Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-18-2014, 10:04 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
True, the ATL-SFO has (at least today) 3 739s, 2 763s, 2 752s for 1410 seats. Weren't we hearing recently that they wanted to turn the 763ERs to domestic flying because of a lack of places to take them overseas?
Well 210 seater ER flying 7 flights per day is 1470 seats, a 4% increase in capacity. Minor increase in capacity, shunned by the WSJ, but if you can save the money elsewhere then it's more margin.
Well 210 seater ER flying 7 flights per day is 1470 seats, a 4% increase in capacity. Minor increase in capacity, shunned by the WSJ, but if you can save the money elsewhere then it's more margin.
I don't remember hearing about more ERs being moved to domestic ops. However, they could likely replace some of the domestic 763s as they are parked, which would be a capacity decrease.
05-18-2014, 10:13 PM
Mother’s finest
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 73NB
Posts: 296
I edited that out. I kept hitting reload but it never reloaded so I didn't think anyone saw it yet so I kept editing. I went back to Captains snoring at the hotel for simplicity.
Say 5/20/2014
Flight 1 ATL-SFO at 8am done by Crew A
Flight 2 ATL-SFO at 10am done by Crew B
Flight 3 ATL-SFO at 11am done by Crew C
Flight 4 ATL-SFO at 3pm done by Crew D
Flight 5 ATL-SFO at 5pm done by Crew E
Flight 6 ATL-SFO at 7pm done by Crew F
Flight 7 ATL-SFO at 9pm done by Crew G
Flight 8 SFO-ATL at 6am done by Crew H
Flight 9 SFO-ATL at 8am done by Crew I
Flight 10 SFO-ATL at 9am done by Crew J
Flight 11 SFO-ATL at 12pm done by Crew K
Flight 12 SFO-ATL at 2pm done by Crew L
Flight 13 SFO-ATL at 9pm done by Crew A
Flight 14 SFO-ATL at 1130pm done by Crew B
Vs
Flight 1 ATL-SFO at 8am done by Crew E originating in ATL
Flight 2 ATL-SFO at 942am done by Crew F originating in ATL
Flight 3 ATL-SFO at 11am done by Crew D originating in ATL
Flight 4 ATL-SFO at 3pm done by Crew A
Flight 5 ATL-SFO at 5pm done by Crew B
Flight 6 ATL-SFO at 7pm done by Crew C Originating in ATL
Flight 7 ATL-SFO at 829pm done by Crew G Originating in ATL
Flight 8 SFO-ATL at 6am done by Crew A originating in SFO
Flight 9 SFO-ATL at 8am done by Crew B originating in SFO
Flight 10 SFO-ATL at 1130am done by Crew E
Flight 11 SFO-ATL at 122pm done by Crew F
Flight 12 SFO-ATL at 1430pm done by Crew D
Flight 13 SFO-ATL at 1030pm done by Crew C
Flight 14 SFO-ATL at 1159pm done by Crew G
Say 5/20/2014
Flight 1 ATL-SFO at 8am done by Crew A
Flight 2 ATL-SFO at 10am done by Crew B
Flight 3 ATL-SFO at 11am done by Crew C
Flight 4 ATL-SFO at 3pm done by Crew D
Flight 5 ATL-SFO at 5pm done by Crew E
Flight 6 ATL-SFO at 7pm done by Crew F
Flight 7 ATL-SFO at 9pm done by Crew G
Flight 8 SFO-ATL at 6am done by Crew H
Flight 9 SFO-ATL at 8am done by Crew I
Flight 10 SFO-ATL at 9am done by Crew J
Flight 11 SFO-ATL at 12pm done by Crew K
Flight 12 SFO-ATL at 2pm done by Crew L
Flight 13 SFO-ATL at 9pm done by Crew A
Flight 14 SFO-ATL at 1130pm done by Crew B
Vs
Flight 1 ATL-SFO at 8am done by Crew E originating in ATL
Flight 2 ATL-SFO at 942am done by Crew F originating in ATL
Flight 3 ATL-SFO at 11am done by Crew D originating in ATL
Flight 4 ATL-SFO at 3pm done by Crew A
Flight 5 ATL-SFO at 5pm done by Crew B
Flight 6 ATL-SFO at 7pm done by Crew C Originating in ATL
Flight 7 ATL-SFO at 829pm done by Crew G Originating in ATL
Flight 8 SFO-ATL at 6am done by Crew A originating in SFO
Flight 9 SFO-ATL at 8am done by Crew B originating in SFO
Flight 10 SFO-ATL at 1130am done by Crew E
Flight 11 SFO-ATL at 122pm done by Crew F
Flight 12 SFO-ATL at 1430pm done by Crew D
Flight 13 SFO-ATL at 1030pm done by Crew C
Flight 14 SFO-ATL at 1159pm done by Crew G
I'm not sure why the company would want it either, but it definitely isn't a reduction in manning or pilot costs. If the company wants the CDO even with the increased costs to 7:30 and the additional cost of ADG up to 5:15, the only reason I can see an advantage to them is that the pilots will potentially be available for flying more often than they would be if they were parked at the hotel for 30 hours. Even then though, more efficiency (both 7:30 SDP and 5:15 ADG) theoretically means less days available for the company to schedule you- you just fill up faster. I suppose potentially you could have more reserve pilots available on call if the company could get rid of the 30 hour layovers.
05-18-2014, 10:18 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
You can't answer "why's" to hypothetical presumptions. You do realize DALPA has professional analysts to run those types of numbers with real data sets and not "napkin math"? How much more credit time is added into other rotations because of the removal of a long leg? What is the effect on staffing out of other bases and the rotation construction differences? Which aircraft are equipped with a Class 3 rest facility to make it legal? (Esp out of ATL where the heartburn seems to be?)
For all we know it is a staffing increase of 500 pilots if you use imaginary numbers and circumstances.
So I'll ask the same nonsense question the other direction: why is the company increasing staffing at a time of record profits and tight manning situations? Why is this better?
I'll wait for the details, but I expect and have faith that my MEC would not approve (or recommend for approval) a negative LOA at this point. I do not think the NC is even permitted to bring back any TA that is a negative for the pilot group.
For all we know it is a staffing increase of 500 pilots if you use imaginary numbers and circumstances.
So I'll ask the same nonsense question the other direction: why is the company increasing staffing at a time of record profits and tight manning situations? Why is this better?
I'll wait for the details, but I expect and have faith that my MEC would not approve (or recommend for approval) a negative LOA at this point. I do not think the NC is even permitted to bring back any TA that is a negative for the pilot group.
You fly in tonight get there at 11, I take the flight out in the morning at 6. At 3am, how many FOs does DAL have at the hotel (LaQuinta Inn but not the good one, an old concrete wall one)? 2.
Do a CDO and how many FOs are there at 3am? 1.
Now we could have 3 FOs that bid all of these ILE CDOs, do 10 each. If they could only do 13.5 hour 3-days with 30 hour layovers and there were 2 crews per night, I'm guessing around 5-6 pilots could bid that (and only that) per month and cover it.
I don't know, I'll wait and see the language but I can kind of see where CDOs and augmented crews could open the gate for reduced need for pilots right at the moment they're realizing they don't have enough.
If I put a management hat on fewer pilots is a good thing. Turns are easier to staff and coordinate than overnights. Seems like they could be more productive with a given amount of pilots and that seems to be the trend.
But liek the 1.56 ratio the devil is in the details to me.
And fwiw... it'll pass. If it went to MEMRAT with a seal of approval it will pass.
05-18-2014, 10:19 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Your analysis is right except you have to keep in mind that these pilots will also fill up in much fewer days than usual- lets say the company would usually use these guys to cover 13 days of flying (Pure guess), now they will be full at 7-8 days (absolute max if talking 11:00 per turn) with about the same pay, but with an extra guy going along for the ride.
I'm not sure why the company would want it either, but it definitely isn't a reduction in manning or pilot costs. If the company wants the CDO even with the increased costs to 7:30 and the additional cost of ADG up to 5:15, the only reason I can see an advantage to them is that the pilots will potentially be available for flying more often than they would be if they were parked at the hotel for 30 hours. Even then though, more efficiency (both 7:30 SDP and 5:15 ADG) theoretically means less days available for the company to schedule you- you just fill up faster. I suppose potentially you could have more reserve pilots available on call if the company could get rid of the 30 hour layovers.
I'm not sure why the company would want it either, but it definitely isn't a reduction in manning or pilot costs. If the company wants the CDO even with the increased costs to 7:30 and the additional cost of ADG up to 5:15, the only reason I can see an advantage to them is that the pilots will potentially be available for flying more often than they would be if they were parked at the hotel for 30 hours. Even then though, more efficiency (both 7:30 SDP and 5:15 ADG) theoretically means less days available for the company to schedule you- you just fill up faster. I suppose potentially you could have more reserve pilots available on call if the company could get rid of the 30 hour layovers.
05-18-2014, 10:23 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
05-18-2014, 10:42 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Your analysis is right except you have to keep in mind that these pilots will also fill up in much fewer days than usual- lets say the company would usually use these guys to cover 13 days of flying (Pure guess), now they will be full at 7-8 days (absolute max if talking 11:00 per turn) with about the same pay, but with an extra guy going along for the ride.
I'm not sure why the company would want it either, but it definitely isn't a reduction in manning or pilot costs. If the company wants the CDO even with the increased costs to 7:30 and the additional cost of ADG up to 5:15, the only reason I can see an advantage to them is that the pilots will potentially be available for flying more often than they would be if they were parked at the hotel for 30 hours. Even then though, more efficiency (both 7:30 SDP and 5:15 ADG) theoretically means less days available for the company to schedule you- you just fill up faster. I suppose potentially you could have more reserve pilots available on call if the company could get rid of the 30 hour layovers.
I'm not sure why the company would want it either, but it definitely isn't a reduction in manning or pilot costs. If the company wants the CDO even with the increased costs to 7:30 and the additional cost of ADG up to 5:15, the only reason I can see an advantage to them is that the pilots will potentially be available for flying more often than they would be if they were parked at the hotel for 30 hours. Even then though, more efficiency (both 7:30 SDP and 5:15 ADG) theoretically means less days available for the company to schedule you- you just fill up faster. I suppose potentially you could have more reserve pilots available on call if the company could get rid of the 30 hour layovers.
Say it's 10.5 hours of pay round trip, you could hit 73.5 hours with 10 augmented trips. So in theory if you had 7 slots per day to fill or 213 per month, then you would need around 21 individual pilots per position A, B and C which is 21 As and 90 total.
If you had 12 slots to fill per day and 14 for a pilot to hit 73.5 hours, then you need 26 As and 52 pilots total. So lose Captains but gain FOs. Not good.
If however it's not 12 crews a day to complete ATL-SFO and it's like 14 because some do 30 hours while others do 12 hour overnights, then it's even in total pilots but still less Captains.
Still a wag. I want to see the numbers but like I've said before the 1.56 ratio from PWA2012 seemed like a win, an increase in scope. Or was marketed that way. But what if we are sitting at 1.8, we're .24 overkill and they could if they wanted reduce mainline before they touch DCI. Extremely unlike now but still, what was that gate opened?
Why are these kind of productivity gates being opened?
05-18-2014, 10:44 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I think you're pulling one over on me. I think I owe you $50 either way. A heads I win a tails you lose kind of thing.
If they had put a 2% hourly pay increase then there would be no DPA card drive if it didn't go to memrat. Even if this was a pay raise, a twerk on the pay scale gets approval. Call me cynical but I got blasted by a couple of JSers during PWA 2012 when I said I voted no and I came to the conclusion pay rates are everything.
That said, I hope this is a good deal. I hope.
05-18-2014, 11:58 PM
Mother’s finest
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 73NB
Posts: 296
Also valid, I just left that part out since aircraft can be reallocated fairly easily, and I remembered a bit from planning about some 757s being reconfiged for lie flats specifically to be used on trans cons.
05-19-2014, 02:28 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,595
From our Chairman's letter:
• Provides augmentation for a non-ocean crossing FDP.
I'm going to take this to mean it can be a domestic turn such as ATL-SFO which has 7 flights going and 7 coming back per day (and let's just say that's what it is everyday) and let's for arguments sake say it averages out to 5.15 each way.
Now what you are seeing is:
• You will need 1 CA + 2 FO on each flight x 7 flights per day, figure $219/hr for A and $150/hr for B x 365 days per year the company with the TA will now shell out $6.97M to do this route,
• Current PWA is 1 CA + 1 FO x 7 flights per day x 365 days per year the company shells out $4.96m to do this route, thus the pilots gain $2M more per year in salary on this route alone.
• And for the pilots they can be done after 7 days of work (73.5 hours) and we will net for this route alone 2200+ more credit hours thanks to the 3rd FO. Actually the airplanes fly 2237 hours per month on this route regardless but with our current PWA we get 4474 credit hours and with the TA 6711.
Big win, amirite? You see big gains across the board, more pilots, less days working, more money?
But I see it a different way. Currently even with short overnights it would take 12 crews to complete all 14 flights per day between ATL-SFO because none of these 2-man crews can turn that jet around and fly home.
• Why 12? The first two crews of the day could do the first two ATL-SFO flights and the last two SFO-ATL flights. But you would need 5 additional crews to do the middle of the day stuff.
• So right now per month you need 12 Captains snoring at the hotel and 12 FOs in the room next to them to complete 1 day of ATL-SFO-ATL flying. With the TA you need 7 Captains and 14 FOs per day to complete a day of ATL-SFO-ATL flying.
So we lose Captains and total pilots but we as a group gain credit hours (even though aircraft hours remains constant) by adding that 3rd FO. So yes the pilots make more money but that is offset by reducing Captains required and pilots required.
in the interim the company saves money on hotels, upgrades, training and hiring which as a wag given its SFO that would be a huge money saver. What is a hotel for SFO for an airline? $75/day? 75 x 24 guys x 365 days = $650K? What's fewer Captains upgrading and going through CQ save?
I figured the drop in As and increase in Bs but loss in total pilots alone washed out to around $300K gain in our favor but I think the company comes out ahead after its all said and done. ymmv.
This is back of the napkin math here but your turn, would augmented crews on a non ocean crossing FDP reduce Captains and total pilots required on routes like ATL-SFO?
Still waiting for the details, this is all going off the MEC letter for now.
And are we still required to do talk about other mans trash? Fine...
• Provides augmentation for a non-ocean crossing FDP.
I'm going to take this to mean it can be a domestic turn such as ATL-SFO which has 7 flights going and 7 coming back per day (and let's just say that's what it is everyday) and let's for arguments sake say it averages out to 5.15 each way.
Now what you are seeing is:
• You will need 1 CA + 2 FO on each flight x 7 flights per day, figure $219/hr for A and $150/hr for B x 365 days per year the company with the TA will now shell out $6.97M to do this route,
• Current PWA is 1 CA + 1 FO x 7 flights per day x 365 days per year the company shells out $4.96m to do this route, thus the pilots gain $2M more per year in salary on this route alone.
• And for the pilots they can be done after 7 days of work (73.5 hours) and we will net for this route alone 2200+ more credit hours thanks to the 3rd FO. Actually the airplanes fly 2237 hours per month on this route regardless but with our current PWA we get 4474 credit hours and with the TA 6711.
Big win, amirite? You see big gains across the board, more pilots, less days working, more money?
But I see it a different way. Currently even with short overnights it would take 12 crews to complete all 14 flights per day between ATL-SFO because none of these 2-man crews can turn that jet around and fly home.
• Why 12? The first two crews of the day could do the first two ATL-SFO flights and the last two SFO-ATL flights. But you would need 5 additional crews to do the middle of the day stuff.
• So right now per month you need 12 Captains snoring at the hotel and 12 FOs in the room next to them to complete 1 day of ATL-SFO-ATL flying. With the TA you need 7 Captains and 14 FOs per day to complete a day of ATL-SFO-ATL flying.
So we lose Captains and total pilots but we as a group gain credit hours (even though aircraft hours remains constant) by adding that 3rd FO. So yes the pilots make more money but that is offset by reducing Captains required and pilots required.
in the interim the company saves money on hotels, upgrades, training and hiring which as a wag given its SFO that would be a huge money saver. What is a hotel for SFO for an airline? $75/day? 75 x 24 guys x 365 days = $650K? What's fewer Captains upgrading and going through CQ save?
I figured the drop in As and increase in Bs but loss in total pilots alone washed out to around $300K gain in our favor but I think the company comes out ahead after its all said and done. ymmv.
This is back of the napkin math here but your turn, would augmented crews on a non ocean crossing FDP reduce Captains and total pilots required on routes like ATL-SFO?
Still waiting for the details, this is all going off the MEC letter for now.
And are we still required to do talk about other mans trash? Fine...
You also forget that many of those trips don't go out and back. The legs are integrated into longer trips. Pull those long legs out of the 4 day trips and credit is going up.
Have you noticed that transcon turns with augment have been legal since at least 1980? Strange that I have never heard of a airline doing them. You would have thought at least one airline would have reaped this cost savings Bonaza. We are the only airline I know that contractually prohibited them. They were legal at the other airlines.
05-19-2014, 02:30 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,299
From our Chairman's letter:
• Provides augmentation for a non-ocean crossing FDP.
I'm going to take this to mean it can be a domestic turn such as ATL-SFO which has 7 flights going and 7 coming back per day (and let's just say that's what it is everyday) and let's for arguments sake say it averages out to 5.15 each way.
Now what you are seeing is:
• You will need 1 CA + 2 FO on each flight x 7 flights per day, figure $219/hr for A and $150/hr for B x 365 days per year the company with the TA will now shell out $6.97M to do this route,
• Current PWA is 1 CA + 1 FO x 7 flights per day x 365 days per year the company shells out $4.96m to do this route, thus the pilots gain $2M more per year in salary on this route alone.
• And for the pilots they can be done after 7 days of work (73.5 hours) and we will net for this route alone 2200+ more credit hours thanks to the 3rd FO. Actually the airplanes fly 2237 hours per month on this route regardless but with our current PWA we get 4474 credit hours and with the TA 6711.
Big win, amirite? You see big gains across the board, more pilots, less days working, more money?
But I see it a different way. Currently even with short overnights it would take 12 crews to complete all 14 flights per day between ATL-SFO because none of these 2-man crews can turn that jet around and fly home.
• Why 12? The first two crews of the day could do the first two ATL-SFO flights and the last two SFO-ATL flights. But you would need 5 additional crews to do the middle of the day stuff.
• So right now per month you need 12 Captains snoring at the hotel and 12 FOs in the room next to them to complete 1 day of ATL-SFO-ATL flying. With the TA you need 7 Captains and 14 FOs per day to complete a day of ATL-SFO-ATL flying.
So we lose Captains and total pilots but we as a group gain credit hours (even though aircraft hours remains constant) by adding that 3rd FO. So yes the pilots make more money but that is offset by reducing Captains required and pilots required.
in the interim the company saves money on hotels, upgrades, training and hiring which as a wag given its SFO that would be a huge money saver. What is a hotel for SFO for an airline? $75/day? 75 x 24 guys x 365 days = $650K? What's fewer Captains upgrading and going through CQ save?
I figured the drop in As and increase in Bs but loss in total pilots alone washed out to around $300K gain in our favor but I think the company comes out ahead after its all said and done. ymmv.
This is back of the napkin math here but your turn, would augmented crews on a non ocean crossing FDP reduce Captains and total pilots required on routes like ATL-SFO?
Still waiting for the details, this is all going off the MEC letter for now.
And are we still required to do talk about other mans trash? Fine...
• Provides augmentation for a non-ocean crossing FDP.
I'm going to take this to mean it can be a domestic turn such as ATL-SFO which has 7 flights going and 7 coming back per day (and let's just say that's what it is everyday) and let's for arguments sake say it averages out to 5.15 each way.
Now what you are seeing is:
• You will need 1 CA + 2 FO on each flight x 7 flights per day, figure $219/hr for A and $150/hr for B x 365 days per year the company with the TA will now shell out $6.97M to do this route,
• Current PWA is 1 CA + 1 FO x 7 flights per day x 365 days per year the company shells out $4.96m to do this route, thus the pilots gain $2M more per year in salary on this route alone.
• And for the pilots they can be done after 7 days of work (73.5 hours) and we will net for this route alone 2200+ more credit hours thanks to the 3rd FO. Actually the airplanes fly 2237 hours per month on this route regardless but with our current PWA we get 4474 credit hours and with the TA 6711.
Big win, amirite? You see big gains across the board, more pilots, less days working, more money?
But I see it a different way. Currently even with short overnights it would take 12 crews to complete all 14 flights per day between ATL-SFO because none of these 2-man crews can turn that jet around and fly home.
• Why 12? The first two crews of the day could do the first two ATL-SFO flights and the last two SFO-ATL flights. But you would need 5 additional crews to do the middle of the day stuff.
• So right now per month you need 12 Captains snoring at the hotel and 12 FOs in the room next to them to complete 1 day of ATL-SFO-ATL flying. With the TA you need 7 Captains and 14 FOs per day to complete a day of ATL-SFO-ATL flying.
So we lose Captains and total pilots but we as a group gain credit hours (even though aircraft hours remains constant) by adding that 3rd FO. So yes the pilots make more money but that is offset by reducing Captains required and pilots required.
in the interim the company saves money on hotels, upgrades, training and hiring which as a wag given its SFO that would be a huge money saver. What is a hotel for SFO for an airline? $75/day? 75 x 24 guys x 365 days = $650K? What's fewer Captains upgrading and going through CQ save?
I figured the drop in As and increase in Bs but loss in total pilots alone washed out to around $300K gain in our favor but I think the company comes out ahead after its all said and done. ymmv.
This is back of the napkin math here but your turn, would augmented crews on a non ocean crossing FDP reduce Captains and total pilots required on routes like ATL-SFO?
Still waiting for the details, this is all going off the MEC letter for now.
And are we still required to do talk about other mans trash? Fine...
The result is the same number of Captains required and more FOs, regardless of where those pilots sleep at night.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
