Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? >

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Search

Notices

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-16-2013, 05:42 PM
  #123101  
Da Hudge
 
80ktsClamp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Default

Originally Posted by SailorJerry
The SWA pay scales are unsustainable if the economy drives ticket prices down again. They'll have a hard time raising the bar.

The regional guys, myself included, bring with us a healthy fear of bad decision making and awful management. We find a sustainable business model is much more pleasant to work under.

This was my first DAL contract. It was better than the previous. The new normal is a better contract every amendable date. Your normal is your fault. Not mine.
Set your expectations higher. You're a mainline pilot now.
80ktsClamp is offline  
Old 02-16-2013, 05:42 PM
  #123102  
Kerbal Rocket Surgeon
 
Phuz's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DTW 717A
Posts: 1,099
Default

Originally Posted by SailorJerry
So if we fly the jets, and increase the cost on them 25% per block hour, then any money you may have been making on an RJ just got blown out the tail pipe. So if Delta pays Pinnacle $750 per hour to operate a CRJ-900 but makes $800 in revenue from said product, where exactly do you think that $50 goes? Hint. Not to Pinnacle.

Are you suggesting that Delta could operate the aircraft more profitably than Pinnacle or GoJets?
Only you are magically increasing your costs 25% to draw this picture. Nobody ever proposed bringing arrjays to DAL @ 25% increase. Even if you increase the crew pay - which again nobody mentioned - the "synergies" from overhead in management/soc/office rendundancies would offset a significant portion of your self-imposed cost increase.

I already know that you can't write, but apparently you can't read either because I said nothing of being more profitable. I said that if Hulas can make money, you can too.
Phuz is offline  
Old 02-16-2013, 05:42 PM
  #123103  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: A big one that looks like a little one
Posts: 633
Default

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

They are much more efficient than the 50 seaters they are replacing and will be around for a much longer time. There has to be sunset provisions in the next contract...
And there's less of them. Sunset provisions would be good but with the impending regional beat down well in the works, would you rather have 4/8/3/3 or RJs? You know as well I do that the company wouldn't have done both. That's why absorption will work better than sunsets.
SailorJerry is offline  
Old 02-16-2013, 05:44 PM
  #123104  
Da Hudge
 
80ktsClamp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Default

Originally Posted by SailorJerry
And there's less of them. Sunset provisions would be good but with the impending regional beat down well in the works, would you rather have 4/8/3/3 or RJs? You know as well I do that the company wouldn't have done both. That's why absorption will work better than sunsets.
Is 223 more than 153? Help me out with the math.

Who are we absorbing? Sunset provisions are absolutely crucial.

Maybe we should have held out for better.
80ktsClamp is offline  
Old 02-16-2013, 05:45 PM
  #123105  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 365
Default

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
AA will be at 310 an hour in less than 5 years... and they got that in bankruptcy. We're highly profitable and we got 4-8-3-3. That's some bull honky.
80 I am happy for them, really I am. In pattern bargening it is good to have carriers with higher rates to shoot at. I truly believe that was one of the issues we had against us in this last go around.

Now to be fair in less then 2 years our 777 rate will be 270 and at 3% a year by the time AA is at 310 we will be at 295. Now I am not advocating 3% a year in the next contract I am only use that to make the example that in 5 years the gap is not as big as you are showing.

I am one of those guys that you will not agree with, I think the wage structure has been reset thanks to 9-11 and the recession. I am not happy but I believe that is the new reality. I relate it to housing prices. At one time my house was 100k more valuable then it is now. I can hold out for the that value if I try and sell it but I am not going to be successful. I guess you can call it defeatist attitude maybe it is, but my belief is we need to work off each contract and improve it from the last one.
Dorfman is offline  
Old 02-16-2013, 05:46 PM
  #123106  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: A big one that looks like a little one
Posts: 633
Default

Originally Posted by Phuz

Only you are magically increasing your costs 25% to draw this picture. Nobody ever proposed bringing arrjays to DAL @ 25% increase. Even if you increase the crew pay - which again nobody mentioned - the offset from overhead "synergies" in management/soc/office rendundancies would offset a significant portion of your self-imposed cost increase.

I already know that you can't write, but apparently you can't read either because I said nothing of being more profitable. I said that if Hulas can make money, so can you.
Ok so how much more does Delta pay their staff than a Regional? 25% is probably a good guess. Sure there's gonna be some redundancy savings, but what is there to operating an RJ besides labor and gas? Delta already pays for the gas, so the lowest labor cost is gonna drive the vendor selection.

Hulas can make money because he pays his people what his revenue dictates.

So your saying though that Delta could pay DAL crew rates and benefits and have them dispatched and maintained by DAL employees, and we'd break even on cost? Is that your assertion?
SailorJerry is offline  
Old 02-16-2013, 05:48 PM
  #123107  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: A big one that looks like a little one
Posts: 633
Default

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

Set your expectations higher. You're a mainline pilot now.
My expectations are a 30 year career worth $7.5 million with a stable quality of life. The airline industry will spend the rest of my career repaying the trauma from the first 6 years of it.
SailorJerry is offline  
Old 02-16-2013, 05:51 PM
  #123108  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: A big one that looks like a little one
Posts: 633
Default

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

Is 223 more than 153? Help me out with the math.

Who are we absorbing? Sunset provisions are absolutely crucial.

Maybe we should have held out for better.
What's the difference, to a pilot, between the CRJ-200 and CRJ-900 other than length? I'm waiting.

So 348 to 125ish? 70 - 223 is an unreal number. Because its negative.
SailorJerry is offline  
Old 02-16-2013, 05:51 PM
  #123109  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Originally Posted by SailorJerry
We'll absorb them - a la the PNCL deal. Either that or we can put in an RFP bid for them like everyone else does I guess.

Give it 5 years. You'll see.

Then again, is the goal of dismantling a 600 airplane fleet in 3 years a reasonable goal? Would our PWA have to subsidize the breach of contract penalties? Rome may have been outsourced in the stroke of a pen, but building it takes a while.
A) If outsourcing RJs is good for us then it must be good for Delta, and if it's good for Delta (obviously since they keep wanting to expand the outsourced jumbo RJ fleet) then why would they ever get rid of it?

B) We're not dismantling a 600 airplane fleet. We're removing 250 airplanes that EB said "customers don’t particularly prefer" and "the cost of continuing to keep the 50-seat RJs in the fleet but even more importantly the upcoming fairly significant maintenance costs that we’re going to be experiencing which will run into the hundreds of millions of dollars on that fleet if we had decided to retain that aircraft."

We are then adding back 70 jumbo RJs. So we're reducing 600 to 450, a 25% reduction. We are decreasing 50 seaters from 57% of the outsourced fleet to 27% and increasing the 50+ seat RJs from 42% of the outsourced fleet to 72%.

Put it this way, we helped them get rid of the outsourced airplanes they don't like for outsourced airplanes they love.

More importantly, we are increasing the 50+ seat jets by 70 more than the previous PWA allowed.

C) Rome was never outsourced.
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 02-16-2013, 05:53 PM
  #123110  
Da Hudge
 
80ktsClamp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Default

Originally Posted by SailorJerry
Ok so how much more does Delta pay their staff than a Regional? 25% is probably a good guess. Sure there's gonna be some redundancy savings, but what is there to operating an RJ besides labor and gas? Delta already pays for the gas, so the lowest labor cost is gonna drive the vendor selection.

Hulas can make money because he pays his people what his revenue dictates.

So your saying though that Delta could pay DAL crew rates and benefits and have them dispatched and maintained by DAL employees, and we'd break even on cost? Is that your assertion?
I'd be willing to bet that given the synergies of eliminating completely redundant structures (particularly across the... 6 or so companies that we outsource to), the cost difference would be smaller than you think.
80ktsClamp is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
On Autopilot
Regional
22594
11-05-2021 07:03 AM
AeroCrewSolut
Delta
153
08-14-2018 12:18 PM
Bill Lumberg
Major
71
06-13-2012 08:36 AM
Quagmire
Major
253
04-16-2011 06:19 AM
JiffyLube
Major
12
03-07-2008 04:27 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices