Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-07-2012, 05:34 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Look who you are arguing with.. ^^^^^ bacon bits hasn't had a clue since he joind this little party.
04-07-2012, 05:51 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
The financial guys at ALPA are working on these types of assessments on a near daily basis. The EFA team works on the numbers constantly. Most recently they did a complete assessment for APA. They also provided numbers in preparation for our opener. Where the numbers come in will be a critical part of our negotiations with the company. They are being studied and looked at on a near constant basis. Your statement could not be further from the truth.
04-07-2012, 06:05 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Guys, Jack is a very junior guy that hasn't been in a BK contract for the prime part of his career with no time to recover what was taken from him. He will trade your financial future for his ability to fly captain for the next 20 years of his career....
nyah nyah..
Oh, and bite me Jack.
nyah nyah..
Oh, and bite me Jack.
I see why you feel the way you do but you cant sell everybody on the bottom out to maximize your position. You already received 5 extra years of flying to recover some lost wages. You will likely never get back 100%, none of us will.
Do you have no kids following in your footsteps or does it make any difference to you what industry/job you will have left behind. At least Carl gets it. Maybe Carl has a kid in the industry...I don't know. Anyway lets just call a spade a spade.....your strategy will cannibalize the rest of the professional even further...the industry under your leadership will simply keep pulling back on the stick, never leveling the wings. As painful as it may be to change directions, someone has got to level the wings, pull back gently and depart this industry death spiral. Its got to start now. No more "we'll get em next time guys".
Last edited by Jack Bauer; 04-07-2012 at 06:19 PM.
04-07-2012, 06:16 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,220
Your argument is exactly why it will never happen and there will always be a DCI.
If you look back, I pointed this out already. Also, the DCI pilots will not be negotiating from the height ground. DCI is going to shrink and in a big way. Unless Dal goes and invests in last generation turboprops, they will shrink by 50% in the next five years. These guys are going to be shrinking and starting over is going to be a given except for the most senior.
If you look back, I pointed this out already. Also, the DCI pilots will not be negotiating from the height ground. DCI is going to shrink and in a big way. Unless Dal goes and invests in last generation turboprops, they will shrink by 50% in the next five years. These guys are going to be shrinking and starting over is going to be a given except for the most senior.
04-07-2012, 06:32 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Hardy Har Har
04-07-2012, 07:55 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Synergies in cleaning up outsourcing mess?
Exactly, The big point missed in all the talk about DCI is that you can only bring the flying back in house if you can do it within a few percentage points of the costs at the regional carriers. If you can't the entire process is doomed to fail and you lose not only those jobs but the feed. Its a fine line about where you can make the cost issue work. I think it was crossed with the E-170/175. The company would disagree. Regardless if your going to convince the company to bring that flying back you have to produce a solid economic plan on cost and how you will equal the current regionals. There is a reason why all the airline managements fight the unions tooth and nail on this issue and its not that they hate pilots. Its cost pure and simple.
Let me ask another question. With the DAL-NWA merger, the annual report from 2009 says they expected to realize $2B in synergies from more effective aircraft utilization and reduced overhead and improved operational efficiency. It would also allow them to right-size the operation and to reduce fleet costs by removing things that don't make money, like freighters? Different subject.
Anyways, a CAPA article in 2009 outlined HH four tenets of Delta's strategies and I'll post it in its entirety because you look back and the Alaska thing just makes your stomach turn:
- Delta/Northwest synergies. While it has achieved most milestones including the October merging of Worldperks and SkyMiles, remaining action includes the single operating certificate expected by the end of 2009 and the technology cutover in the first quarter of 2010. The first quarter will also see the balance of the Northwest fleet completed in new livery. The only remaining sticking point will then be the merging of employee representation and seniority lists.
- Squeezing costs out of the system, including reducing overheads by USD200 million, as well as realigning capacity to get fixed and variable costs out commensurate with capacity changes. The airline is focusing on its network, realigning hubs and traffic flows so that the Northwest and Delta hubs do not compete with one another. Delta has seven hubs including Tokyo Narita and, has completely changed the traffic flows, so hubs complement each other, reallocating equipment and reducing capacity to ensure a given point can connect cross the system without going to two different hubs. It is also exiting the freight business by the end of the year, which lost it USD150 last year.
- Refocusing revenue efforts to drive a revenue premium by capturing a great share of the market including the lucrative New York market. “Combine [the US Airways slot deal] with the transcontinental and international flows over JFK, travelers have more opportunities to fly Delta than any other New York carrier.
- Joint ventures such as the Air France/KLM partnership, as well as growing domestic partnerships are delivering benefits. “That JV amounts to a USD12 billion revenue opportunity across the Atlantic. One in four flights is part of the JV.” Halter noted the airline recently cut a deal with Alaska Airlines to form an alliance that not only feeds passengers to its domestic network but to its four international gateways on the West Coast to Asia.
Those airlines combined operate 1,700 airplanes of which 55% is dedicated to Delta. Skywest operates 704 regionals between it's 3 airlines in its holding company. Republic operates 338 including 91 Airbus in its 6 airlines under it's holding company of which two fly for Delta as separate entities but the same seniority list which happens to be integrated with the Frontier list. Compass has 41, Comair 68 and Pinnacle 199.
And of course this doesn't include Alaska's 86 737s that "not only feeds passengers to its domestic network but to its four international gateways on the West Coast to Asia."
So my question, how can we not find some synergies by cleaning up that mess? And of course this doesn't include Alaska's 86 737s that "not only feeds passengers to its domestic network but to its four international gateways on the West Coast to Asia."
I mean if we found it combining DAL-NWA into a 700+ size fleet how can we not find synergies by combining 1,300+ airplanes?
Are we really supposed to believe having 7 airlines with overlapping everything plus a guaranteed profit and costing us in so many ways, many unexpected, is more affordable than a $57 increase per hour in pilot cost or a 2/10ths of 1 cent increase in CASM for a CRJ-900 or E175?
What is that? $32M a year on the entire 76 seat fleet? A 1.5% loss of a near $2B profit before you count synergies?
Seems as if it would make financial sense to combine DCI's together with DAL? Or at the least take the most profitable flying and combine it (all 70+ seaters to mainline)? No staple, no merger, just take the planes and hire for them.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 04-07-2012 at 08:15 PM.
04-07-2012, 07:59 PM
meh
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 828
Exactly, The big point missed in all the talk about DCI is that you can only bring the flying back in house if you can do it within a few percentage points of the costs at the regional carriers. If you can't the entire process is doomed to fail and you lose not only those jobs but the feed. Its a fine line about where you can make the cost issue work. I think it was crossed with the E-170/175. The company would disagree. Regardless if your going to convince the company to bring that flying back you have to produce a solid economic plan on cost and how you will equal the current regionals. There is a reason why all the airline managements fight the unions tooth and nail on this issue and its not that they hate pilots. Its cost pure and simple.
I don't have ANY numbers, and don't really have a good idea of what all the costs are to run a regional op, nor what % of that cost is the pilot pay. However, this WOULD be a very interesting topic for more knowledgeable folks to cover. What GAINs do we get by moving the flying in-house (no assured profits to other airlines, no overhead to run 2nd separate airline, increased efficiency due to one true op, etc.)? What reductions do we get on the leases? What ARE the true differences in pilot costs, and what % of the bottom line is that?
Good post by sailing in any case.
And I can see now (after posting this) that 3 or 4 other guys are thinking along the same lines-- FTB right above here is asking the exact same thing, but in his generally more-thought-out and more-graphical manner
Last edited by Roadkill; 04-07-2012 at 08:29 PM.
04-07-2012, 08:13 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I forgot, we also share the 737-800s via Alaska, so I updated the chart. We get the stuff in blue unless it was grandfathered in. Anything added outside the blue is a concession and we need to concede something of value to get it. If the rumors are true about the 717.
04-08-2012, 04:40 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 65
04-08-2012, 04:47 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Still in one
Posts: 784
That bar has moved significantly, but we can't even get the MEC to study the question. They don't want to examine the economics as they CURRENTLY exist.
The game of the next 24 months is not that of the last 24, nor the 10 years before that. FTDT will ravage the regionals, because their bag of scheduling tricks, like scheduled reduced rest and 16 hour duty days, are going out the window.
Their ONLY way to mitigate crew costs is to reduce pay and benefits. Yet they already find it VERY difficult to recruit people to work for their bottom basement wages...and yet here comes the 1,500 hour rule to haunt their dreams.
The game has changed. The only one singing from the old hymnal seems to be DALPA.
Nu
The game of the next 24 months is not that of the last 24, nor the 10 years before that. FTDT will ravage the regionals, because their bag of scheduling tricks, like scheduled reduced rest and 16 hour duty days, are going out the window.
Their ONLY way to mitigate crew costs is to reduce pay and benefits. Yet they already find it VERY difficult to recruit people to work for their bottom basement wages...and yet here comes the 1,500 hour rule to haunt their dreams.
The game has changed. The only one singing from the old hymnal seems to be DALPA.
Nu
Slowplay's answer is a half answer to a question that was not specific enough. I believe the resolution that addressed this was AI 11-95 from the Nov MEC Mtg (look on the comm committe page under resolutions, can't copy from my iPad). It was to study and report back on accounting practices and costs associated with various DCI flying to determine the true operating costs.
It was NOT a study of whether 76 seat flying, aka E-175, could be performed at mainline, with seat, route, GW limits and other restrictions lifted, and duplicate managerial and other costs eliminated, and at what pay rate that could still allow a margin for the company, per Sailing's post.
I believe that someone at ALPA has already decided they don't want to pursue this because while perhaps not a negative cost item, might detract from other possible PWA gains, so the question is not being seriously considered. Of course the company doesn't want to go there because with PCL in BK, they can keep whipsawing the DCI costs even lower. So we'll put them off the scent, trot out a few old power points and brush them off and say its not cost effective.
I asked my LEC reps if any analysis as above has been done and they said not that they had seen. I also asked if there was any truth to the rumors of letting the company outsource further 76 seaters and was told they cannot discuss negotiation specifics. ****?!?
My experience is that reps will usually tell you NO if there is no truth to a rumor, but when they can't discusses means BOHICA
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
