Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-13-2012, 07:22 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: erb
Posts: 646
I've been out out drinking, so take everything with a grain of salt: scope matters, no matter what the girls tell you. Qol, in a capitalist system productive pilots=fewer pilots on the list. Imho you should offer to be more productive, but somehow tie it in with retirements/growth to avoid stagnating seniority growth. Good luck, we are all counting on you!
05-13-2012, 07:27 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Position: 2000 light years from home
Posts: 49
Late into this discussion, but I think this is spot on. Our current scope stinks! No protection on the bottom end (50's but also turboprops) and very little on the top end (only AF JV protected) If DCI block hours go down and airframes reduce in number (but 76 seaters increase) and Mainline block hours and airframes increase (717/A319) and this is protected by IRONCLAD language, isn't this a good thing? Remember, current scope I believe allows 255 large RJ's (mix of 70 and 76) but the 76 jets can increase significantly by adding 30 or so ML jets. And how about a JV with Emirites/Etihad et al, that we have no control over. I think we need to remember we need a comprehensive Section 1 and not just emphasize RJ's.
200 50-seaters out = 10,000 seats. That's a big hole network has to fill. They need to make a decision and they need to make it very soon. I believe this is why we are in expedited negotiations. The question the company needs answered is, "Who's going to fly this lift?"
88 717s = 10,300 seats (what a coincidence). This would be just about capacity neutral. If we do NOTHING to our RJ scope, nearly all of the capacity lost due to 50-seater retirements would have to be replaced here at MAINLINE.
You're right, the hard cap on large RJs is 255. the ALPA people I've been talking to (MEC & local) are MISLEADING people by saying the company can just simply add more 76 seat RJs once we get to 768 mainline A/C. They are really not "adding" anything, they have to REMOVE a 70 seat get for every 76 seat jet they add. For some reason they casually forget to mention that.
What if we let the company have more large RJs in this contract? I've heard that 2:1 is what they are leaning toward. Would this reduce RJ block hours? Yes, but we sell seats, not pilot block hours here at Delta.
Sure the company would lose 10,000 seats worth of 50-seaters, but they would gain 7600 of them back with more large RJs. I highly doubt they would get the 717 under these circumstances. I would expect to here them announce that the price just wasn't right but they were able to get some great rates on a handful of A319s. all it would take is about 20 A319s to get back to capacity neutral in this case resulting in fewer mainline jobs.
The only way we'll get a TA out in the near term is if it allows more large RJs, lots and lots of them. Our current RJ scope is the only thing standing in the way.
05-13-2012, 07:28 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I'd rather have more reserves to cover the random to predict flying above ALV issues than a higher guarantee and have fewer reserves.
Especially since this ALV+15 seems aimed at 747, 777, 330, 765 and 7ER staffing issues. A reduction there hits everyone. For the NB it seems like ALV+15 would be rarely needed, for the WBs it probably is needed a lot.
Seems like a bad idea.
I get the average reserve formula but sometimes isn't staffing based on contigencies like the ALV limit? To me you have to staff for contigencies and to remove that is to decrease pilot staffing.
05-13-2012, 07:32 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
05-13-2012, 07:35 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
Question for Sailingfun:
Sailing you and were both at Delta pre-bankruptcy and during the days of the defined benefit retirement plan....
When you were a First Officer and flew a trip with a senior Captain and the subject of "what you made last year" came up, did you or he add in Delta's contribution to your DB retirement plan, or even Delta's match to the Family Care Savings Plan?
No one I flew with did (nor did I).
In that same vein, suppose a Delta pilot has a newborn that has massive health care needs to the tune of $250K. Do you add the 250K to his W-2 and subtract his health care premiums?
Last year I was surprisingly healthy and my health care premiums were a heck of a lot more than what was paid out. Do I get to deduct that "loss" from my Delta income?
I'm curious as to how your accounting methodology handles these situations?
When you were a First Officer and flew a trip with a senior Captain and the subject of "what you made last year" came up, did you or he add in Delta's contribution to your DB retirement plan, or even Delta's match to the Family Care Savings Plan?
No one I flew with did (nor did I).
In that same vein, suppose a Delta pilot has a newborn that has massive health care needs to the tune of $250K. Do you add the 250K to his W-2 and subtract his health care premiums?
Last year I was surprisingly healthy and my health care premiums were a heck of a lot more than what was paid out. Do I get to deduct that "loss" from my Delta income?
I'm curious as to how your accounting methodology handles these situations?
05-13-2012, 07:44 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,598
Lots of junior guys here understandably don't have enough knowledge of the contract to understand the issues on reserve. There are three issues that all interact to determine reserve staffing, they are:
1. When a reserve is full
2. Max reserve
3. Staffing formula
Look at the last issue first. The staffing formula is based on reserves flying an average of 60 hours per month. It is a self correcting formula. If you have 1000 reserves and somehow they average 90 hours a month (90,000 hours) then you will soon have 1500 reserves (90,000/60). There is no way to have reserves consistently fly above a 60 hour average, without having the staffing formula rise to correct for it. It is not optional. The formula is a rolling 12 month average so there can be variations in special situations, but the staffing formula will always drive the average back down to 60.
Now look at when a reserve is full. Currently a reserve is full at the reserve guarantee. That means that once a pilot flies 70.01, he can't be given another trip. Under the current contract, if a pilot takes military leave (or some other absence like vacation) for half the month HIS guarantee is 35 hours. However, he still isn't full until he hits 70 hours. Under the agreement reached, that pilot will now be full at HIS guarantee or 35 hours. That will REDUCE the availability of that reserve pilot, that is a gain.
Max reserve. If a reserve isn't full, then how much can a reserve be flown. Currently the max is ALV. The proposed change is ALV + 15. If a reserve should average 60 hours a month, then how does this have any effect? It has an effect when a guy is about half full and is one of the only guys available when a longer trip comes up. This change will nominally reduce green slips, but will only effect staffing to the extent that the 60 hour average is easier to reach. The idea that reserves will consistently be flying 85 hours a month is impossible, the staffing formula will never allow that to occur. Because reserve guarantee is going up by 8%, this change reduces some of the additional cost of the extra guarantee.
It is not anyone's fault that they may not fully understand the interaction of these three items. The notepad was an attempt to give an update on the items discussed so far, but there was no time to do a complete analysis to discuss these issues. The misconceptions on this issue are large and will be addressed if there is a tentative agreement.
Now could someone at least talk about sick leave which is the best program I have ever had in my close to 25 years at Delta. If you come off disability, you can borrow sick time from next year so if you have a cold you are not left without pay. If you are sick on the first day or two of a long rotation, you can WITHOUT RISK, try to pick up time to avoid having your sick bank debited. There is not another sick program in the industry that is even close to this. This program recognizes the real world problems pilots face all the time with sick leave and it addresses them all.
1. When a reserve is full
2. Max reserve
3. Staffing formula
Look at the last issue first. The staffing formula is based on reserves flying an average of 60 hours per month. It is a self correcting formula. If you have 1000 reserves and somehow they average 90 hours a month (90,000 hours) then you will soon have 1500 reserves (90,000/60). There is no way to have reserves consistently fly above a 60 hour average, without having the staffing formula rise to correct for it. It is not optional. The formula is a rolling 12 month average so there can be variations in special situations, but the staffing formula will always drive the average back down to 60.
Now look at when a reserve is full. Currently a reserve is full at the reserve guarantee. That means that once a pilot flies 70.01, he can't be given another trip. Under the current contract, if a pilot takes military leave (or some other absence like vacation) for half the month HIS guarantee is 35 hours. However, he still isn't full until he hits 70 hours. Under the agreement reached, that pilot will now be full at HIS guarantee or 35 hours. That will REDUCE the availability of that reserve pilot, that is a gain.
Max reserve. If a reserve isn't full, then how much can a reserve be flown. Currently the max is ALV. The proposed change is ALV + 15. If a reserve should average 60 hours a month, then how does this have any effect? It has an effect when a guy is about half full and is one of the only guys available when a longer trip comes up. This change will nominally reduce green slips, but will only effect staffing to the extent that the 60 hour average is easier to reach. The idea that reserves will consistently be flying 85 hours a month is impossible, the staffing formula will never allow that to occur. Because reserve guarantee is going up by 8%, this change reduces some of the additional cost of the extra guarantee.
It is not anyone's fault that they may not fully understand the interaction of these three items. The notepad was an attempt to give an update on the items discussed so far, but there was no time to do a complete analysis to discuss these issues. The misconceptions on this issue are large and will be addressed if there is a tentative agreement.
Now could someone at least talk about sick leave which is the best program I have ever had in my close to 25 years at Delta. If you come off disability, you can borrow sick time from next year so if you have a cold you are not left without pay. If you are sick on the first day or two of a long rotation, you can WITHOUT RISK, try to pick up time to avoid having your sick bank debited. There is not another sick program in the industry that is even close to this. This program recognizes the real world problems pilots face all the time with sick leave and it addresses them all.
Your post is interesting, and frankly I had to read it a couple of times to get past the snarky, condescending tone to get to the meat. Yes I'm junior, yes I've been on reserve, but don't sit there and tell me I'm too stupid to read.
You represent DALPA and frankly, the worst parts of it. You want us to sit back and color while the "adults" make the decisions with the information that is too "privileged" for the masses to see. You ask us to trust you when there is no trust left in the bank.
For the most part, I've been staying off the forums to wait for the contract. I'm cautiously excited, but the NNP put a lot of angst back in my world.
You have had some great posts in the past, but drop the whole trust me thing and stop talking down to us. What I saw in the NNP is concessionary in nature so far, but I'm sure it's because I'm "too stupid" to see the awesomeness it contains.
I'm hoping/praying that there is more to see. They (the NC) have done some good work outside section 6, so I am hoping for a linear result.
05-13-2012, 08:05 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: maddoggy dog
Posts: 1,026
05-13-2012, 08:21 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
3 Speculative Picks from the Airline Industry
by Renee O'Farrell
The opportunity in the airline industry is a hard thing to pass up. The airline industry is fairly small, at least in terms of players. It is really closer to an oligarchy-- there are a handful of major players and barriers to entry are high. It is almost like investing in the personal computing industry. Sure, there are some companies, like Acer, that have some measure of flooding in the industry. But, for the most part, when someone goes to buy a computer, he or she is going to be looking at an Apple (AAPL), a DELL (DELL) or HP (HPQ). The same is true with airlines. When you go to book a flight, odds are you're going to be looking at either Delta (DAL), United Continental (UAL) or US Airways (LCC).
Moreover, people love to travel, and for many, the economy means that they couldn't afford to. As things rebound financially, more will be booking that flight that got put off -- and airline share prices reflect this. Looking solely at the three major airlines in the United States, each company on this list represents a good investment opportunity. They have returned over 24% year to date and are priced at less than 5 times their forward earnings. They also have strong expected earnings growth.
Delta is the largest of the companies on this list, with a market cap of $9.20 billion. The stock is currently trading at less than $11 a share, meaning that it is priced at only 4.25 times forward earnings. To date, the stock has returned almost 35%. If analysts are correct and the company is able to increase its earnings by an average of 17.25% a year over the next 5 years, there is still room for this stock to run. I highly recommend the stock as a buy.
3 Speculative Picks From The Airline Industry - Seeking Alpha
by Renee O'Farrell
The opportunity in the airline industry is a hard thing to pass up. The airline industry is fairly small, at least in terms of players. It is really closer to an oligarchy-- there are a handful of major players and barriers to entry are high. It is almost like investing in the personal computing industry. Sure, there are some companies, like Acer, that have some measure of flooding in the industry. But, for the most part, when someone goes to buy a computer, he or she is going to be looking at an Apple (AAPL), a DELL (DELL) or HP (HPQ). The same is true with airlines. When you go to book a flight, odds are you're going to be looking at either Delta (DAL), United Continental (UAL) or US Airways (LCC).
Moreover, people love to travel, and for many, the economy means that they couldn't afford to. As things rebound financially, more will be booking that flight that got put off -- and airline share prices reflect this. Looking solely at the three major airlines in the United States, each company on this list represents a good investment opportunity. They have returned over 24% year to date and are priced at less than 5 times their forward earnings. They also have strong expected earnings growth.
Delta is the largest of the companies on this list, with a market cap of $9.20 billion. The stock is currently trading at less than $11 a share, meaning that it is priced at only 4.25 times forward earnings. To date, the stock has returned almost 35%. If analysts are correct and the company is able to increase its earnings by an average of 17.25% a year over the next 5 years, there is still room for this stock to run. I highly recommend the stock as a buy.
3 Speculative Picks From The Airline Industry - Seeking Alpha
05-13-2012, 08:22 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Only an idiot would buy AMR. When they exit BK, the stock that is now out there will be worthless, and new stock will be issued.. just like DAL.. just like CAL was back in the day... etc etc... Buying a BK stock is a trade, but the waters are deep and dangerous. Since AMR is only worth a few pennies, you would have to invest a TON of money to make it worthwhile.. and what happens if the stock is zeroed out while you are in.. or drops a few cents... there is little upside for the retail investor
05-13-2012, 08:30 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Lots of junior guys here understandably don't have enough knowledge of the contract to understand the issues on reserve. There are three issues that all interact to determine reserve staffing, they are:
1. When a reserve is full
2. Max reserve
3. Staffing formula
Look at the last issue first. The staffing formula is based on reserves flying an average of 60 hours per month. It is a self correcting formula. If you have 1000 reserves and somehow they average 90 hours a month (90,000 hours) then you will soon have 1500 reserves (90,000/60). There is no way to have reserves consistently fly above a 60 hour average, without having the staffing formula rise to correct for it. It is not optional. The formula is a rolling 12 month average so there can be variations in special situations, but the staffing formula will always drive the average back down to 60.
Now look at when a reserve is full. Currently a reserve is full at the reserve guarantee. That means that once a pilot flies 70.01, he can't be given another trip. Under the current contract, if a pilot takes military leave (or some other absence like vacation) for half the month HIS guarantee is 35 hours. However, he still isn't full until he hits 70 hours. Under the agreement reached, that pilot will now be full at HIS guarantee or 35 hours. That will REDUCE the availability of that reserve pilot, that is a gain.
Max reserve. If a reserve isn't full, then how much can a reserve be flown. Currently the max is ALV. The proposed change is ALV + 15. If a reserve should average 60 hours a month, then how does this have any effect? It has an effect when a guy is about half full and is one of the only guys available when a longer trip comes up. This change will nominally reduce green slips, but will only effect staffing to the extent that the 60 hour average is easier to reach. The idea that reserves will consistently be flying 85 hours a month is impossible, the staffing formula will never allow that to occur. Because reserve guarantee is going up by 8%, this change reduces some of the additional cost of the extra guarantee.
It is not anyone's fault that they may not fully understand the interaction of these three items. The notepad was an attempt to give an update on the items discussed so far, but there was no time to do a complete analysis to discuss these issues. The misconceptions on this issue are large and will be addressed if there is a tentative agreement.
Now could someone at least talk about sick leave which is the best program I have ever had in my close to 25 years at Delta. If you come off disability, you can borrow sick time from next year so if you have a cold you are not left without pay. If you are sick on the first day or two of a long rotation, you can WITHOUT RISK, try to pick up time to avoid having your sick bank debited. There is not another sick program in the industry that is even close to this. This program recognizes the real world problems pilots face all the time with sick leave and it addresses them all.
1. When a reserve is full
2. Max reserve
3. Staffing formula
Look at the last issue first. The staffing formula is based on reserves flying an average of 60 hours per month. It is a self correcting formula. If you have 1000 reserves and somehow they average 90 hours a month (90,000 hours) then you will soon have 1500 reserves (90,000/60). There is no way to have reserves consistently fly above a 60 hour average, without having the staffing formula rise to correct for it. It is not optional. The formula is a rolling 12 month average so there can be variations in special situations, but the staffing formula will always drive the average back down to 60.
Now look at when a reserve is full. Currently a reserve is full at the reserve guarantee. That means that once a pilot flies 70.01, he can't be given another trip. Under the current contract, if a pilot takes military leave (or some other absence like vacation) for half the month HIS guarantee is 35 hours. However, he still isn't full until he hits 70 hours. Under the agreement reached, that pilot will now be full at HIS guarantee or 35 hours. That will REDUCE the availability of that reserve pilot, that is a gain.
Max reserve. If a reserve isn't full, then how much can a reserve be flown. Currently the max is ALV. The proposed change is ALV + 15. If a reserve should average 60 hours a month, then how does this have any effect? It has an effect when a guy is about half full and is one of the only guys available when a longer trip comes up. This change will nominally reduce green slips, but will only effect staffing to the extent that the 60 hour average is easier to reach. The idea that reserves will consistently be flying 85 hours a month is impossible, the staffing formula will never allow that to occur. Because reserve guarantee is going up by 8%, this change reduces some of the additional cost of the extra guarantee.
It is not anyone's fault that they may not fully understand the interaction of these three items. The notepad was an attempt to give an update on the items discussed so far, but there was no time to do a complete analysis to discuss these issues. The misconceptions on this issue are large and will be addressed if there is a tentative agreement.
Now could someone at least talk about sick leave which is the best program I have ever had in my close to 25 years at Delta. If you come off disability, you can borrow sick time from next year so if you have a cold you are not left without pay. If you are sick on the first day or two of a long rotation, you can WITHOUT RISK, try to pick up time to avoid having your sick bank debited. There is not another sick program in the industry that is even close to this. This program recognizes the real world problems pilots face all the time with sick leave and it addresses them all.
Is that staffing formula based on system wide reserve utilization, or is it base specific. If it is base specific, then I would venture that 7ERA in NY is in violation, and has been for months. But.. I'll bet a cold one that it is system wide, and THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. PERIOD.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
