Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
02-26-2012, 05:46 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
Actually the 76 seat portion was really pre bankruptcy when John Malone now a DPA supporter allowed the gross weight increase that permitted the E170/175 at DCI. The jets were flying for DCI before we ever filed chapter 11. They had them configured with 70 seats but anyone with two touching brain cells knew that would not last. There was no way the judge was going to make the company fly the aircraft around with a bunch of empty space once we were in chapter 11.
We should scope airframes not seats. Let the company figure out how they want to configure the airframe to maximize revenue. If they want to try an cram 80 seats in a CRJ 50 let them have it. The CRJ 700 should be the largest airframe DCI can operate. The 170/175 should have been a mainline aircraft.
We should scope airframes not seats. Let the company figure out how they want to configure the airframe to maximize revenue. If they want to try an cram 80 seats in a CRJ 50 let them have it. The CRJ 700 should be the largest airframe DCI can operate. The 170/175 should have been a mainline aircraft.
Sailing,
We are pretty much saying the same thing. I said that calling DALPA a "co-conspirator" was a stretch, and that I would more accurately describe the situation as them "caving-in."
You say they realized they would lose via the judge - so they did not bother to risk fighting it. This is pretty much a tactical retreat and may or may not have been the best move at the time, but if you think about it that is pretty much what it means to "cave."
I agree 100% with what I highlighted in red above and along those lines have a question: Has DALPA or ALPA looked at the cost affects of the new FTDT rules on DCI and how this might help the Delta Pilots recapute the 76 seat flying or has that ship sailed (pun intended)
.Do you foresee us even trying to recpature 76 flying?
Thanks Scoop
02-26-2012, 06:05 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 3,044
Having flown both (currently on the 170/5) there is very little difference in payload, range, and speed. They both can cross the continent in one stop.
My next trip has a day where I go IAD-MSP-YVR, literally a transcon with a single stop. Legs of 3+ hours are fairly common in our schedule. Not very regional, then again North America is a region I guess.
I think you should grab the aircraft back even if you have to fly them for the rates we currently have, it would be step in the right direction.
02-26-2012, 08:39 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: 737 Left
Posts: 1,827
Just curious, but why the E170 at mainline and not the CRJ-700 also?
Having flown both (currently on the 170/5) there is very little difference in payload, range, and speed. They both can cross the continent in one stop.
My next trip has a day where I go IAD-MSP-YVR, literally a transcon with a single stop. Legs of 3+ hours are fairly common in our schedule. Not very regional, then again North America is a region I guess.
I think you should grab the aircraft back even if you have to fly them for the rates we currently have, it would be step in the right direction.
Having flown both (currently on the 170/5) there is very little difference in payload, range, and speed. They both can cross the continent in one stop.
My next trip has a day where I go IAD-MSP-YVR, literally a transcon with a single stop. Legs of 3+ hours are fairly common in our schedule. Not very regional, then again North America is a region I guess.
I think you should grab the aircraft back even if you have to fly them for the rates we currently have, it would be step in the right direction.
02-26-2012, 09:02 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,238
There any talk about opening a 73 base in DTW?
02-26-2012, 09:11 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
02-26-2012, 09:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Still in one
Posts: 784
Actually the 76 seat portion was really pre bankruptcy when John Malone now a DPA supporter allowed the gross weight increase that permitted the E170/175 at DCI. The jets were flying for DCI before we ever filed chapter 11. They had them configured with 70 seats but anyone with two touching brain cells knew that would not last. There was no way the judge was going to make the company fly the aircraft around with a bunch of empty space once we were in chapter 11.
We should scope airframes not seats. Let the company figure out how they want to configure the airframe to maximize revenue. If they want to try an cram 80 seats in a CRJ 50 let them have it. The CRJ 700 should be the largest airframe DCI can operate. The 170/175 should have been a mainline aircraft.
We should scope airframes not seats. Let the company figure out how they want to configure the airframe to maximize revenue. If they want to try an cram 80 seats in a CRJ 50 let them have it. The CRJ 700 should be the largest airframe DCI can operate. The 170/175 should have been a mainline aircraft.
02-26-2012, 09:32 AM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
02-26-2012, 09:45 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 841
junk!
02-26-2012, 09:53 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,596
02-26-2012, 10:09 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,105
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
