Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-20-2013, 08:14 AM
#WEDAT
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: 717a
Posts: 286
09-20-2013, 08:16 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,030
09-20-2013, 08:20 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,030
09-20-2013, 08:32 AM
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
09-20-2013, 08:40 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Fleet size means nothing except in the context of how many block hours per day each aircraft flies. I kept an old car around for years because it ran well, it was paid off, and it cost me almost nothing to keep. For that I had a free rental whenever a car was in the shop or my kids needed to borrow one.
Now per the 2008 PWA Section 1 and now "fleet" in 2012 PWA, the airplanes in question at mainline for the pump-n-dump scenario would need to be in service, undergoing maintenance, operational spares. They're not free. If they were, why did we ever park paid off 727, DC93, DC94, L1011, DC10, 742, 732 and so on?
Maintenance is going to be based on whichever comes first- hour, cycle or calendar days and you're not going to escape that. And the more paid off they are the older they probably are which means the time between major inspections progressively shrinks compared to what those identical inspections were when the plane was new. New planes are cheap on maintenance, not old.
Put it this way, I saw this in particular with a corporate jet getting torn apart on it's major 4000 FH / 4 YR check, it had 100 hours on it. The cost of the inspection was still $250K. The way you can skate some of this is to pull it out of service and do temporary storage games but then it doesn't count for pump-n-dump.
Which to me the whole idea of pump-n-dump required DAL to acquire 80+ jets, have 800 in active service and then park them to acquire 255 CR9s/E175s... but at the same time have to park 102 CR7/E170s all to gain 600 seats at DCI? I think it'd be an irrational nonsensical stunt no right minded accountant would've allowed. But I'm sure the same people who worried about 700 Dash 8-400s would have bought into it as a legit threat.
09-20-2013, 08:49 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Well, if you post a stupid picture, then you have proven it. Answer this simple question, which creates more pilot jobs:
1. 600 aircraft at 9 hours per day
2. 800 aircraft at 5 hours per day
While we talk about how many crews per aircraft Delta needs that is not how airlines create fleets and staffing.
First they figure out how much capacity they need.
Then they figure out how many block hours they will need to fly that capacity
Then they figure out how many aircraft they will need to fly those block hours
Then they figure out how many pilots they will need to fly those block hours
Ensuring our share of block hours in that mix is the direct driver of mainline pilot jobs. Fleet size means nothing except in the context of how many block hours per day each aircraft flies.
1. 600 aircraft at 9 hours per day
2. 800 aircraft at 5 hours per day
While we talk about how many crews per aircraft Delta needs that is not how airlines create fleets and staffing.
First they figure out how much capacity they need.
Then they figure out how many block hours they will need to fly that capacity
Then they figure out how many aircraft they will need to fly those block hours
Then they figure out how many pilots they will need to fly those block hours
Ensuring our share of block hours in that mix is the direct driver of mainline pilot jobs. Fleet size means nothing except in the context of how many block hours per day each aircraft flies.
B) 600 763s flying 1 leg 9 hours a day requires 1800 pilots.
C) 800 MD88s flying a morning shift of 2.5 hours and a late night shift of 2.5 hours to which you couldn't use the same crews would require 1600 pilots in the morning and 1600 in the evening and 3200 total.
D) All that to say, I'd rather DAL have airplanes to which they will figure out how to max out the ROI and that means they will fly and we will fly them then a BH ratio set at 1.56 which only requires DCI to drop to 450 jets and us to stay where we are.
now alpha I don't disagree with everything, I'd pass the alfa rule on res raw carry over if ever asked, but when it comes to TA 2012 scope all I see is bad.
the trend vector on the jumbo rjs is headed quickly in the wrong direction and because of that Im not sure the trend vector on dci will continue to fall. not that that matters really as what is growing is a larger threat to mainline than 50 seaters.
Last edited by 80ktsClamp; 09-20-2013 at 09:50 AM.
09-20-2013, 09:34 AM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Just because you keep saying it doesn't mean it's true!
1. C2012 was NOT 'cost neutral' to the Delta pilots.
2. Delta is not making truly 'record profits' yet.
Delta was still losing money in the winter quarter when C2012 was negotiated. Delta made close to 1.8B at it's peak prior to 9/11, with an airline roughly 60% the size of the 2013 Delta. In order to have an equivalent "record breaking profit", you'd need to see the Delta of 2013 make a profit of roughly $3.0 Billion (not counting inflation).
1. Delta gets to the $3 Billion mark right as we are opening C2015.
2. The AA/LCC merger occurs to eliminate the $141.85/hr 757/767 Captain rate.
3. All Delta pilots rally and show tangible support of their MEC and NC.
If the things above occur I think we will see C2K levels of gains.
If we do not see the three items above the road to restoration will be a lot more difficult to travel.
1. C2012 was NOT 'cost neutral' to the Delta pilots.
2. Delta is not making truly 'record profits' yet.
Delta was still losing money in the winter quarter when C2012 was negotiated. Delta made close to 1.8B at it's peak prior to 9/11, with an airline roughly 60% the size of the 2013 Delta. In order to have an equivalent "record breaking profit", you'd need to see the Delta of 2013 make a profit of roughly $3.0 Billion (not counting inflation).
1. Delta gets to the $3 Billion mark right as we are opening C2015.
2. The AA/LCC merger occurs to eliminate the $141.85/hr 757/767 Captain rate.
3. All Delta pilots rally and show tangible support of their MEC and NC.
If the things above occur I think we will see C2K levels of gains.
If we do not see the three items above the road to restoration will be a lot more difficult to travel.
09-20-2013, 09:39 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Actually, that's the last part of my point...but I don't want to jump ahead.
Carl
09-20-2013, 09:40 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 777 Sim Instructor
Posts: 745
09-20-2013, 09:41 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Yes indeed it will include 767 Captains like you tsquare. Which is the start of a point I'm trying to make.
Actually, that's the last part of my point...but I don't want to jump ahead.
Maybe not tsquare since you're a 767 Captain. Delta could make even more money if they furloughed you out of seniority. And that wouldn't mean more money for you and I doubt you could "live with that."
But it's all about what makes Delta the most money...right tsquare? If you're flying a dying airplane, shouldn't we just furlough you out of seniority to save on training costs and your high longevity costs? Why not do that? Would you still say: "nothing I can do about it either?" What would be wrong with that picture?
Carl
Actually, that's the last part of my point...but I don't want to jump ahead.
Maybe not tsquare since you're a 767 Captain. Delta could make even more money if they furloughed you out of seniority. And that wouldn't mean more money for you and I doubt you could "live with that."
But it's all about what makes Delta the most money...right tsquare? If you're flying a dying airplane, shouldn't we just furlough you out of seniority to save on training costs and your high longevity costs? Why not do that? Would you still say: "nothing I can do about it either?" What would be wrong with that picture?
Carl
) is a complete non-sequitur.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
