Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-01-2012, 08:46 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
deleted pending further research..........
04-01-2012, 08:50 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
04-01-2012, 09:17 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,016
So let me get this straight. In following the money I notice this: Delta subsidizes a broken and crumbling business model to the tune of $74.3 million (that's give or take 7% of PNCLs annual revenue). This results in PNCL keeping 57, 76 seat jets on their property which rightfully should be on ours. So what message is Delta management sending with regard to scope? They'd rather blow $74.3 million on a collapsing airline than let them stumble to a point where we get the airplanes. Sure would be a perfect opportunity for DAL management to tip their hand with regard to scope (as if they hadn't already). Unfortunately for us, now, the earliest that a PNCL 76 seat jet comes out of contract is April 2013. A majority remain until 2022.
So tell me management sounding boards. Where does DAL intend to keep the 76 seat aircraft? And how much are we willing to concede to all have a shot at a shiny CR9 A position?
At least Bombardier will have the opportunity to eat every rejected CRJ-200 that PNCL sends their way. Don't believe it's possible? Just look at Mesa's foray into Chapter 11.
So tell me management sounding boards. Where does DAL intend to keep the 76 seat aircraft? And how much are we willing to concede to all have a shot at a shiny CR9 A position?
At least Bombardier will have the opportunity to eat every rejected CRJ-200 that PNCL sends their way. Don't believe it's possible? Just look at Mesa's foray into Chapter 11.
04-01-2012, 09:29 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
We are not taking the 76 seat flying back. That ship has sailed. I expect the DCI carriers to get more 76 seaters. The scope battle is still going on and will get worse. Continental and American were the two companies holding the scope line in our favor. American is bankrupt and Continental is stuck merging with United's scope.
04-01-2012, 10:20 PM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 58
So let me get this straight. In following the money I notice this: Delta subsidizes a broken and crumbling business model to the tune of $74.3 million (that's give or take 7% of PNCLs annual revenue). This results in PNCL keeping 57, 76 seat jets on their property which rightfully should be on ours. So what message is Delta management sending with regard to scope? They'd rather blow $74.3 million on a collapsing airline than let them stumble to a point where we get the airplanes. Sure would be a perfect opportunity for DAL management to tip their hand with regard to scope (as if they hadn't already). Unfortunately for us, now, the earliest that a PNCL 76 seat jet comes out of contract is April 2013. A majority remain until 2022.
So tell me management sounding boards. Where does DAL intend to keep the 76 seat aircraft? And how much are we willing to concede to all have a shot at a shiny CR9 A position?
At least Bombardier will have the opportunity to eat every rejected CRJ-200 that PNCL sends their way. Don't believe it's possible? Just look at Mesa's foray into Chapter 11.
So tell me management sounding boards. Where does DAL intend to keep the 76 seat aircraft? And how much are we willing to concede to all have a shot at a shiny CR9 A position?
At least Bombardier will have the opportunity to eat every rejected CRJ-200 that PNCL sends their way. Don't believe it's possible? Just look at Mesa's foray into Chapter 11.
04-02-2012, 03:56 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
I think the reason for Delta's financing of this deal is more of a practical matter... there is an FAQ that Pinnacle Mgmt put out, and mentions that no one else they asked would do DIP financing for them. Since Delta has an obligation to their passengers, I'm betting that Delta did this just to allow 9E to continue the operation long enough until Delta finds another way to replace this lift (whether that's GoJet, Skywest, B717s, ect). And who knows, they very well could have given the stipulation that we'll DIP finance you, but you have to park 100+ CRJ-200s. I guess time will tell...
Maddog;
Love your avatar. Huge fan of Ricky-isms on trailer park boys. Nothing productive to add to your speculation, just giving a shout out.
04-02-2012, 04:52 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 93
The math is using the 2009 Form 41 data and adding SWA pay raises to their numbers, and the same for us. In order to take DC into account, I assumed both pilots contributed 2% into their DC. Both pilots in that case would see 2% less in their paycheck and the Delta pilot would receive 12% more in his DC. The SWA pilot can receive more DC if he subtracts more current pay, but I didn't choose to run the numbers that way. Doing that math, it looks like they are about 23.5% ahead on pay, and 12% behind on DC. Combine the two and you are close to the Roger number of 11%.
So, like some (88) here say, there is more to it than straight hourly wages. I agree with that. That could be why you have friends with great W2s. What's the explanation for that? Maybe SWA pilots work more than us. Using the same year Form 41 data, they do. The average SWA pilot flew 59.9 hours a month in 2009, and the average Delta pilot flew 42.5. If they are flying 40% more than us, they should be making more money.
So why are they flying more? Our contract is not as efficient, we spend time upgrading and doing WW ops, and transitioning to different aircraft, and sitting around for the plane we fly to show up so we can work. We could probably create a more efficient contract and be able to fly 59.9 hours a month, thereby increasing our W2s, but then 88 is not going to be an 88 captain. He's going to be a 767FO because we get rid of the bottom 2000 pilots.
So we are not in total disagreement. If both carrier's pilots flew the same number of hours as a Delta pilot averages, we'd need about an 11% pay raise to match SWA. If we flew as many of those hours as a SWA pilot, we'd make their W2.
Does that make sense?
So, like some (88) here say, there is more to it than straight hourly wages. I agree with that. That could be why you have friends with great W2s. What's the explanation for that? Maybe SWA pilots work more than us. Using the same year Form 41 data, they do. The average SWA pilot flew 59.9 hours a month in 2009, and the average Delta pilot flew 42.5. If they are flying 40% more than us, they should be making more money.
So why are they flying more? Our contract is not as efficient, we spend time upgrading and doing WW ops, and transitioning to different aircraft, and sitting around for the plane we fly to show up so we can work. We could probably create a more efficient contract and be able to fly 59.9 hours a month, thereby increasing our W2s, but then 88 is not going to be an 88 captain. He's going to be a 767FO because we get rid of the bottom 2000 pilots.
So we are not in total disagreement. If both carrier's pilots flew the same number of hours as a Delta pilot averages, we'd need about an 11% pay raise to match SWA. If we flew as many of those hours as a SWA pilot, we'd make their W2.
Does that make sense?
04-02-2012, 04:59 AM
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,730
If Delta were ever to become 'as efficient' as SW, ie. we average 40% more flying per pilot, that's actually the bottom 4,800 pilots we wouldn't need, not just 2,000.
Of course, with the 8 different fleet types DAL has, that's -never- going to happen...oh, and now they want to bring on yet another? (717)
Brilliant!
Of course, with the 8 different fleet types DAL has, that's -never- going to happen...oh, and now they want to bring on yet another? (717)
Brilliant!
04-02-2012, 05:15 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
You are wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.
04-02-2012, 05:27 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Now.. that being said, and Carl's asinine characterization of my personal... how did he say it? "Doesn't care about scope" stance aside, I have no intention of allowing any increase in the number of RJs that the company currently has available. Is it an automatic no vote however? Maybe, maybe not. For it to pass my personal test however, the sweetener better be pretty damned sweet.. and I am not talking about simply money. For example.. it might have to include something to the effect of "there shall be 1 "super premium widebody aircraft on the premises prior to the allowance of a single increase in the number of DCI flown jets... and furthermore, if any super premium jets are parked, sold, crashed, stolen or otherwise lost.. the RJs go back to their manufacturer"... or something of equal strength. I am not writing the TA. And all I am saying is that there are no absolutes... Personally, I am more concerned about tightening up the JV language than worrying about the dying RJ contingent at DAL...... fire away.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
