Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-16-2010, 07:05 AM
seeing the large hubs...
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 73N A
Posts: 3,745
OK I can't get a straight answer for this. I had nine days of reserve in a row. A few former NWA friends of mine said they needed to call me and put me to rest for 24 hours and long call doesn't count for that rest. I worked or was on short call for 8 of the 9 days and one long call day. Former NWA friends that's bull, they needed to call me and give me 24 off. I called scheduling and they said there is no such rule. Hmmm?
So, even if you've been on call for the last 8 days, this morning at 10am they could assign you a trip departing tomorrow at 10am, and assign you 24 hours rest starting at 10am. That would provide you the FAR legal rest before the trip.
05-16-2010, 07:13 AM
Senior by choice
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 427
You may not be on call for 8 days! If you have flown and had a layover of at least 24 hours you're covered but otherwise you must have 24 hours free from any obligation in a 7 consecutive day period. Being on long call is not considered rest.
Last edited by johnso29; 05-16-2010 at 08:00 AM. Reason: Fixed quote
05-16-2010, 07:13 AM
Underboob King
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Guppy Commander
Posts: 4,412
05-16-2010, 07:17 AM
Underboob King
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Guppy Commander
Posts: 4,412
I think the answer we figured out is that they don't have to give you 24 hours off, until you get a trip. Then, when the trip starts you have to be able to look back in the last 7 days and see 24 hours off.
You may not be on call for 8 days! If you have flown and had a layover of at least 24 hours you're covered but otherwise you must have 24 hours free from any obligation in a 7 consecutive day period.
You may not be on call for 8 days! If you have flown and had a layover of at least 24 hours you're covered but otherwise you must have 24 hours free from any obligation in a 7 consecutive day period.
05-16-2010, 07:36 AM
seeing the large hubs...
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 73N A
Posts: 3,745
This is what the scheduling alert says:
Important note: There is no requirement to place a day of rest on the seventh consecutive on-call day if no 24 hour rest in the past seven days can be found. As long as a pilot has 24 hours rest in seven days prior to reporting for domestic flight duty he is legal. When needed, such rest is placed on the pilot’s line at the time that a domestic trip is assigned. This has the effect of providing him at least 24 hours notice to a domestic reserve flying assignment if he cannot look back and find 24 hours rest in the preceding seven days.
05-16-2010, 07:49 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
I'm not going to say that "you're wrong sailing! We can see 100 seaters at mainline!" and blah blah rehash and so on from hundreds and hundreds of pages back which goes nowhere really.
Especially since I agree with your premise Sailing that we won't see them.
I believe this because unless Embraer or Bombardier can offer 100 seaters for $6-$10M, I don't know you can justify buying them over 150 seat MD90s and possibly in time used A319s and maybe 737s, who knows. To me some of the more profitable non-state supported operations have opted for a fleet of used aircraft over new.
But looking at RAH's 12 year EMB-190/175 pay scale ($96/hr A and $37/hr B) and looking at ours ($107.67/hr A and $73.54/hr B) you see a $48.21/hr pay difference on the cockpit pay alone and a majority of those savings comes on the backs of the first officers.
Say you flew 4000 hours a year per airframe and had a fleet of 50, at best thats $9.6M a year savings in cockpit crews. Tack on $20/hr savings on FAs and you come up to $13.6M a year in savings. I'll call maintenance a draw and all other things being equal it seems as if those savings would be eaten up by the cost of running another airline- especially if that airline is funding the creation of a potential major competitor.
And truth be known, these are 12 year RAH rates are applicable to the 76 seater and 100 seater, i.e., we cost $1.81/seat they cost $1.76/seat.
I think its a mistake for Delta Air Lines not to have an unlimited supply of, and 100% control of, what they feel works best for them. I think its in our best interest for ourselves and our airline to have both unlimited supply and 100% control.
I personally would like to see Embraer straighten out that EMB-195 wing and slap some of those cool 8 bladded mega props from the A400 on it and put that at mainline. Let Bombardier take on B&A, China, Russia and Fokker.
Anyways, friendly reminder, the 737-200 was in the Delta mainline stables until 2006. DC-9-30s... are still here. Anybody thats asking for 100 seaters at RAH or similiar airline, whether it be Bombardier, some at Delta, ALPA, etc, truth be known they're not getting back into aircraft we long abandoned but replacing aircraft we had at mainline less than 4 years ago.
Off to church to ask forgiveness for Ferd.
Especially since I agree with your premise Sailing that we won't see them.
I believe this because unless Embraer or Bombardier can offer 100 seaters for $6-$10M, I don't know you can justify buying them over 150 seat MD90s and possibly in time used A319s and maybe 737s, who knows. To me some of the more profitable non-state supported operations have opted for a fleet of used aircraft over new.
But looking at RAH's 12 year EMB-190/175 pay scale ($96/hr A and $37/hr B) and looking at ours ($107.67/hr A and $73.54/hr B) you see a $48.21/hr pay difference on the cockpit pay alone and a majority of those savings comes on the backs of the first officers.
Say you flew 4000 hours a year per airframe and had a fleet of 50, at best thats $9.6M a year savings in cockpit crews. Tack on $20/hr savings on FAs and you come up to $13.6M a year in savings. I'll call maintenance a draw and all other things being equal it seems as if those savings would be eaten up by the cost of running another airline- especially if that airline is funding the creation of a potential major competitor.
And truth be known, these are 12 year RAH rates are applicable to the 76 seater and 100 seater, i.e., we cost $1.81/seat they cost $1.76/seat.
I think its a mistake for Delta Air Lines not to have an unlimited supply of, and 100% control of, what they feel works best for them. I think its in our best interest for ourselves and our airline to have both unlimited supply and 100% control.
I personally would like to see Embraer straighten out that EMB-195 wing and slap some of those cool 8 bladded mega props from the A400 on it and put that at mainline. Let Bombardier take on B&A, China, Russia and Fokker.
Anyways, friendly reminder, the 737-200 was in the Delta mainline stables until 2006. DC-9-30s... are still here. Anybody thats asking for 100 seaters at RAH or similiar airline, whether it be Bombardier, some at Delta, ALPA, etc, truth be known they're not getting back into aircraft we long abandoned but replacing aircraft we had at mainline less than 4 years ago.
Off to church to ask forgiveness for Ferd.
FTB,
There are also some other factors that come into play here:
You are using 12 year pay rates for both pilot groups - at DAL that would be the junior CAPT seat and would normally pay less than the 12 year rate.
DAL contracts out a lot of the underwing services - no cost penalty there.
DAL often uses mainline employees to service connection flights.
As you said - take out the built in profits that we outsource to DCI.
I'm not saying that DAL can always fly the 100 seaters profitably - but I do not buy the argument that we flat out cannot operate 100 seaters profitably either.
Finally if congress and the FAA ever do update the ATP requirements, some of our lowest bid DCI carriers may have a hard time filling the right seat during growth periods - I'm sure this could wreak havoc on their completion/performance numbers. Remember in 2000 when American Eagle was buying full page ads in the USA today to recruit pilots?
Scoop - Trying to be optimistic on Sunday morning.
05-16-2010, 07:49 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
At 12%, 5 years is a lot of compounding growth. 2020 would be cutting it a little short.
05-16-2010, 07:52 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Marraige pains guys. We'll get through em.
05-16-2010, 07:57 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
05-16-2010, 07:59 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
