SailorJerry

How many TAs would you shoot down to get that sweet Canadian lovin? One? Two? 10?

I'm trying to judge if you're committed or insane. I'm leaning towards the latter.

formerdal

Bill,

Explain to me how we are going to get all this pilot growth when these guys are displaced off the widebodies? I also don't believe these mainline reductions will require any reductions at DCI...how is that ratio gonna help us with this?


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Few industries are hit as hard by high oil prices than the airlines, which can spend close to 40% of their budget on fuel.
With jet fuel prices near record highs, the drive to conserve is stronger than ever.

Delta recently made headlines with its novel bid to buy an oil refinery, taking a more direct role in procuring fuel. But Delta and other airlines are experimenting with a number of other ways to cut costs.
The entire industry is hoping a switch from radar to GPS-based navigation will cut the time it takes both to reach cruising altitude and land a plane.
A Delta spokesman said GPS systems can get a plane on the ground 2 or 3 minutes faster than radar by allowing the plane to descend in one fell swoop instead of a series of steps. Since the planes burn about $100 minute in fuel, that can shave a few hundred dollars off of each landing.
A few hundred dollars may not sound like much, especially since Delta spent $12 billion last year on fuel. But considering Delta (DAL, Fortune 500) lands over 1,000 planes a day in Atlanta alone, the savings can add up fast.
The airline also cut long-haul flights by around 10% last year, and plans another 10% reduction this year.
Long-haul flights burn more fuel per mile than short trips because extra weight is added by the extra fuel needed to make the trip.
Delta's risky oil refinery bet
"Fuel is expensive, so we're being very careful about where we fly," said Delta spokesman Eric Torbenson, adding that Delta is making sure all its routes can cover the cost of fuel.
Delta is also replacing 88 of its 50-seat regional jets with larger, 100-passenger versions, because the larger jets get better mileage per passenger.
At United, replacing aircraft is also part of the strategy.
United is putting 19 of the most advanced 737's into service this year, as well as five of Boeing's (BA, Fortune 500) new ultra-efficient 787 Dreamliners. The new aircraft are 15% to 20% more efficient than the planes they will replace.
Like other airlines, United (UAL, Fortune 500) has put winglets on the tips of many of its aircraft's wings, which reduce drag and can cut fuel use by up to 5%.

It's also swapping out parts, such as the 800-pound steel brakes on some 737's with lighter, carbon-fiber equipment.
"We have a long-term approach in place," said Joel Booth, who flew 777's for United before taking a job as the airline's head of fuel efficiency. "This is very important to our businesses."
Booth said that efficiency efforts last year saved the airline 60 million gallons of fuel - or nearly $200 million at today's prices. In 2011 the airline spent nearly $13 billion on fuel.
Oil boom chasers: Next stop, Kansas
United's overhaul also extends beyond its aircraft.
The company has over 3,600 ground support vehicles such as baggage tractors and aircraft tugs that run on either alternative fuel or electricity -- a move being made by other airlines too.
Southwest extends its cost savings strategy beyond the airport entirely.
Like most airlines, Southwest (LUV, Fortune 500) engages in extensive hedging for its fuel -- a practice where the airline basically bets fuel prices will be higher in the future and locks in contracts with Wall Street traders and others willing to take the opposite side of that bet.
The airline received considerable attention in 2007-2008 when it was hedged more so than most airlines when oil prices spiked -- a strategy that paid off handsomely.
Over the last decade or so Southwest's trading strategy has saved over $3 billion in fuel costs, said Chris Monroe, the airline's head of risk management.
Currently Southwest, which spent $6 billion on fuel last year, has hedges out to 2015. But the airline is basically unhedged through the first half of this year, meaning it thinks fuel prices will continue falling for at least another month.
First Published: June 1, 2012: 5:28 AM ET


There goes your captain seat...

SailorJerry

Yes so by immediately voting NO tomorrow you'll ensure that all the flying in the world can be transferred to rehabbed 50 seaters while Delta furloughs. Yes. Smart. I like the way you think. It's crisp and wordly and not in the slightest bit selfish or entitled.

FIIGMO

I am curious what will make the company agree to that? I feel that 76 seat aircraft are not recoverable. No matter how much table pounding is going to get it back at this time. I do feel however, as the industry evolves and the pilot shortage becomes real, there will be an opportunity to further contain scope of the likes in this TA and bring more of the DCI flying to mainline and we could see 76 seats back at mainline. Today, DAL has no incentive to do so and to think we can just send it back to demand something else has its own perils.

We will pay for any improvements in another TA, we may get 5% more but we will give it up somewhere else. It is a negotiation. If we want to demand and hold our breath, the company has more options time and money to do what they will. The is a small win (i wish it were more), in 2 1/2 years we may be getting nothing or a bigger win, but we will be much better off with this TA than without.

I also see that if DAL wants to merge or assume assets from say (AMR) on JULY 2,2012, they will need our cooperation and they will indeed be looking to provide incentives for our cooperation. That would mean this TA was just improved that much more. Heck every time a side letter needs to be signed fine. Just give me 1 or 2% pay increase.

FIIGMO

I agree, the economy sucks and DAL will move capacity to where it makes sense and is most profitable. This TA will not stop that if it is voted down or not. The ER guys (i am one of them) will just fly the 737 for todays rates and the sting will be that much more. I do not follow logic the previous post, sounds compelling but non sensical.

formerdal

What are you talking about? You don't make any sense.

This sounds entitled/selfish? Based on what, the realization that the company's promises of growth are smoke and mirrors. If we reduce widebody flying I don't think we will need more pilots....there are more concessions in this TA than there are positives.

I will vote no tomorrow because this TA was a rush job and it falls short of my expectations in many areas, plain and simple.

johnso29

When you can make mature, reasonable, debates I'll re-engage you. Until then, I'm out. You're not helping your cause.

texavia

Then why bother? Better off with my union dues staying in my pocket, instead of paying admission to a zero sum game.

Elvis90

I've put Sailor on my ignore list...I tried to engage him in a thoughtful discussion and I like hearing differing opinions, but he resorted to condescension & general rudeness. I'm sure his heart is broken.

FIIGMO

I am not sure where dues come into play. My point is really that DALPA can only go back and negotiate again. Demanding is not going to do it IMO. The company will not give in unless they get something in return. Zero would be turning this TA down and going back, you would still be paying dues. This TA and its time frame is a positive in tough economic times. I am willing to move forward and capitalize on further opportunities.