LandGreen2

Slow:

I think what you are seeing here is how junior to mid-seniority DAL guys are about to get screwed...again! ALK and Hawaiian are about ready to hire to accommodate GROWTH...at our expense. Now, when we merge with one or both...those guys that are hired at these airlines will then swiftly move ahead of our guys (assuming relative seniority merger) who have been on property for 5 plus years.

I understand why FO's are far less patient when some of the CA's have the audacity to begin griping about their status within the industry.

beer

Razorback,

When were you on the ATR? I was from 02-06. Does the Question, "Do you think Im a good skater?" mean anything to you?

Carl Spackler

That's because (as has been said so many times here) date of hire is meaningless.

Carl

forgot to bid

Speaking of LAX and SEA, if you look on Delta.com you'lll see that tomorrow we are selling 8 flights from SEA-LAX, 0 are on Delta equipment.

Of the 10 LAX-SEA flights sold on Delta.com, 1 is on a DAL 757... but it connects in SLC. So 0 LAX-SEA directs are on DAL.

BTW, of the 22 flights from LAX-SFO sold on Delta.com tomorrow, 100% are RJs.

So Delta pilot flying has increased or Delta 737 pilot flying increased? It's the substitution by Alaska that I find most pertinent. A ER, 330, 744 flying is not the concern. If pilot flying out of LAX has increased but not NB domestic flying then I am concerned.

I can see 737 pilot staffing has increased what, 6 total pilots or so from one staffing report to the next but we've got plenty of Buzzpats that once held lines that are now on reserve.

And I'd love to see LAX 737 staffing yoy beginning in 2011 and working backwards. Or total pilot staffing in LAX going back to the Western merger. You're probably the only one with those kinds of numbers. If my fear that we're way down or stagnating is not true I'll be elated but the eyeball test says no, is that fair to say?


Is this one of those "SWA never raised the bar, they've always had lower salaries and undercut Delta and the other legacies blah blah blah" look backs in history? Because all I see is they're making near double than us now so I'm not sure why stopping in 2004 is germane, might be interesting, but to the big picture of how much flying are we losing today?

On that point though, if you combine DAL and Alaska I believe you only come up in the 12% range of total share. That would not be #1 as AMR and AE own 16.4% and SWA has 14% and I can't honestly tell UAL because I'd have to add all of their many regionals. So is 4th place and 12% dominating? Not to me. And we're not talking about eliminating Alaska in LAX so by increasing our own flying we still probably will not jump in our place on the market share list.

That's why it's worth a conversation. Not everything has an answer.

But btw, it was a two part question. What would happen if we took back the 51-76 seat flying and took back LAX (from Alaska I might add). Would we not need to hire? We talk about growth, looks like the growth is in the bottom.

I'm digging at all of this because I think the answer to Alaska is quite clear. We can't afford to compete. So we're going to partner up with Alaska and well, it won't be good for our LAX domestic NB crews but we'll make it up with a busy ER base.

Word.

Columbia

slowplay

I'm missing your logic here. You acknowledge that total Delta flying has gone up, but you're concerned about allocation of 737 time? Yet you point out that staffing in that category has actually gone up?

Similar story in SEA. We've doubled the size of the pilot base there, and opened a new 7ER base.

The point is we aren't losing flying because of Alaska. We've gained flying. The history lookback is to remind folks that when any airline without a compelling competitive advantage has tried to dominate LAX, they've ultimately lost flying. I believe that history (and marketing's numbers) would show that without the Alaska codeshare there would be even fewer LAX 73N departures and fewer Delta pilot jobs overall.

nwaf16dude

Thank you. Made my day

forgot to bid

I don't know if total pilot staffing has increased, has it? I don't see any increase in 737 to jump for joy over hence the question what was lax 737 staffing in 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, and so on. Hell what is lax total pilot staffing back to the western merger?

I'm concerned with the flying we're losing to Alaska. That's all I've consistently been asking. Again, I don't care right now about international flying. To me that's watch the right hand and don't pay attention to the left hand robbing you.

Alaska doesn't do international but if the did I'm sure we'd give it up to them just like we give up or partially give up routes like LAX-SEA or don't fight them off SEA-MSP and SEA-ATL.

Why can't we stop the codeshare in lax but let Alaska own SEA flying codeshares? Bros before Eskimos... our guys cone first and it is my only concern when you see Delta selling tickets on 20 flights a day between two of our own hubs, flown on 738s and 739s no less, with not a single Delta jet on them.

Are we truly coming out ahead? After all what was it in May at the Mec meeting that brought up a review of this codeshare. I thought it was because there were questions about how detrimental it was to our own pilots?

What I see is DAL finding it cheaper to codeshare then try. The whole too much debt to buy airplanes, free milk and a cow, etc. But are we that short on airplanes?

Still wondering, how much growth could we have if we kicked as out of our lax flying alone and took back the 51-76 seat market? How many new Delta pilots would we have? I think it's substantial.

beer

It would awesome to have Delta sponsor the World Cup one year. But could we find enough hot flight attendants to decorate the stage like Emirates?

Reroute

For FTB or Slow

Isn't Alaska code share limited to a prorate agreement?

Under a prorate agreement, isn't it true that Delta doesn't get any money from a passengers ticket for flight segments flown by Alaska with a DL passenger? Delta only makes money for the flight segment flown on the Delta aircraft.

Seems like a powerful incentive to do the flying yourself, unless of course their isn't enough passenger volume to support a mainline aircraft.

Is it true that the maximum number of DL coded pax on an Alaska flight segment is limited to a maximum of 86 Delta passengers or 50% of of the capacity whichever is lower and that the actual number is far less than that?

Would those thin routes go to a 50 seat RJ or mainline aircraft?

Also, doesn't this code share agreement cut both ways? Don't we fly Alaska passengers on our aircraft under a similar agreement, many of them to Asia?