Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
10-11-2012, 09:28 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Starboard Side, weekends & holidays.
Posts: 856
More fun for me going to work now! Sucks for the junior guys that live in SEA that cannot hold anything in SEA and commutes to SLC till they can. And I am not just talking about the FOs but the Captains too. Old dudes (60+) need to go now!
Old dudes, please read Herman's wife last blog and do not be afraid... The guys I know that have retired say "Why did I not do it earlier". And I am not joking about that, it is very true, and the golf course loves you!
Old dudes, please read Herman's wife last blog and do not be afraid... The guys I know that have retired say "Why did I not do it earlier". And I am not joking about that, it is very true, and the golf course loves you!
10-11-2012, 09:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Starboard Side, weekends & holidays.
Posts: 856
Nevermind. Picture fail...
10-11-2012, 09:51 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Alaska Airlines currently operates 120 Boeing 737s. The new firm aircraft order, plus 25 existing firm delivery positions, give the carrier the flexibility to manage its fleet size to meet air travel demand over the next decade. Two-thirds of the aircraft are expected to replace older airplanes. The remaining firm orders and options will enable Alaska Airlines to grow assuming sufficient customer demand and that the company continues to achieve its profit and return on invested capital goals.
As to us versus them, to me it's %. If Alaska used 12 pilots per plane (for example) they'd have 1440 pilots. Add a net of 25 more planes and the plug now goes from 100% to sitting around 83%.
If we net 40 new planes with the 717s and we staff at 12 pilots per plane (for example) we'd grow from 10,500 to 10,980 pilots. The plug now goes from 100% to 96%.
Now the question to me is, are they adding 25 more planes because of us?
10-11-2012, 09:58 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Reminds me of this Captain I flew with that was in the second class when hiring started back up in 1996. Listening to him talk about life then makes you feel like a kid on your grandpa's knee saying "tell me the story about the good ole days again grandaddy!" 
10-12-2012, 03:48 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
10-12-2012, 04:25 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 403
You should sometime take the time to go over to marketing and talk with the people working in the department. You might actually find you learn something.
Could be buy 737's and jump into those routes? Sure we could to a certain extent. There would be problems. We would need to get gates in SEA. None are available at the moment or planned to come available. If we can work that issue out we then need to take down Alaska. It should be a breeze to knock down the highest rated airline for customer service and the airline with the single most loyal customer base in the world. They will flock to fly on Delta. It will have to be a epic fare war with huge amounts of blood spilled. Can we take Alaska on and attempt to put them under? Thats what it will take to ever make money on matching their routes. I would put it as somewhere around a snowballs chance in hell.
Oh by the way. Have you looked at the actual passenger numbers? How many they send to us and how many we send to them?
Could be buy 737's and jump into those routes? Sure we could to a certain extent. There would be problems. We would need to get gates in SEA. None are available at the moment or planned to come available. If we can work that issue out we then need to take down Alaska. It should be a breeze to knock down the highest rated airline for customer service and the airline with the single most loyal customer base in the world. They will flock to fly on Delta. It will have to be a epic fare war with huge amounts of blood spilled. Can we take Alaska on and attempt to put them under? Thats what it will take to ever make money on matching their routes. I would put it as somewhere around a snowballs chance in hell.
Oh by the way. Have you looked at the actual passenger numbers? How many they send to us and how many we send to them?
When I compare that even to a few years ago, I see us being slowly pushed eastward. It's gone from some in SEA to most N-S west coast flying and lately the trend has been toward transcons. Either they are immune from the economy that's holding us back, or we are planning to hand them a bunch more flying in the next few years. They are increasing their fleet by 20%. I call that big growth in an economic environment that's forcing a lot of carriers, including SWA, to keep flat capacity. Are they stupid to try to grow that much? Or is there a plan to continue to cede our routes to them?
My question: is there a point at which you, or ALPA, will start to be concerned? They own SEA. The latest rumor is that they are moving into SLC and our other hubs. Will we let them have everything west of the Mississippi? For the good of Delta? And the bad of the Delta pilots? At some point, whatever extra revenue is being generated by them flying our pax instead of us flying them will not help us. It would take a lot of 4% raises to make up for 10 more years of stagnation.
10-12-2012, 04:26 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
Purple Rain posted:
let's take a real look at how much C2012 will increase our productivity and reduce the number of pilots required. no, I'm not talking about DALPA's nonsensical numbers.
oh, and it's going to be virtually impossible to hire qualified replacements on a 1-for-1 basis with upcoming retirements.
Since you have clearly ran the numbers yourself to come up with the nonsensical comment why don't you post your numbers?
Delta has around 2000 pilots on reserve overall. Goes up and down winter to summer. DALPA posted the major changes will reduce the need for pilots about 15% or 300 to 340 pilots on the downside. That number however does not include the gains in other areas of the contract. So lets here your numbers for the sections where there were major changes.
1. ALV plus 15. Win for the company however on this very forum I talked about the ability to decline any trip putting you over the ALV and was soundly rebuked that no one would do that and everyone goes yellow high to fill up if they are close.
2.ALV to 84 however capped at 1 hour more for the year. Call that 1.2 percent. Thats about 80 jobs. What is your number.
3. Equalize days in the bid periods for the year. Another win for the company, again what are your numbers?
Total jobs estimated by ALPA again 300 to 340. Whats your number?
Now on the not a win for the company here are some changes off the top of my head.
1. Counting known absences like vacation into when a reserve is full.
2. Reserves full at reserve pay hours not ALV
3. Reduction/elimination of trip parking
4. 4:30 daily min
5. Increase in vacation value. (See number 1)
6. Increase in training pay (see number 1)
7. Increase of 4 to 5 X days per year per reserve pilot.
Note that none of the above includes the prior round of SOT changes which increased the companies need for pilots. The changes in recovery flying alone was huge.
Two other things. The company looking at pilot manning and the decisions on staffing such as hiring is viewing the contract as neutral at this point. Once they see the overall effects they may adjust.
The last thing and what will account for far more jobs then the contract is the quality of airline we are now running. The operation is light years better then it was just 2 years ago. Reroutes are way down which is one of the biggest drivers of needed reserves. If your running a good operation compared to the horrible airline we were for many years you need far fewer reserve pilots.
I suppose however in your mind the company running a good operation is all DALPA's fault!
So overall considering the contract changes and the SOT please let us know your numbers verses the ones you claim DALPA fabricated.
let's take a real look at how much C2012 will increase our productivity and reduce the number of pilots required. no, I'm not talking about DALPA's nonsensical numbers.
oh, and it's going to be virtually impossible to hire qualified replacements on a 1-for-1 basis with upcoming retirements.
Since you have clearly ran the numbers yourself to come up with the nonsensical comment why don't you post your numbers?
Delta has around 2000 pilots on reserve overall. Goes up and down winter to summer. DALPA posted the major changes will reduce the need for pilots about 15% or 300 to 340 pilots on the downside. That number however does not include the gains in other areas of the contract. So lets here your numbers for the sections where there were major changes.
1. ALV plus 15. Win for the company however on this very forum I talked about the ability to decline any trip putting you over the ALV and was soundly rebuked that no one would do that and everyone goes yellow high to fill up if they are close.
2.ALV to 84 however capped at 1 hour more for the year. Call that 1.2 percent. Thats about 80 jobs. What is your number.
3. Equalize days in the bid periods for the year. Another win for the company, again what are your numbers?
Total jobs estimated by ALPA again 300 to 340. Whats your number?
Now on the not a win for the company here are some changes off the top of my head.
1. Counting known absences like vacation into when a reserve is full.
2. Reserves full at reserve pay hours not ALV
3. Reduction/elimination of trip parking
4. 4:30 daily min
5. Increase in vacation value. (See number 1)
6. Increase in training pay (see number 1)
7. Increase of 4 to 5 X days per year per reserve pilot.
Note that none of the above includes the prior round of SOT changes which increased the companies need for pilots. The changes in recovery flying alone was huge.
Two other things. The company looking at pilot manning and the decisions on staffing such as hiring is viewing the contract as neutral at this point. Once they see the overall effects they may adjust.
The last thing and what will account for far more jobs then the contract is the quality of airline we are now running. The operation is light years better then it was just 2 years ago. Reroutes are way down which is one of the biggest drivers of needed reserves. If your running a good operation compared to the horrible airline we were for many years you need far fewer reserve pilots.
I suppose however in your mind the company running a good operation is all DALPA's fault!
So overall considering the contract changes and the SOT please let us know your numbers verses the ones you claim DALPA fabricated.
10-12-2012, 04:46 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 917
10-12-2012, 04:49 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Captain Jack
Posts: 1,003
Well, how about from the merger to date? parked 70 DC-9's....received about 20 MD-90's...oh yeh and 500 less pilots on seniority list.
If the crystal ball works hopefully all the 737's won't be pure replacement jets as the company and the union said during the contract. They say the 717 will be growth....88 planes....but I digress, we have parked 80ish dc9's since the merger with 17 to go. That's about 88...hmmm, no growth. No growth planed, no growth planes on order unless you want to count the 787 in 2020.
Do I think there has to be growth, no, not unless its good for the company and my job security, but you asked a "growth" question.
10-12-2012, 04:54 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 917
Sailing, our US routemap is turning green from left to right. Take a look: http://images.delta.com.edgesuite.ne...aps/us_map.pdf
When I compare that even to a few years ago, I see us being slowly pushed eastward. It's gone from some in SEA to most N-S west coast flying and lately the trend has been toward transcons. Either they are immune from the economy that's holding us back, or we are planning to hand them a bunch more flying in the next few years. They are increasing their fleet by 20%. I call that big growth in an economic environment that's forcing a lot of carriers, including SWA, to keep flat capacity. Are they stupid to try to grow that much? Or is there a plan to continue to cede our routes to them?
My question: is there a point at which you, or ALPA, will start to be concerned? They own SEA. The latest rumor is that they are moving into SLC and our other hubs. Will we let them have everything west of the Mississippi? For the good of Delta? And the bad of the Delta pilots? At some point, whatever extra revenue is being generated by them flying our pax instead of us flying them will not help us. It would take a lot of 4% raises to make up for 10 more years of stagnation.
When I compare that even to a few years ago, I see us being slowly pushed eastward. It's gone from some in SEA to most N-S west coast flying and lately the trend has been toward transcons. Either they are immune from the economy that's holding us back, or we are planning to hand them a bunch more flying in the next few years. They are increasing their fleet by 20%. I call that big growth in an economic environment that's forcing a lot of carriers, including SWA, to keep flat capacity. Are they stupid to try to grow that much? Or is there a plan to continue to cede our routes to them?
My question: is there a point at which you, or ALPA, will start to be concerned? They own SEA. The latest rumor is that they are moving into SLC and our other hubs. Will we let them have everything west of the Mississippi? For the good of Delta? And the bad of the Delta pilots? At some point, whatever extra revenue is being generated by them flying our pax instead of us flying them will not help us. It would take a lot of 4% raises to make up for 10 more years of stagnation.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
