Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-04-2011, 05:57 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: 757/767
Posts: 195
Delta has customer service folks driving around High Value Customers in brand new Porsches:
Planelopnik stories - Jalopnik
That sure beats the Ford Explorers they were using (although I like Ford Explorers better than 6,000lb Porsche Sports SUV's
My first 911 weighed in at about 2,300 pounds, or about what a Miata weighs today.
Planelopnik stories - Jalopnik
That sure beats the Ford Explorers they were using (although I like Ford Explorers better than 6,000lb Porsche Sports SUV's
My first 911 weighed in at about 2,300 pounds, or about what a Miata weighs today.
11-04-2011, 06:04 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Nope. From FAA passenger enplanement statistics for the 5 LA Basin airports (LAX, SNA, BUR, LGB, ONT) combined:
Airline 2008 2010
Delta 3,917,308 3,900,127
Alaska 2,220,377 1,960,141
So we carried 17000 fewer pax and they carried 260,000 fewer since we started codesharing with them.
Oh, in case you didn't notice, the Seattle pilot base (which has way more codeshare exposure) has doubled in size. Maybe you can come to ATL and enjoy some of those nice UIO and GYE 3 days.
Airline 2008 2010
Delta 3,917,308 3,900,127
Alaska 2,220,377 1,960,141
So we carried 17000 fewer pax and they carried 260,000 fewer since we started codesharing with them.
Oh, in case you didn't notice, the Seattle pilot base (which has way more codeshare exposure) has doubled in size. Maybe you can come to ATL and enjoy some of those nice UIO and GYE 3 days.
Because I don't fly passengers, I don't fly ASMs, I fly airplanes. I'd rather see a fleet of 763s over a fleet of A380s if ASMs remained equal. So to me fewer planes means fewer pilots and that's the comparison I want to see.
11-04-2011, 06:06 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
11-04-2011, 06:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: maddoggy dog
Posts: 1,026
11-04-2011, 06:13 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: maddoggy dog
Posts: 1,026
You description is one that is fairly accurate of yours truly. Would I vote for DPA today, right before negotiations? Sorry, but no. Will I if I'm even slightly dissatisfied by the final product when negotiations are said and done? In a heart beat. Better get this right, ALPA, because I have a feeling I'll have a lot of company if things don't go well. And by "well" I don't mean RA's definition of "acceptable."
+1 This is EXACTLY how I feel too. Filled out the card and sent it in but.......
11-04-2011, 06:23 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 478
LOT 767 Gear Up Incident:
I’m glad there are folks like me out there analyzing and trying to solve this LOT 767 gear up mystery. From everything I can logically put together, it certainly looks like they “screwed the pooch.” The pieces of this puzzle just don’t add up. I really hope I am wrong. As a 767 Captain, not only do I have a vested interest in this incident, I feel I have somewhat of a duty to get to the cause of this mishap. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, so I like to learn from other’s mistakes so I don’t repeat them. Ha Earlier in my attempts at solving this mystery, I suggested that there might be a CB associated with a hydraulic [pressure release] valve which may inhibit the gear from coming down, but I just threw that out there as a shot in the dark. I don't even know if there is such a valve. The existence of this possible valve should not be confused with the confirmed electrically held open shuttle valve which closes and prevents the gear from extending with a complete loss of electrical power. I believe this would be a different animal all together. Even if such a valve and such a circuit breaker do exist, I still don't buy this theory. This is why. After takeoff, we place the gear handle from UP to OFF to shut off the valve supplying hydraulic UP pressure and then also release pressure from the system. At that point, the gear basically rests against the up locks and gear doors with no further UP pressure being applied. So even with this valve supposedly closed and not allowing fluid movement, if the ALTERNATE GEAR EXTENSION system switch was activated with no UP pressure in the system, wouldn’t we at least see the gear doors begin to open? With absolutely no center system hydraulic pressure and all of the gear and gear door up locks electrically retracted by the ALTERNATE GEAR EXTENSION system, I find it difficult to believe that even with trapped system fluid, that the gear would not have at least fallen out of the well at all. The gear and gear doors on that LOT 767 looked like they were sealed tight. I’m hoping that these guys are heroes, but my 36 years of flying and my 29 years as an A&P tell me they “screwed the pooch.” I hope I’m wrong. Very wrong. Media perceived heroes like Sully make us ALL look bigger than life; a good thing. Media perceived dirt bags like the NW crew that over shot MSP make us all look really bad. Remember, “It’s better to look good, than to feel good.” Billy Crystal.
P.S. Is it just me, or is anyone wondering why this Heroic Award Winning Crew:
1] Chose to continue to destination with the failure of the most critical hydraulic system on the aircraft? Time airborne is questionable here. Hot date in Warsaw perhaps?
2] Thought and stated that after the center hydraulic system failed that they knew that they would be unable to lower the gear upon reaching their destination? They seemed to immediately and falsely think that a center hydraulic system failure would inhibit lowering the landing gear. Only a complete electrical failure will inhibit the lowering of the landing gear on a 767. A failure of the center system will not inhibit lowering the landing gear. So why did they anticipate a gear up landing? Perhaps unfamiliarity with 767 systems??? Most knowledgeable 767 crews would have just anticipated a gear down landing using the ALTERNATE GEAR EXTENSION system.
3] Assume that the ALTERNATE GEAR EXTENSION system was not going to function properly? Perhaps they weren’t familiar with the system or didn’t even know it had this system?
These are stretches, but until the real cause is revealed, we can only speculate. What say you?
I’m glad there are folks like me out there analyzing and trying to solve this LOT 767 gear up mystery. From everything I can logically put together, it certainly looks like they “screwed the pooch.” The pieces of this puzzle just don’t add up. I really hope I am wrong. As a 767 Captain, not only do I have a vested interest in this incident, I feel I have somewhat of a duty to get to the cause of this mishap. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, so I like to learn from other’s mistakes so I don’t repeat them. Ha Earlier in my attempts at solving this mystery, I suggested that there might be a CB associated with a hydraulic [pressure release] valve which may inhibit the gear from coming down, but I just threw that out there as a shot in the dark. I don't even know if there is such a valve. The existence of this possible valve should not be confused with the confirmed electrically held open shuttle valve which closes and prevents the gear from extending with a complete loss of electrical power. I believe this would be a different animal all together. Even if such a valve and such a circuit breaker do exist, I still don't buy this theory. This is why. After takeoff, we place the gear handle from UP to OFF to shut off the valve supplying hydraulic UP pressure and then also release pressure from the system. At that point, the gear basically rests against the up locks and gear doors with no further UP pressure being applied. So even with this valve supposedly closed and not allowing fluid movement, if the ALTERNATE GEAR EXTENSION system switch was activated with no UP pressure in the system, wouldn’t we at least see the gear doors begin to open? With absolutely no center system hydraulic pressure and all of the gear and gear door up locks electrically retracted by the ALTERNATE GEAR EXTENSION system, I find it difficult to believe that even with trapped system fluid, that the gear would not have at least fallen out of the well at all. The gear and gear doors on that LOT 767 looked like they were sealed tight. I’m hoping that these guys are heroes, but my 36 years of flying and my 29 years as an A&P tell me they “screwed the pooch.” I hope I’m wrong. Very wrong. Media perceived heroes like Sully make us ALL look bigger than life; a good thing. Media perceived dirt bags like the NW crew that over shot MSP make us all look really bad. Remember, “It’s better to look good, than to feel good.” Billy Crystal.
P.S. Is it just me, or is anyone wondering why this Heroic Award Winning Crew:
1] Chose to continue to destination with the failure of the most critical hydraulic system on the aircraft? Time airborne is questionable here. Hot date in Warsaw perhaps?
2] Thought and stated that after the center hydraulic system failed that they knew that they would be unable to lower the gear upon reaching their destination? They seemed to immediately and falsely think that a center hydraulic system failure would inhibit lowering the landing gear. Only a complete electrical failure will inhibit the lowering of the landing gear on a 767. A failure of the center system will not inhibit lowering the landing gear. So why did they anticipate a gear up landing? Perhaps unfamiliarity with 767 systems??? Most knowledgeable 767 crews would have just anticipated a gear down landing using the ALTERNATE GEAR EXTENSION system.
3] Assume that the ALTERNATE GEAR EXTENSION system was not going to function properly? Perhaps they weren’t familiar with the system or didn’t even know it had this system?
These are stretches, but until the real cause is revealed, we can only speculate. What say you?
11-04-2011, 06:23 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
You description is one that is fairly accurate of yours truly. Would I vote for DPA today, right before negotiations? Sorry, but no. Will I if I'm even slightly dissatisfied by the final product when negotiations are said and done? In a heart beat. Better get this right, ALPA, because I have a feeling I'll have a lot of company if things don't go well. And by "well" I don't mean RA's definition of "acceptable."
But this is a real shotgun wedding...
11-04-2011, 06:24 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
Nope. From FAA passenger enplanement statistics for the 5 LA Basin airports (LAX, SNA, BUR, LGB, ONT) combined:
Airline 2008 2010
Delta 3,917,308 3,900,127
Alaska 2,220,377 1,960,141
So we carried 17000 fewer pax and they carried 260,000 fewer since we started codesharing with them.
Oh, in case you didn't notice, the Seattle pilot base (which has way more codeshare exposure) has doubled in size. Maybe you can come to ATL and enjoy some of those nice UIO and GYE 3 days.
Airline 2008 2010
Delta 3,917,308 3,900,127
Alaska 2,220,377 1,960,141
So we carried 17000 fewer pax and they carried 260,000 fewer since we started codesharing with them.
Oh, in case you didn't notice, the Seattle pilot base (which has way more codeshare exposure) has doubled in size. Maybe you can come to ATL and enjoy some of those nice UIO and GYE 3 days.
Slow,
Really? So ATL has two crappy 3 day trips in their bid package? A travesty! A true crime against humanity! Is that 60% of their bid package? Because that is what we have in LAX - 60% red-eyes. In November 45% of our bid package were 4 day trips, with red-eyes, that paid between 17 and 21 hours. Please forgive me if I do not match your efforts and specifically list our crappy trips - it would take too long.
As far as your statistics above, I am not impressed. We all know how statistics can be selectively chosen to make a point. I personally attended two LAX roadshows in LAX and have seen the statistics that T.O. And other DALPA guys were putting out. They do not paint a rosy picture for us. On this point I will defer to Model Citizens above response.
OBTW - Take a look at travelnet LAX-SEA. Yep, about 8 daily ALaska flights and zero with DAL metal. How many ATL - BOS flights does DAL code-share out of ATL? And with equipment that we operate.
Anyhow, as far as the big picture goes I am not sure that I really understand the point that you are trying to make - Is it your contention that DAL passengers flying on equipment operated by other than Delta Pilots is good for us?
At the recent LAX roadshow I was told by a DALPA rep that "In total, the Alaska code-share is good for DAL Pilots." Well OK, maybe, but it is obvious that what is good for the majority of the DAL Pilots does not help the LAX 737 guys.
I will PM you with more because I have been corresponding with a few DALPA reps, and in deference to them, would prefer not to discuss this in a public forum.
Scoop
Last edited by Scoop; 11-04-2011 at 06:40 PM.
11-04-2011, 06:34 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
To me, its not about greed.
It is about sacrifice partially recouped. Its about not having to pick up an extra trip just to have a little extra in life. Its about choosing DAL over other options and then being stagnant and moving backward. Its about making more than I made as a 3rd year pilot (actual w-2). Its about funding a retirement. Its about quality put back into the life of a pilot. Its about attracting talent. etc.
Pay is a significant factor, but certainly not the only factor. Do not be so shallow that you just look at pay raises. However, it is pay that funds life.
DAL pilots are a different breed than in previous section 6's. Some of our pilots have now been furloughed twice. Many from mid seniority on down have been furloughed at least once. Deadzoners permeate the whole seniority list...with a pbgc that is in trouble.
The campers arent happy. Its a tough crowd and it has to be tough to be in a Union leadership position. In my mind, the greatest threat to unity is not the DPA, it IS a weak opener.
This is a time for DALPA to hold strong AND for management to give 'em what they want. The unexpected consequences of either not happening are not yet clear.
11-04-2011, 06:47 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Slowplay,
Lets be clear on the facts you present. Delta has NO service from both LGB and BUR. So, can you present data to show the real comparison loss of PAX based on the other three airport were Delta MAINLINE has service? There is DCI service via SLC for LGB and BUR, so is DCI included in your facts? Does Alaska's passenger data INCLUDE Horizon, which has pulled out of those markets due to the loss of their jets? Jetblue has established a mini hub in LGB. Don't you think Alaska might want to not fight a LCC and cede market share in the name of profitability?
Lets be clear on the facts you present. Delta has NO service from both LGB and BUR. So, can you present data to show the real comparison loss of PAX based on the other three airport were Delta MAINLINE has service? There is DCI service via SLC for LGB and BUR, so is DCI included in your facts? Does Alaska's passenger data INCLUDE Horizon, which has pulled out of those markets due to the loss of their jets? Jetblue has established a mini hub in LGB. Don't you think Alaska might want to not fight a LCC and cede market share in the name of profitability?
You can do your own homework for the specific airports you want (it's FAA public data), but to answer a few of your questions...
I chose all 5 basin airports because LAX pilots at one time flew out of all 5. Had I not put all 5 you would have complained that I masked pulldowns in the satellite airports (which I didn't). Those passenger counts are Delta (including NWA as they reported separately in 2008/9) mainline only and are pax that boarded Delta metal. Delta doesn't appear in the BUR and LGB stats 2008-2010. Alaska does not include Horizon as Horizon reports separately. In 2010 SkyWest was actually larger than Alaska in the basin by 120,000 passengers.
So the numbers I gave were Delta mainline from 3 airports compared to Alaska from 5. In LAX Alaska's share of pax has dropped from 1,368,000 in 2008 to 1,291,000 in 2010. FWIW, SkyWest's 2010 share was 300,000 passengers greater than Alaska in LAX.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
