Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
08-17-2009, 05:38 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I am all for the DAL not renewing the DCI lift as the contracts come due. That is a phase in that makes sense.
08-17-2009, 05:58 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Sailingfun:
Thank you for your very good post that explains the economics well. I am not sure I complete agree since when I flew RJ's to JFK, it was from under served small cities like Atlanta, Washington, Baltimore and Toronto. It was mainline flying, not feed, IMHO. But in a network, my 767 leg from LA carries plenty of feed for international operations. The line drawn by "feeder flying" is murky at best.
The counter argument is that a union's foundation is unity. To be truly powerful a union must establish a monopoly on labor and deny management the option of replacing senior pilots with junior alter-ego pilots.
Once flying is outsourced, management and the alter ego pilots fight hard to make sure the flying does not return to the mainline union. The law is mostly on their side. The result is that outsourcing works mostly as a one check valve. As "The Boss" famously sang, these jobs are going boys and they ain't coming back.
I keep harping on this, but this is why we really should not let Compass go if we can bring them on board.
Your outsourcing logic works until just about every job is outsourced. As you admit the line moves all over the place. I think Delta's current management are long term thinkers, but there are too many that rise to the top with quick deals instead of focusing on the operation. Outsourcing always looks like a good, quick, deal. But, today it would be more cost effective to have most of the 76 seat flying done in house and the 50 seat flying gone (which is pretty much American's status quo). American's management has been restrained by not wanting to commit to a large RJ buy without being sure where they'll operate it. They have avoided a $12,000,000,000.00 airplane buy and bankruptcy. That might not have been too dumb. Bankruptcy gave NWA and Delta a heck of an advantage. Do you think Delta's bankruptcy was fair? Me either.
Look at GM. The Pontiac division's best car was a Holden built in Australia powered by a Mexican built V8 engine. Outsourcing was supposed to save the division, instead all the redundant layers of management operations and outsourcing resulted in a $45,000 car that they sell for $29,000. GM's not happy it is selling well and doesn't want to keep it. Same is true of our Regional feed. It makes a lot of money for the management teams involved, but does any cash go on the bottom line? Could we do it ourselves and have a better long term economic result? Sure we could.
The only way to be successful long term is to focus on our own operation and have a business model that makes a profit. A union can force that discipline by limiting outsourcing.
As Randy Babbitt has said, our union needs to find a way to do this flying ourselves.
We can do it. Your senior pilots need not fear "junior pilot issues" or pay. We know a CRJ does not make the revenue a 777 makes.
Thank you for your very good post that explains the economics well. I am not sure I complete agree since when I flew RJ's to JFK, it was from under served small cities like Atlanta, Washington, Baltimore and Toronto. It was mainline flying, not feed, IMHO. But in a network, my 767 leg from LA carries plenty of feed for international operations. The line drawn by "feeder flying" is murky at best.
The counter argument is that a union's foundation is unity. To be truly powerful a union must establish a monopoly on labor and deny management the option of replacing senior pilots with junior alter-ego pilots.
Once flying is outsourced, management and the alter ego pilots fight hard to make sure the flying does not return to the mainline union. The law is mostly on their side. The result is that outsourcing works mostly as a one check valve. As "The Boss" famously sang, these jobs are going boys and they ain't coming back.
I keep harping on this, but this is why we really should not let Compass go if we can bring them on board.
Your outsourcing logic works until just about every job is outsourced. As you admit the line moves all over the place. I think Delta's current management are long term thinkers, but there are too many that rise to the top with quick deals instead of focusing on the operation. Outsourcing always looks like a good, quick, deal. But, today it would be more cost effective to have most of the 76 seat flying done in house and the 50 seat flying gone (which is pretty much American's status quo). American's management has been restrained by not wanting to commit to a large RJ buy without being sure where they'll operate it. They have avoided a $12,000,000,000.00 airplane buy and bankruptcy. That might not have been too dumb. Bankruptcy gave NWA and Delta a heck of an advantage. Do you think Delta's bankruptcy was fair? Me either.
Look at GM. The Pontiac division's best car was a Holden built in Australia powered by a Mexican built V8 engine. Outsourcing was supposed to save the division, instead all the redundant layers of management operations and outsourcing resulted in a $45,000 car that they sell for $29,000. GM's not happy it is selling well and doesn't want to keep it. Same is true of our Regional feed. It makes a lot of money for the management teams involved, but does any cash go on the bottom line? Could we do it ourselves and have a better long term economic result? Sure we could.
The only way to be successful long term is to focus on our own operation and have a business model that makes a profit. A union can force that discipline by limiting outsourcing.
As Randy Babbitt has said, our union needs to find a way to do this flying ourselves.
We can do it. Your senior pilots need not fear "junior pilot issues" or pay. We know a CRJ does not make the revenue a 777 makes.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 08-17-2009 at 06:12 AM.
08-17-2009, 06:05 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
There will always be a Mesa out there somewhere.
08-17-2009, 06:05 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
08-17-2009, 06:09 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
And before we say the battle is lost, the fact is that CAL and AMR have decent scope protections. The ones that have sold it are DAL, UAUA and LCC. Now LCC is shrinking their regional footprint with this LGA deal, and UAUA is in talks to bring CRJ900 flying to the mainline.
To me it looks like the tide is changing is the correct direction. I say keep the fight up, a few more correct moves and what you say sailing may just happen. Throwing are arms up in defeat is not the answer.
To me it looks like the tide is changing is the correct direction. I say keep the fight up, a few more correct moves and what you say sailing may just happen. Throwing are arms up in defeat is not the answer.
After DAL "sold their scope" in 2006, they offered recall to all remaining furloughed pilots and then hired 700 more, including you and Bucking Bar, the most vocal scope hawks on this board.
AMR just lost an arbitration about the minimum size of their active pilot group. As far as I know, AMR has not bought one single 70, 76, or 100 seat jet for their mainline due to their "tight" scope clause. They are buying 737-800's but are still retiring MD-80's faster than they are buying new jets.
You are going to have to go real slowly now and explain how DAL sold mainline jobs and AMR protected theirs.
08-17-2009, 06:15 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,016
The feeling in the industry and from anaylists is that AMR is unable to provide feed at a competitive cost structure and it is hurting their core product. This has occurred for several reasons not just scope but it is huge issue. JFK is a example. AMR should be the king of JFK and flying to Europe from NYC. They have a better facility and have had a longer large term presence in the NYC market them most others. They are however unable to feed their operation and can't get the load factors they need.
The question for AMR now is do they give up on JFK. That is why the rumors are starting about a terminal swap in JFK with Delta. I doubt that is going to happen but I never thought USAIR would give up their terminal in LGA. The relationship between feeders and the mainlines will always be a large grey area. When you outsource flying you lose jobs at the mainline if that route would have been operated by the mainline absent the outsourcing. If the route can't be operated by the mainline at a competitive cost structure with other passenger options then you lose jobs at the mainline. Where you draw the line on where that cost break is becomes the hardest point to find. I think that Delta has shifted that point to far in the direction of regional feed. I think the E170/175 class of aircraft should be the battle line. I think American has kept the scope clause to tight and as a result can't compete in many markets with their core product. Profit or loss on routes comes down to can you get the last 10 or 15 passengers on the aircraft. Without cost effective feed you lose the mainline flight.
If tomorrow every major airline could take over all its feed the problem would be solved since the cost structures would all go up. Thats not likely however. AMR has a tight scope clause and a high cost feeder in American Eagle that also has scope. They are handcuffed as a airline at the moment because of those two issues. There is no right and wrong answer on where the scope line should fall. Its a moving target that changes with industry conditions. In the mid 90's I think anything over 50 seats could have been flown at the mainline. With the leverage the court system has given managements under Bush judges the last 10 years the line has been moved. Moving it back will take effort and time. You can't strangle your mainline fleet and mainline jobs in a attempt to take it back in one giant leap. It has to be phased in and your competitors have to follow suit.
The question for AMR now is do they give up on JFK. That is why the rumors are starting about a terminal swap in JFK with Delta. I doubt that is going to happen but I never thought USAIR would give up their terminal in LGA. The relationship between feeders and the mainlines will always be a large grey area. When you outsource flying you lose jobs at the mainline if that route would have been operated by the mainline absent the outsourcing. If the route can't be operated by the mainline at a competitive cost structure with other passenger options then you lose jobs at the mainline. Where you draw the line on where that cost break is becomes the hardest point to find. I think that Delta has shifted that point to far in the direction of regional feed. I think the E170/175 class of aircraft should be the battle line. I think American has kept the scope clause to tight and as a result can't compete in many markets with their core product. Profit or loss on routes comes down to can you get the last 10 or 15 passengers on the aircraft. Without cost effective feed you lose the mainline flight.
If tomorrow every major airline could take over all its feed the problem would be solved since the cost structures would all go up. Thats not likely however. AMR has a tight scope clause and a high cost feeder in American Eagle that also has scope. They are handcuffed as a airline at the moment because of those two issues. There is no right and wrong answer on where the scope line should fall. Its a moving target that changes with industry conditions. In the mid 90's I think anything over 50 seats could have been flown at the mainline. With the leverage the court system has given managements under Bush judges the last 10 years the line has been moved. Moving it back will take effort and time. You can't strangle your mainline fleet and mainline jobs in a attempt to take it back in one giant leap. It has to be phased in and your competitors have to follow suit.
08-17-2009, 06:27 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Alpha and Sailing:
Is Delta and AMR an apples to apples comparison?
Is Delta and AMR an apples to apples comparison?
- Delta's 2007 growth was driven by international expansion. Look at AMR's 777 fleet. They simply were there ahead of us, we were catching up to lost opportunities. Opportunities lost while Mullin and Co. were too distracted by "retention bonuses" and bankruptcy to be bothered with running an airline.
- Delta and NWA wiped billions in liabilities off their books in bankruptcy. American paid their bills.
- Who knows if having looser scope would have resulted in MORE furloughs than American already had?
- Doesn't American buying a large competitor just to shut them down figure into the picture? TWA wasn't healthy and it's operation certainly wasn't expected to grow.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 08-17-2009 at 06:42 AM.
08-17-2009, 06:32 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
This is a little simplistic, but here is my take on it.
With this AE, as well as the AE that starts all of the SOC action the junior guys are going to be flying the -88 no matter what as people seniority start actually matching what equipment they are flying.
Might as well get some of this training done now (and pilots will be ready to fly if they need them depending how fast this NYC this gets done).
NYC-88 is the most unwanted seat in the company. Sending people there is safe. It makes sure the seat goes filled and if they need to move people around later they would have no problem finding takers if they put out an award for other bases...displacing would not be necessary.
The training will already be done and there will be no other equipment these guys can hold in coming AE's anyway...it makes sense.
While there won't be much reduction in widebody pilots this will put a slight dent in some of the training that will need to be done (swapping people around). This will most likely be the new -88 guys last stop for awhile.
With this AE, as well as the AE that starts all of the SOC action the junior guys are going to be flying the -88 no matter what as people seniority start actually matching what equipment they are flying.
Might as well get some of this training done now (and pilots will be ready to fly if they need them depending how fast this NYC this gets done).
NYC-88 is the most unwanted seat in the company. Sending people there is safe. It makes sure the seat goes filled and if they need to move people around later they would have no problem finding takers if they put out an award for other bases...displacing would not be necessary.
The training will already be done and there will be no other equipment these guys can hold in coming AE's anyway...it makes sense.
While there won't be much reduction in widebody pilots this will put a slight dent in some of the training that will need to be done (swapping people around). This will most likely be the new -88 guys last stop for awhile.
This make sense. I agree. They know they will need the bodies here eventually so why not use the slow season to do some shifting.
08-17-2009, 06:35 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 58
There is no other airline that has lost more mainline flying in the last five years than AMR. Explain to me how their scope has saved mainline jobs.
After DAL "sold their scope" in 2006, they offered recall to all remaining furloughed pilots and then hired 700 more, including you and Bucking Bar, the most vocal scope hawks on this board.
AMR just lost an arbitration about the minimum size of their active pilot group. As far as I know, AMR has not bought one single 70, 76, or 100 seat jet for their mainline due to their "tight" scope clause. They are buying 737-800's but are still retiring MD-80's faster than they are buying new jets.
You are going to have to go real slowly now and explain how DAL sold mainline jobs and AMR protected theirs.
After DAL "sold their scope" in 2006, they offered recall to all remaining furloughed pilots and then hired 700 more, including you and Bucking Bar, the most vocal scope hawks on this board.
AMR just lost an arbitration about the minimum size of their active pilot group. As far as I know, AMR has not bought one single 70, 76, or 100 seat jet for their mainline due to their "tight" scope clause. They are buying 737-800's but are still retiring MD-80's faster than they are buying new jets.
You are going to have to go real slowly now and explain how DAL sold mainline jobs and AMR protected theirs.
Are these examples not a result of two very different "mergers?" American bought TWA and then got rid of quite a few airplanes (717s, 747s, 757ERs). I believe our biggest competitor in Atlanta is currently flying a few of these making lots of $$$. At Delta, did we not hire because of an aggressive management team that wanted world domination and grew the airline on the international side due to the economy picking up speed?
Are the current mainline contracts worth up to a 50% discount because other pilot groups were willing to do the job less? Is it possible that you aren't making what you used to make because the erosion of Section 1 has turned the flying into a "bargaining chip?"
What if we were all all the same team and we all fought for the same goal? Sailingfun said it himself. It's a "moving line." Why don't we all unite and help move the line in the right direction and end the downward pressure brought on by cheaper pilots???
08-17-2009, 06:37 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
Sailing and Bar,
Excellent posts!!!
Excellent posts!!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
