Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
02-17-2013, 04:25 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Of course the prior contract allowed a greater number of CR9's then the current contract and with aircraft deliveries coming it would have been very simple to pump and dump to reach those numbers. Yes they would have had to reduce the CR7's some to accomplish that but they could have had more of the 9's everyone states are such great aircraft.
Keep one thing in mind. The people involved in the contract working for us modeled every possible option the company had with regard to long term fleet plans. They had airline experts to assist in that not keyboard cowboys. The company had many different options. The current plan was simply one choice among many. Several of the other plans would have been ugly for us but legal under the existing contract.
Keep one thing in mind. The people involved in the contract working for us modeled every possible option the company had with regard to long term fleet plans. They had airline experts to assist in that not keyboard cowboys. The company had many different options. The current plan was simply one choice among many. Several of the other plans would have been ugly for us but legal under the existing contract.
Give us all a contractually enforceable scenario that would meet your definition of UGLY.
I just want to be on the same page as you.
Otherwise I am left with the belief that this was all about big RJ acquisition and more international outsourcing...For which we received a princely "raise" ((COLA) and work rules which allow decreased staffing.
BTW, you said you were a no voter and I will take you at your word.
02-17-2013, 04:33 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Please Sailing,
Give us all a contractually enforceable scenario that would meet your definition of UGLY.
I just want to be on the same page as you.
Otherwise I am left with the belief that this was all about big RJ acquisition and more international outsourcing...For which we received a princely "raise" ((COLA) and work rules which allow decreased staffing.
BTW, you said you were a no voter and I will take you at your word.
Give us all a contractually enforceable scenario that would meet your definition of UGLY.
I just want to be on the same page as you.
Otherwise I am left with the belief that this was all about big RJ acquisition and more international outsourcing...For which we received a princely "raise" ((COLA) and work rules which allow decreased staffing.
BTW, you said you were a no voter and I will take you at your word.
02-17-2013, 04:39 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: A big one that looks like a little one
Posts: 633
My absolute theory > [username]'s theory.
Moot. I mean Moo.
Moot. I mean Moo.
02-17-2013, 05:04 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Of course the prior contract allowed a greater number of CR9's then the current contract and with aircraft deliveries coming it would have been very simple to pump and dump to reach those numbers. Yes they would have had to reduce the CR7's some to accomplish that but they could have had more of the 9's everyone states are such great aircraft.
Keep one thing in mind. The people involved in the contract working for us modeled every possible option the company had with regard to long term fleet plans. They had airline experts to assist in that not keyboard cowboys. The company had many different options. The current plan was simply one choice among many. Several of the other plans would have been ugly for us but legal under the existing contract.
Keep one thing in mind. The people involved in the contract working for us modeled every possible option the company had with regard to long term fleet plans. They had airline experts to assist in that not keyboard cowboys. The company had many different options. The current plan was simply one choice among many. Several of the other plans would have been ugly for us but legal under the existing contract.
325 jumbo outsourced RJs the company loves > 255 jumbo outsourced RJs the company loves.
Not to mention on the old PWA, how many mainline jets did we need to have on property before they could have 255 76 seaters and 0 70 seaters?
Lastly, add 88 717s to the fleet (assume 100% of 739s are replacement jets as we were told), what then is the BH with DCI@450?
02-17-2013, 05:14 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: A big one that looks like a little one
Posts: 633
Then they missed something:
325 jumbo outsourced RJs the company loves > 255 jumbo outsourced RJs the company loves.
Not to mention on the old PWA, how many mainline jets did we need to have on property before they could have 255 76 seaters and 0 70 seaters?
Lastly, add 88 717s to the fleet (assume 100% of 739s are replacement jets as we were told), what then is the BH with DCI@450?
02-17-2013, 05:17 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Then Pinnacle got all Comair'd. There are ways around those contracts...always.
The point is that the 50 seater was self mitigating and we allowed a pile of additional highly viable heavy RJs to replace them.
There is no guarantee otherwise as this is speculation since the contract passed. I would have happily taken a few more months of negotiations to at least get it somewhat more right. What was the big rush? DL supposedly wanted to "make moves." We assumed they would benefit us and open up opportunity for further negotiations and increases. Well, they bought 49% of a foreign airline with a bunch of widebodies to JV with. So much for that.
The point is that the 50 seater was self mitigating and we allowed a pile of additional highly viable heavy RJs to replace them.
There is no guarantee otherwise as this is speculation since the contract passed. I would have happily taken a few more months of negotiations to at least get it somewhat more right. What was the big rush? DL supposedly wanted to "make moves." We assumed they would benefit us and open up opportunity for further negotiations and increases. Well, they bought 49% of a foreign airline with a bunch of widebodies to JV with. So much for that.
Of course the prior contract allowed a greater number of CR9's then the current contract and with aircraft deliveries coming it would have been very simple to pump and dump to reach those numbers. Yes they would have had to reduce the CR7's some to accomplish that but they could have had more of the 9's everyone states are such great aircraft.
Keep one thing in mind. The people involved in the contract working for us modeled every possible option the company had with regard to long term fleet plans. They had airline experts to assist in that not keyboard cowboys. The company had many different options. The current plan was simply one choice among many. Several of the other plans would have been ugly for us but legal under the existing contract.
Keep one thing in mind. The people involved in the contract working for us modeled every possible option the company had with regard to long term fleet plans. They had airline experts to assist in that not keyboard cowboys. The company had many different options. The current plan was simply one choice among many. Several of the other plans would have been ugly for us but legal under the existing contract.
Wait....this is what I'm hearing from some. The 50 seaters were toast, garbage, beer cans. No one wanted them. However, Bombardier was willing to trade them out 2:1 for CRJ900s. Right? And Boeing/Airbus may be willing to trade them out for B737/A320s?(per the article FTB posted)
Now the CRJ700 jumbo RJ is a fuel effiecient, money making machine. It's valuable, and in demand around the world. But there is NO way Bombardier would trade 1:1 CRJ700s for CRJ900s? The 1:1 pump and dump scenario is impossible?
I don't see how that makes any sense. If Bombardier is willing to take worthless beer cans 2:1 for shiny new CRJ900s, why is it unfeasible to do a 1:1 exchange CRJ700s for CRJ900s? I mean, the B717s were coming regardless of contract approval, right? And the 737-900ERs were already coming, right? So that's 188 airframes to add to 722 airframes? Hello pump and dump.
02-17-2013, 05:21 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Not to mention on the old PWA, how many mainline jets did we need to have on property before they could have 255 76 seaters and 0 70 seaters?
Lastly, add 88 717s to the fleet (assume 100% of 739s are replacement jets as we were told), what then is the BH with DCI@450?
02-17-2013, 05:28 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
Pretty regularly on this forum we hear from Bucking Bar and GeorgeTG. These two in particular (of several forum members) provide quite a bit of well thought out insight derived from their comprehensive research.
You so-called "airline experts" are from the same clown act that provides our legal services and consistently misses loopholes in our contracts. Loopholes that we subsequently have to spend some of our precious little negotiating capital to close.
02-17-2013, 05:51 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
That's still 255 70-76 seaters vs what we allow today which is 325 70-76 seaters.
Then yes, the company could dump mainline jets. Horribly expensive sounding procedure though, which is probably why the above language was stricken from the contract and we went with the ratio that allows pumping while dumping instead of the old pump then dump.
So if they don't want to go 780-790ish jets at mainline and prefer something less a net gain of 30 or so jets (as mentioned before) then they can do so while growing from 255 jumbos to 325 jumbo RJs and 153 76-seaters to 223.
But let's say we go to 790 jets, what is the ratio of 790 jets to DCI@450? ALPA surely has a number, no?
02-17-2013, 06:13 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: C130
Posts: 303
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
