrank. Suddenly it became much cheaper to drive from Evansville, IN (for example) to Indy and take SW than to take an RJ and connect in a hub.
So suddenly the RJ became a high cost jet that was competing against SW. Airlines had to lower prices to match SWA on those routes, and any increased yield from the RJ (by going from a 100 seat DC9 to a 50 seat RJ) evaporated.
I don't think the major airlines ever broke out the profit/loss of their RJ operators or the RJ operation - I could be wrong though.
I'm glad if we can take the high cost RJ flying an bring it in house with a A220 or 717 - movement for a fair bit of the seniority list and we can make even more profit.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post