Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-07-2012, 11:30 AM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Note that the projected fleet count is well below what it would have had to be for DCI to get 70 more jumbo RJs.
88 growth airplanes? Nope! Only a few more than what we had when we merged.
I do think (hope) we'll start hiring sooner rather than later...
88 growth airplanes? Nope! Only a few more than what we had when we merged.
I do think (hope) we'll start hiring sooner rather than later...
09-07-2012, 11:32 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
80, a CRJ-200 in 1995 was a great replacement of the unwanted, uncomfortable and obnoxious EMB-120s that Comair and ASA operated.
Just like the CRJ-900/E175 are great replacements of the unwanted, uncomfortable and obnoxious CRJ-200s that Comair and ASA operated... and Skywest and Pinnacle operated.
Rinse, repeat.
Just like the CRJ-900/E175 are great replacements of the unwanted, uncomfortable and obnoxious CRJ-200s that Comair and ASA operated... and Skywest and Pinnacle operated.
Rinse, repeat.
09-07-2012, 11:34 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
I'll take your word on that. I do remember that they used the company's plan that resulted in somewhere around 1.7 BLH, and I always hated that number because it is way more optimistic than the limit of the contract. That being said though, there is now a floor, and that is a good thing. You can go on hating all you want, and you are only hurting yourself. I choose to look forward and see where we are going next, and it is up from here.
Or maybe you would rather we go the route of AMR or UCal or even SWA?
Or maybe you would rather we go the route of AMR or UCal or even SWA?
09-07-2012, 11:35 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B737 CA
Posts: 1,518
09-07-2012, 11:38 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Absent the critical component, the pilot contract, which the company just confirmed, this refleeting wouldn't have happened. Thank goodness most of the Delta pilots didn't have tin hats on, there never is guaranteed growth in any CBA. The contracts can however create the environment for growth, which this one did. Most of us saw that and the reps had the courage to make the right call.
Keep the "what other airline" cartoon stuff out of it. The company had to acquire 717s or 319 for the Delta pilots with this CBA not some future JCBA, in order to execute on its refleeting plan, which included a rapid and massive reductions of DCI jets in.
With 796 mainline aircraft, the company could have been authorized 240 76-seat jets, thanks to this new contract, they'll only get 223.
Keep the "what other airline" cartoon stuff out of it. The company had to acquire 717s or 319 for the Delta pilots with this CBA not some future JCBA, in order to execute on its refleeting plan, which included a rapid and massive reductions of DCI jets in.
With 796 mainline aircraft, the company could have been authorized 240 76-seat jets, thanks to this new contract, they'll only get 223.
09-07-2012, 11:40 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Yeah, I think 796 mainline jets per the old PWA would've meant we had 29 airplanes above the 31DEC2008 merger total. So per the 3:1 language of the old PWA they'd been able to add 3 76 seaters per mainline jet added above that 767 benchmark.
So 29 x 3 = 87 more 76 seaters. So 155 + 87 = 242 76-seaters. But they'd had to park 87 70-seaters to stay below the 255 max jumbo RJ limit.
So that'd been 796 mainline jets and 255 jumbo RJs vs 796 and 325 jumbo RJs.
09-07-2012, 11:45 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
You got a resume in somewhere? The latest thing I have seen is one carrier being shut down, and I'll bet there are more to come. And don't take that as gloating, but it goes to show that your attitude is absolutely wrong. Hope you can find a job when yours goes away.
09-07-2012, 11:46 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Good points all the way around especially the hiring part.
Yeah, I think 796 mainline jets per the old PWA would've meant we had 29 airplanes above the 31DEC2008 merger total. So per the 3:1 language of the old PWA they'd been able to add 3 76 seaters per mainline jet added above that 767 benchmark.
So 29 x 3 = 87 more 76 seaters. So 155 + 87 = 242 76-seaters. But they'd had to park 87 70-seaters to stay below the 255 max jumbo RJ limit.
So that'd been 796 mainline jets and 255 jumbo RJs vs 796 and 325 jumbo RJs.
Yeah, I think 796 mainline jets per the old PWA would've meant we had 29 airplanes above the 31DEC2008 merger total. So per the 3:1 language of the old PWA they'd been able to add 3 76 seaters per mainline jet added above that 767 benchmark.
So 29 x 3 = 87 more 76 seaters. So 155 + 87 = 242 76-seaters. But they'd had to park 87 70-seaters to stay below the 255 max jumbo RJ limit.
So that'd been 796 mainline jets and 255 jumbo RJs vs 796 and 325 jumbo RJs.
09-07-2012, 11:48 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I'll take your word on that. I do remember that they used the company's plan that resulted in somewhere around 1.7 BLH, and I always hated that number because it is way more optimistic than the limit of the contract. That being said though, there is now a floor, and that is a good thing. You can go on hating all you want, and you are only hurting yourself. I choose to look forward and see where we are going next, and it is up from here.
Or maybe you would rather we go the route of AMR or UCal or even SWA?
Or maybe you would rather we go the route of AMR or UCal or even SWA?
So it might not be right and I would change them if someone produced the BH hours per aircraft both mainline and DCI.
09-07-2012, 11:51 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
If they wanted. they don't have to. just wish they didn't have the option.
And the only way i see that happening, given the 739s intended replacement of 320s/757s/767s, is if they went after 88s or 319s. The former is more plausible to me given they require upgrading to fly into the next decades nextgen airspace and that would be sinking money into a fleet that would be 30 years old when the time comes.
That's why I want to see if they ever decide that the ROI is there to do the upgrade on the 88 and not just the 90. Finding more 90s and 717s would, imho, mean they've got their ideal 88 replacement- one that can right size up or down.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 09-07-2012 at 11:56 AM. Reason: last two paragraphs added
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
