Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
FWIW if I were in MEM or CVG I would be ready for anything. I do see them being able to operate the flying out of CVG without a base a lot easier than MEM.[/quote]
Hey, my wife's in school for 3 more years here and I promised her I'd ask the try and get some answers for the future. So, I had to ask the expert.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Hey, my wife's in school for 3 more years here and I promised her I'd ask the try and get some answers for the future. So, I had to ask the expert.
Thanks for your thoughts.
DAL4, a lot of them. A lot of 50's are coming off the leases. What will probably happen is that DAL will refuse to pay the current book on them, and if the carrier that is flying them wants to continue to use them, they will need to cover whatever DAL decides not to cover. It is another little way to try and get out of these DCI contracts.
I have the popcorn, and am getting ready for fireworks.
FWIW, the battle with Mesa is far from over. I see that coming to a head when the flying in CVG gets cut more.
I have the popcorn, and am getting ready for fireworks.
FWIW, the battle with Mesa is far from over. I see that coming to a head when the flying in CVG gets cut more.
Speaking of that, any word on Ford's presentation to ALPA National on supposed Ford-Cooksey violations in our JCBA?
I hope so. The current legal interpretation seems to be the parasite can kill off the host until there is nothing left. Who they sue then is another question.
Speaking of that, any word on Ford's presentation to ALPA National on supposed Ford-Cooksey violations in our JCBA?
Speaking of that, any word on Ford's presentation to ALPA National on supposed Ford-Cooksey violations in our JCBA?
I know that they are talking about some of the amendments with the 76 seat scope settlement being in violation of that agreement. Basically that they did not confer with them first.
(Second or third hand if you will)
I hope so. The current legal interpretation seems to be the parasite can kill off the host until there is nothing left. Who they sue then is another question.
Speaking of that, any word on Ford's presentation to ALPA National on supposed Ford-Cooksey violations in our JCBA?
Speaking of that, any word on Ford's presentation to ALPA National on supposed Ford-Cooksey violations in our JCBA?
DAL4, a lot of them. A lot of 50's are coming off the leases. What will probably happen is that DAL will refuse to pay the current book on them, and if the carrier that is flying them wants to continue to use them, they will need to cover whatever DAL decides not to cover. It is another little way to try and get out of these DCI contracts.
I have the popcorn, and am getting ready for fireworks.
FWIW, the battle with Mesa is far from over. I see that coming to a head when the flying in CVG gets cut more.
I have the popcorn, and am getting ready for fireworks.
FWIW, the battle with Mesa is far from over. I see that coming to a head when the flying in CVG gets cut more.
Ford's an idiot who never went to college and therefore could not apply to DAL back in the day. He also felt that he couldn't "afford" to leave CMR to go to DAL. That was back in '98. Actually, he's not an idiot which is why he's such a thorn in our sides. He is using the time honored "don't discriminate me because I'm at a disadvantage" argument.
I personally listen to what he has to say, as I listen to everyone. What I do with that information is my choice, as it is everyone's.
I will tell you this. I have seen some of this analysis and he is right more than he is wrong.
Only a fool would not listen to someone that is a thorn in their side.
(as a side note because there is someone that always misinterprets something. I am not pro RJCD or what the defunct corporation has become. I am for unity for the sake of this profession)
I always assumed the move to CVG for Mesa was that once we closed the hub there was nowhere for them to go. What I don't know is how the ASA for them reads. Are they guaranteed minimum levels of flying regarding hub closures? Our legal team should be much stronger than theirs but the guy who oversaw these regional contracts a few years ago gave away the store to them.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 710
On a lighter note, we lost a quarter billion 2Q '09. Anyone know when our miscalculations in fuel hedging will fade behind us? Even better, does anyone have our current positions on futures? Were we able to abandoned NWA's formers positions or were Delta's positions no better. It's been quite common the past few months to see flights tankering fuel into Detroit.
Everything is cheaper in ATL.
Look at the 8-K it states that this should be the last quarter we have a write down for fuel hedging.
Look at the 8-K it states that this should be the last quarter we have a write down for fuel hedging.
>>>Excluding merger-related expenses and $390 million in realized fuel hedge losses, Delta’s net profit for the quarter was $191 million.<<<
Heyas,
This is important. The merger is already saving both our collective butts. Despite the %25 odd decline in passenger revenue, the airline is STILL basically profitable.
Cash is up. Alot.
If there is any kind of recovery in traffic, this place will be printing money.
Nu
Heyas,
This is important. The merger is already saving both our collective butts. Despite the %25 odd decline in passenger revenue, the airline is STILL basically profitable.
Cash is up. Alot.
If there is any kind of recovery in traffic, this place will be printing money.
Nu
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post