Originally Posted by daldude

Sailing,

I think most of the Jr FO's understand what you are saying, I think this board is a just a place to vent. I think there is a fair amount of frustration, because while nobody is looking for sympathy I feel that most Capt's and senior pilots have no clue as to what our career prospects have turned into. I for example was with a Capt the other day who asked why I had not bid Capt on the 88 after being here for 13 years. I then explained that I was still in the bottom 17% of the list and had approximately 11 years to go until I would break into the top 50% of the list. He actually did not believe me until I showed him that we only have 578 retirements between now and 2017. He then proceeded to tell me he could not relate and that he did not know how he could have sent his kids to college if he had not up graded in 11 years. My daughter starts the University of Texas next fall I was actually depressed after that portion of the conversation.

In fact you pointed out in a earlier post that you had a pretty slow (non rocket ship) up grade to Capt at 13 years. With 2001 hires looking at 23 years I actually thought 13 years was pretty good where you thought it was pretty fair at best. You pointed out you were and SO for 5 years, I was furloughed for 6 years. I actually thought having a job as an SO for 5 years looked pretty good where you thought is was not so good. Different perspectives.

But I think the biggest difference in the us and the (Cattle Barron's)(just a joke) is that in the past Delta pilots were jr for a relatively short period in their careers. You for example where jr as and SO for 5 years but then you moved up to senior FO then Capt by 13 years. Where as my generation will still be in the bottom 20% of the seniority list after 17 years. So the whole "I was jr once comparisons" and "you will be senior one day" remarks don't seem to apply.

So while I don't refute that Delta added Capt positions. The way this bid is falling out the Jr. FO's like me, Roadkill and many others see mass displacements to smaller aircraft as well as crew resources stating "we do not plan to hire to replace vacancies" I know you keep saying we are going to hire. But that is not what crew resources is publishing they are saying "we do not plan to hire to replace vacancies". I did go to the road show a couple of weeks ago and they pumped everybody up by saying we are going to hire, then they decide to shut down the DC9's a year early so they can continue to delay hiring. If SD and company had just said that we are going to displace 700 pilots and shut down the DC9's early so we can fund the 717 and build up 737's, I feel other than the short term riot in the pilot lounge I could have at least respected them for telling the truth.

Keep posting though, we all need the pep talks to counter the reality of being displaced off of narrow body aircraft after 13 years.

Originally Posted by johnso29

Was the trade off to keep some 757s flying?

Originally Posted by johnso29

............

Originally Posted by daldude

Johnson,

That same letter also says "The DC9 will be down 21% as we begin 2013 with 16 aircraft in scheduled service". So clearly they new the 9's were going to be in service in 2013.

Then I was lead to believe by crew resources that they were going to stay through summer 2014 and this was stated in a road show 2 weeks ago.

All I'm saying is that the pilot group deserves the truth with regards to growth and hiring. Don't give me some RA RA road show when the plan is to fund from with in and displace. The truth would earn much more of my respect. Which of course they could care less about since I am simply one of the masses.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

That's the rumor. It would appear from this bid are not parking any 757's. I suspect some will however be parked and they will increase utilization on the others.

Originally Posted by FIIGMO

Bar, Good posts!


Still feel depressed about this MD bid! Looking at my W2 from last year wondering how things will shape up next year and will inflation compound the down grade losses!

Fiig

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

I bet the 757s give them some capacity slop for sure. But when you total up the 7ER and displaced ATL 767, we're losing 30 seats. I know that's not a lot in that category but it's not equal or an increase.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Just a few random observations about the DC9 and it's derivatives and this AE:

• According to crew resources they cannot train more than 2 crews per month of the DC9. DC9 has been intentionally overstaffed due to this issue.
• They said in they would open with at least a 100 crews on the 717 and ended up being 145.
• 717 training will be limited to 19 crews per month. Thus 7.6 months to train all 145 crews. But some, maybe most, will be off the 88 and thus require less training.
• ATL DC9 has 65 As and 75 Bs, DTW has 51As and 58 Bs for a total of 249 pilots or 124.5 crews (but it's really not even there).
• The M88 is staffed at around 5.0 crews per jet, if that was the minimum for the 9 then you'd need 85 crews for 17 jets.
• If you had to train 85 crews at 2 crews per month it'd take 42 months and right now April 2013 - August 2014 would be 17 months.
• If you want to have the 9s for Summer 2014 but 100% of the 9 pilots bid off this AE and you had to replace them 2 crews per month, you'd only have 26 crews by next May or enough for 5 jets.
• ATL on this AE will be displacing a net total of 47 As and 127 Bs from every category except the 717. Meaning, DC9->777 is having a net displacement on both As and Bs.
• Per the AE system wide we are displacing 233 pilots excluding the 717 category. Meaning DC9->777 we are going to displace 233 pilots and then open the 717 with 290 slots.

I think what they've done is just keep it simple, open the 717, drain the 9 and base wide (ATL/DTW/MSP) force folks down to the 717 and just do it all at once.

To try and keep the 9 open for Summer 2014 is risky. Not to mention by the Summer of 2014 given the number of 717s and 9s, you'd need to hire. They can probably cover the capacity loss just fine. So why risk it? Just get rid of the 9 in early 2014.

Which makes no hiring until 2015 seem so much more plausible. Not to mention isn't that a contract year?