Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
06-19-2012, 06:11 PM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
When the TSA gropes, it's called security. When you grope back in the same exact way, it's called assault. This really needs to be fixed.
Former TSA Agent Arrested For Reciprocal Pat Down - ABC News
Faster, better airport-security checkpoints not that far off - USATODAY.com
Former TSA Agent Arrested For Reciprocal Pat Down - ABC News
Faster, better airport-security checkpoints not that far off - USATODAY.com
06-19-2012, 07:08 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,165
Yikes, L&G is dead! Well, here's a nice day of Cub flying at the Wipaire strip in Inver Grove Heights (MN) to fill some space....
(You can see this strip under the final for MSP 30R just before Jacko, it's located on a bend in the Mississippi and includes a small seaplane base).
(You can see this strip under the final for MSP 30R just before Jacko, it's located on a bend in the Mississippi and includes a small seaplane base).
Makes me want to move back to the midwest ASAP. I get this feeling every June and it lasts until about early-November
There's really no cure except for a nice 70 degree Atlanta day in the winter. That's about the only thing this place has on God's country.
06-19-2012, 08:48 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
After reading alfaromeo's latest post in the council 81 letter thread, I need a beer.
Hey, Ferd, pass me a beer!
Hey, Ferd, pass me a beer!
Last edited by 80ktsClamp; 06-19-2012 at 09:22 PM.
06-19-2012, 10:47 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: New to mother D
Posts: 123
I bet ACL would say this headline is a big ol' dot.
Great read. In my opinion, improving our credit is a big part of the reason the company wants an early TA. Its a great time in the airline industry to have a good credit score.
Could the situation at AMR have anything to do with recent events at Delta? Many of the communications we've seen from our union have made veiled or direct reference to "opportunities" and execution of the business plan. The most recent from SLC is no exception.
Lots of great (and not so great) back and forth with respect to the TA on here lately... But not so much analysis of big picture scenarios and how Delta pilots will be effected.
Which set of circumstances required more time critical action from Delta: heavy work on our RJ fleet or the timeline of the AMR bamkruptcy?
I think the next six months will reveal if these negotiations will be a success of our union and constructive engagement, or a brilliant negotiating strategy on behalf of management.
Great read. In my opinion, improving our credit is a big part of the reason the company wants an early TA. Its a great time in the airline industry to have a good credit score.
Could the situation at AMR have anything to do with recent events at Delta? Many of the communications we've seen from our union have made veiled or direct reference to "opportunities" and execution of the business plan. The most recent from SLC is no exception.
Lots of great (and not so great) back and forth with respect to the TA on here lately... But not so much analysis of big picture scenarios and how Delta pilots will be effected.
Which set of circumstances required more time critical action from Delta: heavy work on our RJ fleet or the timeline of the AMR bamkruptcy?
I think the next six months will reveal if these negotiations will be a success of our union and constructive engagement, or a brilliant negotiating strategy on behalf of management.
06-20-2012, 02:35 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
I think this has a good chance to be the EFB at DAL.
Microsoft announces Surface tablet - Gadgetbox on msnbc.com
Microsoft announces Surface tablet - Gadgetbox on msnbc.com
Thinking apple might have a few years on them still...
06-20-2012, 04:04 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Bullish on DAL stock
Delta Air Lines (NYSE: DAL)
Tepper purchased 6,740,189 shares of Delta last quarter. I believe Delta is a good buy at current levels. It's trading at ~5.15x 2012 EPS and ~4x FCF. It appears that investors believe that 2012 will be the peak year for airline profitability. However, I don’t agree with them and believe that economic recovery will continue to drive stock price higher. The airline industry is in a good shape given tight supply, a moderating jet fuel futures curve, and still firm booking trends. Delta is trading at a discount to its peers, which is not justified given DAL has much less labor (non-union) and merger risk than peers (UAL/CAL, LCC/AMR). Although Tepper also purchased shares of United Continental and US Airways last quarter, I would recommend sticking to Delta Airlines.
3 Long Ideas from David Tepper's Top Buys - DAL, MRVL, ORCL - Foolish Blogging Network
Tepper purchased 6,740,189 shares of Delta last quarter. I believe Delta is a good buy at current levels. It's trading at ~5.15x 2012 EPS and ~4x FCF. It appears that investors believe that 2012 will be the peak year for airline profitability. However, I don’t agree with them and believe that economic recovery will continue to drive stock price higher. The airline industry is in a good shape given tight supply, a moderating jet fuel futures curve, and still firm booking trends. Delta is trading at a discount to its peers, which is not justified given DAL has much less labor (non-union) and merger risk than peers (UAL/CAL, LCC/AMR). Although Tepper also purchased shares of United Continental and US Airways last quarter, I would recommend sticking to Delta Airlines.
3 Long Ideas from David Tepper's Top Buys - DAL, MRVL, ORCL - Foolish Blogging Network
06-20-2012, 08:24 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: FO forever
Posts: 413
Been lurking for along time!! Interesting reading
09 Jun 2012 07:16 PM
THE LEVERAGE EXPOSED
Up to now we have been arguing the merits of a YES or NO vote to the TA.
The arguments for the TA were mostly centering around a "Bird-in-the-Hand" premise, being that one shouldn't exchange an unknown for a known. This premise was supported by beliefs that those closest to the deal knew the most, a trust issue. Also there have been focus on the mathematical model of the time value of money. These and possibly the larger narrow body footprint are the basic reasons for voting YES.
These are logical arguments, but I propose they are in the micro view. Not to diminish the importance of any kind of "raise", or a diminishing 50 seat footprint, but I will illustrate, now with the data I have received from a company insider, how these are "micro view conditions" that are overshadowed, and overpowered by more important and more forceful arguments.
Pilots move to safety. Industrial psychologists know this. I am going to show you where the real safety is. Because I believe real safety is in the most truthful information, and the most honest assessments, I implore you, each of you, for your family, for your profession, your company, to listen carefully and make your decision based upon sound, sober judgement, without emotion or pretense.
The details are:
1. The company has Capacity Purchase Agreements (CPA) with "contract carriers".
These agreements extend well past 2020.
2. Delta has to honor these agreements as they are contractual.
3. Delta has to absorb the costs of these contracts, and if the aircraft operating or maintenance costs increase, Delta has to absorb these costs in addition.
4. The 50 seat aircraft are operating at a loss.
5. The 50 seat aircraft are coming up for mandatory engine maintenance/replacement costs very soon.
6. The costs to re-engine these 50 seat aircraft is between 2-2 1/2 BILLION dollars over the next 3 to 4 years. Unavoidable costs. (there are statements of 1billion on this web, those are wrong. The company has stated to me, through a person who knows, that the actual cost is 2-2 1/2 BILLION)
7. The company can replace these aircraft and avoid the 2-2 1/2 BILLION by letting the "contract carriers" fly 76 seat aircraft. These "contract carriers" would then allow the CPA agreements to be unhinged. The total deal is a deal between the Canadair and the "contract carriers", and Delta.
8. The 50 seat -76 seat agreement gives the company a one time savings of the hundreds of millions of dollars.
9. Canadair only has 11 76 seat aircraft to build and it closes down the line. There is a time crunch on Delta to get this deal done before that line is closed. This was a Canadair corporate decision.
10. The profit sharing cost savings to the company (going from 15% to 10%) was equal to a 2 1/2% pay "raise".
11. Efficiencies included in the contract were equal to a 3 1/2% pay "raise".
(are you seeing how Vice President of Labor Relations and Human Resources Mike Campbell might have been being very conservative when he said the pilot TA was cost neutral?)
12. AFTER re-engining the 50 seat aircraft, they still would operate at a revenue loss.
I can state emphatically that if the TA passes, we lose ALL LEVERAGE.
Points to be made:
For those of you who think we are hurting the company by voting NO.
The company used absolutely every ounce of leverage it has in Bankruptcy court to cut our contracts to the bone. This was after promising to "Do it once and do it right." Trust was given and then abused. This was a purely business decision by our management team. Moak did the best he could do, I presume, but was up against a management team that was willing to use every facet of coercion to diminish our careers under a paper Bankruptcy. It wasn't personal. It was a balance sheet decision leaving emotion and ramifications out of it.
If we doubled our contract to 8-17-6-6, we are still saving the company money by agreeing to this 8-17-6-6 agreement. Be assured you are still helping the company in this example. Remember the 400 million Tim O'Malley has cited is cost neutral to the company, there's 2-2 1/2 BILLION and we really don't know what the final costing of the "hundreds of millions" for the one time savings is.
Do not worry. A 8-17-6-6 is getting the company out of a bind they put their own selves in, we has nothing to do with that awful decision. We are neither responsible, nor required to help management for their erroneous decisions. These are the problems of a management with a lack of foresight. We can see this in how they deal with us also. But the point is that we only help them because we are going to be with this company for decades, they may be gone next year, and it is in our interest to help the company dispose of their bad business decisions. But in doing so, we will make the same business-only decisions in regard to what we get out of this agreement. It will cost them, not dearly, but fairly. This is the attitude of a professional, and a sober observer of the facts. I implore you who faithfully serve the company to reject this TA so as to make this a win/win for management and for the professional pilot.
For those of you who think a "Bird-in-the-Hand" should be the only factor.
A "Bird-in-the-Hand" premise is based upon grabbing and holding known values, contrasting with holding values that are unknown and estimated.
We know we have 4-8.5-3-3. We know 3 1/2 are efficiencies and 2 1/2 are profit sharing. We know that after real estate and automobiles are taken out of the government inflation numbers our 2012 inflation rate is amounting to an annual 8.1%. We also know that the Fed has increased the money supply at historically unprecedented levels. (portends inflation)
So lets do the math:
4-8.5-3-3
First, focus on 8.5%. Let's take out the known company savings, which could also be classified as concessions. This is 3 1/2% for efficiencies and 2 1/2% for profit sharing. This is 6%.
8.5%-6%=2.5%
now our agreement is this:
4%-2.5%-3%-3%
This is hardly a good agreement when the company is losing money. It certainly is way under real inflation. Considering leverage, the financial state of the company, and the good-will sacrifices we have made, this is not representative of reality.
But we are talking about "Bird-in-the-Hand".
The "Bird-in-the-Hand" is the company under our leverage. That is the "Bird-in-the-Hand" we want to focus upon. This "Bird-in-the-Hand" leverage goes away, with any chance of real gains, the second this TA passes muster. Vanished. Three and one half more years under draconian wages and complaining pilots. This is after 7 1/2 years since the first per-bankruptcy "Do it once, do it right" promise. By the way, where are they now? Gone, just like this management team will likely be in a few short years.
The real "Bird-in-the-Hand" is the leverage we hold over the company this very day. Today you can make a decision that tells management that they need to balance the cost savings more fairly. If they will not do it out of good moral principles, we will do so out of good moral principles and the power, thank God, we have been given by their relying too heavily of 50 seat contract flying of our passengers.
The "Bird-in-the-Hand" is a downed TA. The "Bird-in-the-Hand" is the current leverage we have this very day.
I was wondering why I heard over a year and a half ago, several times through Line Check Airman, that RA wanted to get an early agreement for us, unlike the other carriers with bad relations. Many thought he was being paternal and gracious. Now we know it was all about covering management mistakes, burdensome costs on an over-reliance on 50 seat aircraft, and we were the ones that he wanted to carry the water. Shame on him.
For those of you who said it the TA did not pass the "smell test"
All I can say is thank you for the guts to say what you thought was right for your professional brothers and sisters, without pandering to pressure. Continue with facts and reasoned thinking.
What to do now?
First and foremost is to look at the facts and make a decision. Definitely vote. Make your voice heard. I still run into busy family guys and girls who still haven't seen the TA! I ran into an old friend yesterday! That's June 5th!
So don't assume everyone knows. One guy said. "18% over 3 1/2 years! I'm voting YES!". We can laugh or pity those who are not acquainted with the facts, but they affect your career and mine! Engage in conversations in a congenial and calm manner. Present the facts, the arguments are overwhelming. ''
A key point to all of this discussion is that the leverage is a one time event.
As far as who does the duties after a failed TA? This is a tough one. For me I think every NC member and MEC member acted in good faith. I believe Tim O'Malley is a hard working, honest and dedicated leader. But I also believe that there have been egregious errors in the assessment of the TA landscape, the knowledge of the intentions and Achilles's heel of management's predicament, and egregious errors in the proper representative character of the pilots-especially in light of the effort of the contract survey and it's being apparently discarded by the leadership, in principle, the rates.
There is not one person who says the rates are GOOD. Not one. Even Tim O'Malley openly admits this.
With all this leverage. The company's financial state. The pricing power and new revenue streams and the moral obligation to repay past sacrifices, with "Bird-in-the-Hand" safety, why would anyone vote YES to this TA?
Only the most uninformed and reckless character would.
Fraternally,
Captain
09 Jun 2012 07:16 PM
THE LEVERAGE EXPOSED
Up to now we have been arguing the merits of a YES or NO vote to the TA.
The arguments for the TA were mostly centering around a "Bird-in-the-Hand" premise, being that one shouldn't exchange an unknown for a known. This premise was supported by beliefs that those closest to the deal knew the most, a trust issue. Also there have been focus on the mathematical model of the time value of money. These and possibly the larger narrow body footprint are the basic reasons for voting YES.
These are logical arguments, but I propose they are in the micro view. Not to diminish the importance of any kind of "raise", or a diminishing 50 seat footprint, but I will illustrate, now with the data I have received from a company insider, how these are "micro view conditions" that are overshadowed, and overpowered by more important and more forceful arguments.
Pilots move to safety. Industrial psychologists know this. I am going to show you where the real safety is. Because I believe real safety is in the most truthful information, and the most honest assessments, I implore you, each of you, for your family, for your profession, your company, to listen carefully and make your decision based upon sound, sober judgement, without emotion or pretense.
The details are:
1. The company has Capacity Purchase Agreements (CPA) with "contract carriers".
These agreements extend well past 2020.
2. Delta has to honor these agreements as they are contractual.
3. Delta has to absorb the costs of these contracts, and if the aircraft operating or maintenance costs increase, Delta has to absorb these costs in addition.
4. The 50 seat aircraft are operating at a loss.
5. The 50 seat aircraft are coming up for mandatory engine maintenance/replacement costs very soon.
6. The costs to re-engine these 50 seat aircraft is between 2-2 1/2 BILLION dollars over the next 3 to 4 years. Unavoidable costs. (there are statements of 1billion on this web, those are wrong. The company has stated to me, through a person who knows, that the actual cost is 2-2 1/2 BILLION)
7. The company can replace these aircraft and avoid the 2-2 1/2 BILLION by letting the "contract carriers" fly 76 seat aircraft. These "contract carriers" would then allow the CPA agreements to be unhinged. The total deal is a deal between the Canadair and the "contract carriers", and Delta.
8. The 50 seat -76 seat agreement gives the company a one time savings of the hundreds of millions of dollars.
9. Canadair only has 11 76 seat aircraft to build and it closes down the line. There is a time crunch on Delta to get this deal done before that line is closed. This was a Canadair corporate decision.
10. The profit sharing cost savings to the company (going from 15% to 10%) was equal to a 2 1/2% pay "raise".
11. Efficiencies included in the contract were equal to a 3 1/2% pay "raise".
(are you seeing how Vice President of Labor Relations and Human Resources Mike Campbell might have been being very conservative when he said the pilot TA was cost neutral?)
12. AFTER re-engining the 50 seat aircraft, they still would operate at a revenue loss.
I can state emphatically that if the TA passes, we lose ALL LEVERAGE.
Points to be made:
For those of you who think we are hurting the company by voting NO.
The company used absolutely every ounce of leverage it has in Bankruptcy court to cut our contracts to the bone. This was after promising to "Do it once and do it right." Trust was given and then abused. This was a purely business decision by our management team. Moak did the best he could do, I presume, but was up against a management team that was willing to use every facet of coercion to diminish our careers under a paper Bankruptcy. It wasn't personal. It was a balance sheet decision leaving emotion and ramifications out of it.
If we doubled our contract to 8-17-6-6, we are still saving the company money by agreeing to this 8-17-6-6 agreement. Be assured you are still helping the company in this example. Remember the 400 million Tim O'Malley has cited is cost neutral to the company, there's 2-2 1/2 BILLION and we really don't know what the final costing of the "hundreds of millions" for the one time savings is.
Do not worry. A 8-17-6-6 is getting the company out of a bind they put their own selves in, we has nothing to do with that awful decision. We are neither responsible, nor required to help management for their erroneous decisions. These are the problems of a management with a lack of foresight. We can see this in how they deal with us also. But the point is that we only help them because we are going to be with this company for decades, they may be gone next year, and it is in our interest to help the company dispose of their bad business decisions. But in doing so, we will make the same business-only decisions in regard to what we get out of this agreement. It will cost them, not dearly, but fairly. This is the attitude of a professional, and a sober observer of the facts. I implore you who faithfully serve the company to reject this TA so as to make this a win/win for management and for the professional pilot.
For those of you who think a "Bird-in-the-Hand" should be the only factor.
A "Bird-in-the-Hand" premise is based upon grabbing and holding known values, contrasting with holding values that are unknown and estimated.
We know we have 4-8.5-3-3. We know 3 1/2 are efficiencies and 2 1/2 are profit sharing. We know that after real estate and automobiles are taken out of the government inflation numbers our 2012 inflation rate is amounting to an annual 8.1%. We also know that the Fed has increased the money supply at historically unprecedented levels. (portends inflation)
So lets do the math:
4-8.5-3-3
First, focus on 8.5%. Let's take out the known company savings, which could also be classified as concessions. This is 3 1/2% for efficiencies and 2 1/2% for profit sharing. This is 6%.
8.5%-6%=2.5%
now our agreement is this:
4%-2.5%-3%-3%
This is hardly a good agreement when the company is losing money. It certainly is way under real inflation. Considering leverage, the financial state of the company, and the good-will sacrifices we have made, this is not representative of reality.
But we are talking about "Bird-in-the-Hand".
The "Bird-in-the-Hand" is the company under our leverage. That is the "Bird-in-the-Hand" we want to focus upon. This "Bird-in-the-Hand" leverage goes away, with any chance of real gains, the second this TA passes muster. Vanished. Three and one half more years under draconian wages and complaining pilots. This is after 7 1/2 years since the first per-bankruptcy "Do it once, do it right" promise. By the way, where are they now? Gone, just like this management team will likely be in a few short years.
The real "Bird-in-the-Hand" is the leverage we hold over the company this very day. Today you can make a decision that tells management that they need to balance the cost savings more fairly. If they will not do it out of good moral principles, we will do so out of good moral principles and the power, thank God, we have been given by their relying too heavily of 50 seat contract flying of our passengers.
The "Bird-in-the-Hand" is a downed TA. The "Bird-in-the-Hand" is the current leverage we have this very day.
I was wondering why I heard over a year and a half ago, several times through Line Check Airman, that RA wanted to get an early agreement for us, unlike the other carriers with bad relations. Many thought he was being paternal and gracious. Now we know it was all about covering management mistakes, burdensome costs on an over-reliance on 50 seat aircraft, and we were the ones that he wanted to carry the water. Shame on him.
For those of you who said it the TA did not pass the "smell test"
All I can say is thank you for the guts to say what you thought was right for your professional brothers and sisters, without pandering to pressure. Continue with facts and reasoned thinking.
What to do now?
First and foremost is to look at the facts and make a decision. Definitely vote. Make your voice heard. I still run into busy family guys and girls who still haven't seen the TA! I ran into an old friend yesterday! That's June 5th!
So don't assume everyone knows. One guy said. "18% over 3 1/2 years! I'm voting YES!". We can laugh or pity those who are not acquainted with the facts, but they affect your career and mine! Engage in conversations in a congenial and calm manner. Present the facts, the arguments are overwhelming. ''
A key point to all of this discussion is that the leverage is a one time event.
As far as who does the duties after a failed TA? This is a tough one. For me I think every NC member and MEC member acted in good faith. I believe Tim O'Malley is a hard working, honest and dedicated leader. But I also believe that there have been egregious errors in the assessment of the TA landscape, the knowledge of the intentions and Achilles's heel of management's predicament, and egregious errors in the proper representative character of the pilots-especially in light of the effort of the contract survey and it's being apparently discarded by the leadership, in principle, the rates.
There is not one person who says the rates are GOOD. Not one. Even Tim O'Malley openly admits this.
With all this leverage. The company's financial state. The pricing power and new revenue streams and the moral obligation to repay past sacrifices, with "Bird-in-the-Hand" safety, why would anyone vote YES to this TA?
Only the most uninformed and reckless character would.
Fraternally,
Captain
Last edited by keenster; 06-20-2012 at 08:35 AM.
06-20-2012, 08:33 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
good post Keen.
06-20-2012, 08:49 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Actually it's Mettler math and has been shown to be wrong on many levels.
The OP was even asked to provide his sources so that the union could challenge management...he didn't...wonder why...
The total CRJ-200 cost savings in this deal for management is less than $500 million, not the $2-$2.5b that Mettler math suggests. Then management has to spend about $2 billion on B717's and 76 seaters to backfill the 218 parked 50 seaters. They also add in over $1 billion in costs due to the new PWA.
Management is counting on revenue from the refleeting to make this deal work.
The post Keenster references is fantasy.
The OP was even asked to provide his sources so that the union could challenge management...he didn't...wonder why...
The total CRJ-200 cost savings in this deal for management is less than $500 million, not the $2-$2.5b that Mettler math suggests. Then management has to spend about $2 billion on B717's and 76 seaters to backfill the 218 parked 50 seaters. They also add in over $1 billion in costs due to the new PWA.
Management is counting on revenue from the refleeting to make this deal work.
The post Keenster references is fantasy.
06-20-2012, 09:24 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: FO forever
Posts: 413
Actually it's Mettler math and has been shown to be wrong on many levels.
The OP was even asked to provide his sources so that the union could challenge management...he didn't...wonder why...
The total CRJ-200 cost savings in this deal for management is less than $500 million, not the $2-$2.5b that Mettler math suggests. Then management has to spend about $2 billion on B717's and 76 seaters to backfill the 218 parked 50 seaters. They also add in over $1 billion in costs due to the new PWA.
Management is counting on revenue from the refleeting to make this deal work.
The post Keenster references is fantasy.
The OP was even asked to provide his sources so that the union could challenge management...he didn't...wonder why...
The total CRJ-200 cost savings in this deal for management is less than $500 million, not the $2-$2.5b that Mettler math suggests. Then management has to spend about $2 billion on B717's and 76 seaters to backfill the 218 parked 50 seaters. They also add in over $1 billion in costs due to the new PWA.
Management is counting on revenue from the refleeting to make this deal work.
The post Keenster references is fantasy.
Returning to my peacful lurking world!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
