Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Let's start with your graph of "pilots required":

From Jan 2013 to Dec 2013 we went from 9,650 "pilots required" to 9,720 "pilots required". A gain of 0.7%. From Jan 2013 to Dec 2013 our airline grew Available Seat Miles (ASM's) from 230,415 million to 232,740 million (Source: Statista). A gain of 1%. If our "required pilots" had kept up with the growth of the airline, our Dec 2013 "pilots required" number should have been 9,746...but we were 26 pilots short. This partly reflects our productivity concessions in C2012 which requires less pilots.

From Jan 2014 to March 2014 we went from 9,780 "pilots required" to 9,900 "pilots required". A gain of 1.2%. From Jan 2014 to Mar 2014 our airline grew ASM's at 3% (Source: 1Q2014 10Q). If our "required pilots" had kept up with the growth of the airline, our Mar 2014 "pilots required" should have been 10,073...but we were 173 pilots short. This shows the accelerating value of our productivity concessions requiring a greater rate of less pilots as the airline grew.

Keep in mind that in the above, we grew the airline by adding ASM's in smaller aircraft while removing them in larger aircraft. This should have required even more pilots, but again our productivity concessions helps this to not happen.

Alfa, your entire premise ignores the growth of the airline in the stated time period. I'm sure it was just accidental. There's a more interesting point to make next, but I'll do so in response to a post from sailingfun.

Carl

Originally Posted by TheManager

T, where do you come up with this C2K +20% silliness? That is quite mellow dramatic at best.

Next.

.05%? Where do you conjure this stuff up from. 5 hundredths of a percent more than CPI? That's like a few mere pennies.

Originally Posted by Wingnutdal

You can't make **** up and call it a fact. It is still just made up ****, even if you are the one making it up.

Originally Posted by scambo1

T,
Just a few months ago, you were very adamant that c15 better pay you a lot more money. In your words, at the time, it was pay rate centric.

I'm not trying to nail you down on your position because everyone is allowed to change their mind. However, what Wall Street thinks is pretty far from my concern.

Originally Posted by DFW Refugee

T:



PMFJI:

Please explain how a 717 captain can kill 300 pax in one day when his aircraft holds only ~100 pax vs a 777 captain. IMMHO:

--If you kill them on the first flight, chances are you're dead too, missing 200 other pax. Also, if you live, you won't get a shot at the other 200---> You'll be in a hospital or doing A LOT of paperwork.

--If you kill them on the last flight, you missed 200 pax on the first two flights.

Thanks in advance,

DFW

Originally Posted by tsquare

And you might not care what Wall Street thinks, but they have all the money that you want, like it or not. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

Originally Posted by ATL7ER

You seem to be saying that there is a direct correlation between the price of DAL stock and DAL's revenue. How does the price of the stock, which of course is subject to the whims and often irrational swings of the market, affect the amount of $$ that DAL takes in, with which it pays the pilots?

Originally Posted by tsquare

Yes there is, absolutely. Revenue, earnings, stock price. They are all related. Unless for example you think AAPL stock (when it was at $700/share) was more expensive than say AMZN.... And I am not sure whether or not I subscribe to the rational market theory or not yet. I will say however that it is "fickle".

Originally Posted by Elvis90

Slowplay, you said the following around post #10217:



http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ma...lta-10217.html

The company would start a new engine lease program for the 50-seaters which would make C2012 "fait accompli" as far as the pilot group was concerned.

Originally Posted by slowplay

1. Delta doesn't pay for engine maintenance on non-Delta owned/obligated aircraft.
2. Delta doesn't pay for engine maintenance on aircraft that it doesn't want if it has no ownership obligations.
3. Delta has a path to get rid of a substantial number of 50 seat aircraft without this deal (contract renegotiations and subleasing). The TA/PWA gets no "credit" for cost savings that Delta can achieve on its own.
4. Delta can move "green engines" between aircraft that are currently parked, aircraft that will be parked and aircraft that are continuing to operate.
5. The 125 aircraft that Delta wants to retain are the aircraft that would receive Zero Time type overhauls. Everything else gets "necessary" treatment. Those overhauls run about $800K
6. Delta can do a substantial amount of the work in-house, saving the entire profit and risk margin mark-up.

Bottom line, the numbers I posted are accurate. They are the above run rate, ownership and contractual savings that Delta can achieve with us that they other wise would not be able to achieve without us during the term of this contract.

There is a plan B. Anderson talked about it in his employee Q&A today. While the whole thing is good (we closed on Trainer today) questions 7 and 8 directly reference pilots, our TA and fleet plan.

From the FAQ:

If the agreement is ratified, Delta will save approximately $184 million in above normal run rate CRJ-200 engine maintenance costs. In addition, Delta will save approximately $289 million in DCI contract and CRJ-200 ownership costs. This represents a total net savings of $473 million over the life of the agreement. These are one time savings that don’t continue into the future unlike the increases in pilot costs in this TA, which continue to accrue.

The acquisition costs of the B-717 and 76-seat jets are not public, but at current market prices can be estimated at approximately $2 billion. The savings generated by management not having to pay for the 50-seat RJ flying that they don’t want is more than offset by the acquisition costs of the B-717 and the 76-seat jets.