Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
12-12-2009, 01:56 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,105
Example: ATL 767 B has 337 seats, 91% to hold, 82%/85%C to hold a line.
What I'm saying is this category has 337ish seats, you need to be in the top 91% of the company to hold ATL 767 B, 82% overall in the company to hold a line in category and 85% seniority inside the ATL 767 B category to hold a line.
ATL
M88 A: 451 seats, 69% to hold, 55%/84%C to hold a line
M88 B: 471 seats, 100% to hold, 95%/80%C to hold a line
73N A: 247 seats, 41% to hold, 35%/85%C to hold a line
73N B: 237 seats, 93% to hold, 86%/83%C to hold a line
767 A: 345 seats, 43% to hold, 27%/84%C to hold a line
767 B: 337 seats, 91% to hold, 82%/85%C to hold a line
7ER A: 316 seats, 42% to hold, 30%/85%C to hold a line
7ER B: 515 seats, 92% to hold, 75%/80%C to hold a line
765 A: 172 seats, 27% to hold, 10%/68%C to hold a line
765 B: 288 seats, 74% to hold, 61%/77%C to hold a line
777 A: 232 seats, 22% to hold, 9%/62%C to hold a line
777 B: 231 seats, 71% to hold, 53%/62%C to hold a line
NYC
M88 A: 88 seats, 81% to hold, 62%/69%C to hold a line
M88 B: 88 seats, 100% to hold, 99%/59%C to hold a line
73N A: 71 seats, 61% to hold, 49%/73%C to hold a line
73N B: 71 seats, 99% to hold, 97%/73%C to hold a line
7ER A: 285 seats, 46% to hold, 41%/91%C to hold a line
7ER B: 482 seats, 97% to hold, 93%/82%C to hold a line
777 A: 39 seats, 27% to hold, 17%/72%C to hold a line
777 B: 42 seats, 70% to hold, 57%/57%C to hold a line
CVG
M89 A: 62 seats, 51% to hold, 46%/74%C to hold a line
M89 B: 68 seats, 100% to hold, 96%/57%C to hold a line
73N A: 64 seats, 47% to hold, 37%/50%C to hold a line
73N B: 58 seats, 99% to hold, 81%/74%C to hold a line
7ER A: 113 seats, 39% to hold, 22%/72%C to hold a line
7ER B: 115 seats, 95% to hold, 75%/69%C to hold a line
DTW
DC9 A: 145 seats, 75% to hold, no line data
DC9 B: 145 seats, 99% to hold, no line data
A32 A: 265 seats, 27% to hold, 43%/80%C to hold a line
A32 B: 241 seats, 99% to hold, 88%/80%C to hold a line
755 A: 220 seats, 38% to hold, no line data
755 B: 224 seats, 88% to hold, no line data
A33 A: 150 seats, 19% to hold, 14%/71%C to hold a line
A33 B: 227 seats, 71% to hold, 57%/67%C to hold a line
744 A: 169 seats, 15% to hold, 8%/75%C to hold a line
744B: 234 seats, 67% to hold, 37%/58%C to hold a line
MSP
DC9 A: 164 seats, 73% to hold, no line data
DC9 B: 161 seats, 99% to hold, no line data
A32 A: 332 seats, 53% to hold, 42%/84%C to hold a line
A32 B: 319 seats, 96% to hold, 89%/79%C to hold a line
755 A: 225 seats, 35% to hold, no line data
755 B: 209 seats, 86% to hold, no line data
A33 A: 61 seats, 12% to hold, 2%/57%C to hold a line
A33 B: 72 seats, 67% to hold, 59%/69%C to hold a line
MEM
DC9 A: 36 seats, 74% to hold, no line data
DC9 B: 40 seats, 100% to hold, no line data
A32 A: 87 seats, 49% to hold, 42%/74%C to hold a line
A32 B: 75 seats, 98% to hold, 82%/72%C to hold a line
SLC
M89 A: 90 seats, 57% to hold, 47%/80%C to hold a line
M89 B: 92 seats, 98% to hold, 91%/70%C to hold a line
73N A: 85 seats, 46% to hold, 32%/80%C to hold a line
73N B: 83 seats, 96% to hold, 88%/82%C to hold a line
767 A: 90 seats, 38% to hold, 25%/87%C to hold a line
767 B: 91 seats, 94% to hold, 86%/81%C to hold a line
SEA
A33 A: 92 seats, 15% to hold, 11%/74%C to hold a line
A33 B: 153 seats, 63% to hold, 50%/73%C to hold a line
LAX
73N A: 52 seats, 50% to hold, 37%/50%C to hold a line
73N B: 35 seats, 95% to hold, 79%/57%C to hold a line
7ER A: 115 seats, 45% to hold, 22%/66%C to hold a line
7ER B: 117 seats, 94% to hold, 69%/62%C to hold a line
Here it is again!
What I'm saying is this category has 337ish seats, you need to be in the top 91% of the company to hold ATL 767 B, 82% overall in the company to hold a line in category and 85% seniority inside the ATL 767 B category to hold a line.
ATL
M88 A: 451 seats, 69% to hold, 55%/84%C to hold a line
M88 B: 471 seats, 100% to hold, 95%/80%C to hold a line
73N A: 247 seats, 41% to hold, 35%/85%C to hold a line
73N B: 237 seats, 93% to hold, 86%/83%C to hold a line
767 A: 345 seats, 43% to hold, 27%/84%C to hold a line
767 B: 337 seats, 91% to hold, 82%/85%C to hold a line
7ER A: 316 seats, 42% to hold, 30%/85%C to hold a line
7ER B: 515 seats, 92% to hold, 75%/80%C to hold a line
765 A: 172 seats, 27% to hold, 10%/68%C to hold a line
765 B: 288 seats, 74% to hold, 61%/77%C to hold a line
777 A: 232 seats, 22% to hold, 9%/62%C to hold a line
777 B: 231 seats, 71% to hold, 53%/62%C to hold a line
NYC
M88 A: 88 seats, 81% to hold, 62%/69%C to hold a line
M88 B: 88 seats, 100% to hold, 99%/59%C to hold a line
73N A: 71 seats, 61% to hold, 49%/73%C to hold a line
73N B: 71 seats, 99% to hold, 97%/73%C to hold a line
7ER A: 285 seats, 46% to hold, 41%/91%C to hold a line
7ER B: 482 seats, 97% to hold, 93%/82%C to hold a line
777 A: 39 seats, 27% to hold, 17%/72%C to hold a line
777 B: 42 seats, 70% to hold, 57%/57%C to hold a line
CVG
M89 A: 62 seats, 51% to hold, 46%/74%C to hold a line
M89 B: 68 seats, 100% to hold, 96%/57%C to hold a line
73N A: 64 seats, 47% to hold, 37%/50%C to hold a line
73N B: 58 seats, 99% to hold, 81%/74%C to hold a line
7ER A: 113 seats, 39% to hold, 22%/72%C to hold a line
7ER B: 115 seats, 95% to hold, 75%/69%C to hold a line
DTW
DC9 A: 145 seats, 75% to hold, no line data
DC9 B: 145 seats, 99% to hold, no line data
A32 A: 265 seats, 27% to hold, 43%/80%C to hold a line
A32 B: 241 seats, 99% to hold, 88%/80%C to hold a line
755 A: 220 seats, 38% to hold, no line data
755 B: 224 seats, 88% to hold, no line data
A33 A: 150 seats, 19% to hold, 14%/71%C to hold a line
A33 B: 227 seats, 71% to hold, 57%/67%C to hold a line
744 A: 169 seats, 15% to hold, 8%/75%C to hold a line
744B: 234 seats, 67% to hold, 37%/58%C to hold a line
MSP
DC9 A: 164 seats, 73% to hold, no line data
DC9 B: 161 seats, 99% to hold, no line data
A32 A: 332 seats, 53% to hold, 42%/84%C to hold a line
A32 B: 319 seats, 96% to hold, 89%/79%C to hold a line
755 A: 225 seats, 35% to hold, no line data
755 B: 209 seats, 86% to hold, no line data
A33 A: 61 seats, 12% to hold, 2%/57%C to hold a line
A33 B: 72 seats, 67% to hold, 59%/69%C to hold a line
MEM
DC9 A: 36 seats, 74% to hold, no line data
DC9 B: 40 seats, 100% to hold, no line data
A32 A: 87 seats, 49% to hold, 42%/74%C to hold a line
A32 B: 75 seats, 98% to hold, 82%/72%C to hold a line
SLC
M89 A: 90 seats, 57% to hold, 47%/80%C to hold a line
M89 B: 92 seats, 98% to hold, 91%/70%C to hold a line
73N A: 85 seats, 46% to hold, 32%/80%C to hold a line
73N B: 83 seats, 96% to hold, 88%/82%C to hold a line
767 A: 90 seats, 38% to hold, 25%/87%C to hold a line
767 B: 91 seats, 94% to hold, 86%/81%C to hold a line
SEA
A33 A: 92 seats, 15% to hold, 11%/74%C to hold a line
A33 B: 153 seats, 63% to hold, 50%/73%C to hold a line
LAX
73N A: 52 seats, 50% to hold, 37%/50%C to hold a line
73N B: 35 seats, 95% to hold, 79%/57%C to hold a line
7ER A: 115 seats, 45% to hold, 22%/66%C to hold a line
7ER B: 117 seats, 94% to hold, 69%/62%C to hold a line
Here it is again!
AND HERE IS THE SCARIEST THING ....
Congress and the FAA are currently looking at commuting airline pilots. And if you've watched any of the Senate hearings, several of them are hell bent on ending commuting and/or introducing language that will prevent you from commuting same day, commuting overnight, or crashing in the lounge. Essentially, they want 8 hours of sleep in a bed, in an area where you won't be interrupted (think current USAF policies for crewrest). In fact, many of them have quoted USAF/DOD requirements and some have mentioned Atlas/World policies of getting an airline ticket and a room the night before. Sure that's nice, but that means all of your trips just got at a minimum 1 day longer if not two.
Face it guys, this bid will permanently change the face of Delta / Northwest pilots. The deck or cards is being reshuffled. God help us all.
12-12-2009, 01:59 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
I agree with FTB (I think), we better have gotten something from Japan's Transportation Minester for this........JAL?Regardless, I've never quite understood how the Tokyo hub was going to be the future for U.S.-Asia travel, with the advent of small aircraft that can fly thinner routes, direct. I don't think passengers easily tolerate three-leg trips anymore. A business trip from a small city in the U.S. to a large Asian city would probably entail a US carrier, into a mega hub, to a 787 or 777, direct to destination.
For the reverse, a small Asian city to a large US city, an Asian carrier would probably offer a single connection. You can argue this is already happening with us in NRT, and that we're capitalizing on traffic both ways, but then again, such a trip doesn't require a HND connection. NRT would do the trick.
Boyd had interesting comments about how losing JAL would probably not be a problem for AMR, because it would only accelerate the evolution to Tokyo-bypass flights. After all, the bigger question is how to fully access Asia, in a convenient way. Beyond that, it's about helping Asians connect to Latin America with minimum fuss. JAL is more convenient in that regard, but their directs to Latin America are only so many. If AMR learns to use JAL as a crutch, then it'll have to be a three-leg affair (except for Japanese passengers) this is a segment of the business they'll forego.
This also puts a little more "color" on the merger. We can certainly survive this better together than NW could have on its' own. There is a reason NW was the North American launch customer for the 787: you guys understood the weaknesses and strengths of Tokyo better than anyone.
12-12-2009, 02:02 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Here is a trick for runway changes if you are not sure of what to type in. Send in an AWABS Update request with an invalid runway (like 44). You will get back a message that has all possible runway/intersection choices along with a letter, it might look like this:
A 27L
B 27R
C 28
D 26L
When you find the proper runway/intersection, you can send the request back with just the letter, for example if you wanted 28 you could send
88/C
Then you will get the numbers for 28. If you think you may get some changes, you can send the bogus message on pushback and have the list ready when you are on the taxiway.
One other trick, if you are on a performance limited runway, you should toggle to "No Tolerance" after pushback. Sometimes this will make you legal for takeoff. It works especially at SNA when sometimes you are overweight for the active with the tolerance, but are good to go without the tolerance. Saves waiting for 30 minutes to do an opposite direction takeoff.
A 27L
B 27R
C 28
D 26L
When you find the proper runway/intersection, you can send the request back with just the letter, for example if you wanted 28 you could send
88/C
Then you will get the numbers for 28. If you think you may get some changes, you can send the bogus message on pushback and have the list ready when you are on the taxiway.
One other trick, if you are on a performance limited runway, you should toggle to "No Tolerance" after pushback. Sometimes this will make you legal for takeoff. It works especially at SNA when sometimes you are overweight for the active with the tolerance, but are good to go without the tolerance. Saves waiting for 30 minutes to do an opposite direction takeoff.
Ferd
12-12-2009, 02:12 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
I agree that's how it looks, on the surface, and agree that there is probably much that is occuring behind the scenes to place this deal in the right context. Maybe it's JAL, maybe something else? If 5th freedom rights are being dismantled, and Delta is "applauding", then you wonder what was negotiated in return.
Regardless, I've never quite understood how the Tokyo hub was going to be the future for U.S.-Asia travel, with the advent of small aircraft that can fly thinner routes, direct. I don't think passengers easily tolerate three-leg trips anymore. A business trip from a small city in the U.S. to a large Asian city would probably entail a US carrier, into a mega hub, to a 787 or 777, direct to destination.
For the reverse, a small Asian city to a large US city, an Asian carrier would probably offer a single connection. You can argue this is already happening with us in NRT, and that we're capitalizing on traffic both ways, but then again, such a trip doesn't require a HND connection. NRT would do the trick.
Boyd had interesting comments about how losing JAL would probably not be a problem for AMR, because it would only accelerate the evolution to Tokyo-bypass flights. After all, the bigger question is how to fully access Asia, in a convenient way. Beyond that, it's about helping Asians connect to Latin America with minimum fuss. JAL is more convenient in that regard, but their directs to Latin America are only so many. If AMR learns to use JAL as a crutch, then it'll have to be a three-leg affair (except for Japanese passengers) this is a segment of the business they'll forego.
This also puts a little more "color" on the merger. We can certainly survive this better together than NW could have on its' own. There is a reason NW was the North American launch customer for the 787: you guys understood the weaknesses and strengths of Tokyo better than anyone.
Regardless, I've never quite understood how the Tokyo hub was going to be the future for U.S.-Asia travel, with the advent of small aircraft that can fly thinner routes, direct. I don't think passengers easily tolerate three-leg trips anymore. A business trip from a small city in the U.S. to a large Asian city would probably entail a US carrier, into a mega hub, to a 787 or 777, direct to destination.
For the reverse, a small Asian city to a large US city, an Asian carrier would probably offer a single connection. You can argue this is already happening with us in NRT, and that we're capitalizing on traffic both ways, but then again, such a trip doesn't require a HND connection. NRT would do the trick.
Boyd had interesting comments about how losing JAL would probably not be a problem for AMR, because it would only accelerate the evolution to Tokyo-bypass flights. After all, the bigger question is how to fully access Asia, in a convenient way. Beyond that, it's about helping Asians connect to Latin America with minimum fuss. JAL is more convenient in that regard, but their directs to Latin America are only so many. If AMR learns to use JAL as a crutch, then it'll have to be a three-leg affair (except for Japanese passengers) this is a segment of the business they'll forego.
This also puts a little more "color" on the merger. We can certainly survive this better together than NW could have on its' own. There is a reason NW was the North American launch customer for the 787: you guys understood the weaknesses and strengths of Tokyo better than anyone.
I'm rereading all this stuff as we speak and getting more optimistic. What Nu said a few pages back got me rethinking what I was saying.
What we really need is for Carl to come out of retirement on here.....he would know more than any of us.
Ferd
Oh PS.........the NRT computer room rumor (think quilting bee) about Guam was if we tie up with JAL we probably wouldn't need the base. If JAL goes with AMR...........maybe so.
12-12-2009, 02:20 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I agree that's how it looks, on the surface, and agree that there is probably much that is occuring behind the scenes to place this deal in the right context. Maybe it's JAL, maybe something else? If 5th freedom rights are being dismantled, and Delta is "applauding", then you wonder what was negotiated in return.
Regardless, I've never quite understood how the Tokyo hub was going to be the future for U.S.-Asia travel, with the advent of small aircraft that can fly thinner routes, direct. I don't think passengers easily tolerate three-leg trips anymore. A business trip from a small city in the U.S. to a large Asian city would probably entail a US carrier, into a mega hub, to a 787 or 777, direct to destination.
For the reverse, a small Asian city to a large US city, an Asian carrier would probably offer a single connection. You can argue this is already happening with us in NRT, and that we're capitalizing on traffic both ways, but then again, such a trip doesn't require a HND connection. NRT would do the trick.
Boyd had interesting comments about how losing JAL would probably not be a problem for AMR, because it would only accelerate the evolution to Tokyo-bypass flights. After all, the bigger question is how to fully access Asia, in a convenient way. Beyond that, it's about helping Asians connect to Latin America with minimum fuss. JAL is more convenient in that regard, but their directs to Latin America are only so many. If AMR learns to use JAL as a crutch, then it'll have to be a three-leg affair (except for Japanese passengers) this is a segment of the business they'll forego.
This also puts a little more "color" on the merger. We can certainly survive this better together than NW could have on its' own. There is a reason NW was the North American launch customer for the 787: you guys understood the weaknesses and strengths of Tokyo better than anyone.
Regardless, I've never quite understood how the Tokyo hub was going to be the future for U.S.-Asia travel, with the advent of small aircraft that can fly thinner routes, direct. I don't think passengers easily tolerate three-leg trips anymore. A business trip from a small city in the U.S. to a large Asian city would probably entail a US carrier, into a mega hub, to a 787 or 777, direct to destination.
For the reverse, a small Asian city to a large US city, an Asian carrier would probably offer a single connection. You can argue this is already happening with us in NRT, and that we're capitalizing on traffic both ways, but then again, such a trip doesn't require a HND connection. NRT would do the trick.
Boyd had interesting comments about how losing JAL would probably not be a problem for AMR, because it would only accelerate the evolution to Tokyo-bypass flights. After all, the bigger question is how to fully access Asia, in a convenient way. Beyond that, it's about helping Asians connect to Latin America with minimum fuss. JAL is more convenient in that regard, but their directs to Latin America are only so many. If AMR learns to use JAL as a crutch, then it'll have to be a three-leg affair (except for Japanese passengers) this is a segment of the business they'll forego.
This also puts a little more "color" on the merger. We can certainly survive this better together than NW could have on its' own. There is a reason NW was the North American launch customer for the 787: you guys understood the weaknesses and strengths of Tokyo better than anyone.
Lots will play out in the coming weeks.
12-12-2009, 02:25 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
PG, I get the fact that you do not want to "pay" for the NWA commuting policy to become part of the PWA, but the simple fact is that many are in sitiuations with houses, and families that do not allow one to move.
I know guys that have had wives tell them, if you want to move, move but I am not going with you. Guys have houses that they are 50% upside down it. Just those two situations make moving on a dime impossible.
I like the NWA commute. IN effect it will be what we are going to have to go to if they use what Atlas has. I have no issue with a positive space ticket to eight hrs in the rack. No stress, and to add to it, I could live where I wanted to. I do not commute, but I have, and not by choice. Many times commuting is not a choice but a necesity for someone and the issues they are facing in their life.
As for ppl living in MSN and working in ATL. Many ppl do it, and their companies pay for their tickets each week. Many way below VP get that perk, even in this economy. Add to it, that if they chose to move their move is paid, their incidentals are paid, and their house is bought at some predetermined metric. If we had that, and a COLA adjustment for each base, more would move. We don't and there is where the issue lies.
I know guys that have had wives tell them, if you want to move, move but I am not going with you. Guys have houses that they are 50% upside down it. Just those two situations make moving on a dime impossible.
I like the NWA commute. IN effect it will be what we are going to have to go to if they use what Atlas has. I have no issue with a positive space ticket to eight hrs in the rack. No stress, and to add to it, I could live where I wanted to. I do not commute, but I have, and not by choice. Many times commuting is not a choice but a necesity for someone and the issues they are facing in their life.
As for ppl living in MSN and working in ATL. Many ppl do it, and their companies pay for their tickets each week. Many way below VP get that perk, even in this economy. Add to it, that if they chose to move their move is paid, their incidentals are paid, and their house is bought at some predetermined metric. If we had that, and a COLA adjustment for each base, more would move. We don't and there is where the issue lies.
12-12-2009, 02:25 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 737 Capt
Posts: 1,166
Better go look at the AE again..... 63 DTW 744/B surplus. That being said I am sure I am toast and thats OK because that is how it works in this indusrty. But I don't see any windfall for former NWA folks.
12-12-2009, 02:28 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
12-12-2009, 02:40 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 917
12-12-2009, 02:57 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,596
My mistake, I saw the 744 displacements however I was thinking you were a Captain.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
