Stable wide-body fleet
04-12-2016, 08:04 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 360
Wrong answer. Profit sharing is already in the contract and management has indicated what their version of a rational method of compensation is in the failed TA. Not willing to give an inch on profit sharing.
04-12-2016, 08:12 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,534
Except that our 757s will be retired sooner rather than later as will their 747s. That leaves the 330 as the common airframe. They have more 777s (and could buy more I guess but the financials don't necessarily agree with that premise) and until the 380s die they have a given number. Given that logic, block hours make perfect sense. (The problem with the failed TA in this respect was the immediate capitulation of several percentage points of that flying. Had it taken a snapshot and made that the absolute floor, it would have been acceptable) If you believe that their 747s will last forever and that they will buy more 380s, then EASKs make more sense. The 747-800 is a dismal failure, and the 380s aren't selling to anyone but the ME3. Two engine airplanes are the present and future. The evidence is glaring.
The question you have to ask yourself is how many more 777s do you see for us? How many 350s, and how much will they pay relative to the 777s will we have in a reasonable timeframe? 5 years from now to have a sizeable fleet isn't a reasonable timeframe, imho to factor it into a new contract. Our 777 fleet is not a sizeable fleet, and in my opinion will never be. The 747 is dead. RIP
The question you have to ask yourself is how many more 777s do you see for us? How many 350s, and how much will they pay relative to the 777s will we have in a reasonable timeframe? 5 years from now to have a sizeable fleet isn't a reasonable timeframe, imho to factor it into a new contract. Our 777 fleet is not a sizeable fleet, and in my opinion will never be. The 747 is dead. RIP
The more seats we fly for Delta the better. With block hours the incentive is for management to use other operators larger gauge airplanes. To keep Delta pilots flying the operations Delta is able to sell we need to protect our production. Seats are what we produce, not hours. The airframe used to produce a number of seats is continually being adjusted, there is no one for one trade. Total seats could be a number of B757s or a single A333. Which is better for us, 2 B757 operations or 1 A333? Either way EASKs work out better.
Management has repeatedly told the investment community we are going to have about $3.5 billion a year in capital investment. With the orders we have and the narrow-body fleet renewal about to be announced, that leaves no additional money for wide-body growth airplanes.
Last edited by notEnuf; 04-12-2016 at 08:43 AM.
04-12-2016, 08:17 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,534
...because profit sharing is the only form of additional pay for the growth of the company while the flying stagnates.
04-12-2016, 08:24 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 360
But you just said that we have no control of what the company buys. We are buying no heavy airplanes bigger than the 330. The 747s are dead. The 777s are probably maxed out. Our biggest fleet is getting smaller. (And YOU JUST SAID, a management decision). I do not advocate support of a downgauge, I propose leveraging what we can in that regard because, again as you just said, we do not control what the company buys.
The bottom line is this: 330s are bigger than 757s. That means more EASKs on OUR side of the fence, and as their 747s die, since the 330 is smaller, fewer on theirs. Do the math.
The bottom line is this: 330s are bigger than 757s. That means more EASKs on OUR side of the fence, and as their 747s die, since the 330 is smaller, fewer on theirs. Do the math.
04-12-2016, 08:29 AM
#15
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
The slide is a bit misleading as it represents stand alone Delta in 2005 vs combined Delta in 2015. Comparing 2009 vs 2015 would be much better, and look a whole lot different. It makes it look like international revenue is growing, however, it is shrinking. Also, Delta lost a lot of brand recognition in Asia with the loss of the NWA name, and opted to codeshare over building up the Delta name over there; The other two legacies didn't have that issue.
04-12-2016, 08:34 AM
#16
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
But you just said that we have no control of what the company buys. We are buying no heavy airplanes bigger than the 330. The 747s are dead. The 777s are probably maxed out. Our biggest fleet is getting smaller. (And YOU JUST SAID, a management decision). I do not advocate support of a downgauge, I propose leveraging what we can in that regard because, again as you just said, we do not control what the company buys.
The bottom line is this: 330s are bigger than 757s. That means more EASKs on OUR side of the fence, and as their 747s die, since the 330 is smaller, fewer on theirs. Do the math.
The bottom line is this: 330s are bigger than 757s. That means more EASKs on OUR side of the fence, and as their 747s die, since the 330 is smaller, fewer on theirs. Do the math.
Using easks, who is out of compliance? Delta.
Using BHs who would be in compliance? Delta.
This is under our current contract.
Easks are our leverage.
Additionally, if we switch to BHs in our JV language with AF/KLM and then write new JV language with, for example China Eastern (who BTW last week announced they were increasing their China-US flights by 50%) the language would certainly be written using Block Hours instead of EASKs.
Its pretty easy to see around that corner.
04-12-2016, 08:35 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Posts: 367
Its always a rain cloud with this place, now understanding why 11 newhires no-showed early this year. IMO, UAL or AAL is a no-brainer for career progression to WB. If you want to fly for a solid domestic carrier, DAL is your choice.
04-12-2016, 08:40 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,534
The slide is a bit misleading as it represents stand alone Delta in 2005 vs combined Delta in 2015. Comparing 2009 vs 2015 would be much better, and look a whole lot different. It makes it look like international revenue is growing, however, it is shrinking. Also, Delta lost a lot of brand recognition in Asia with the loss of the NWA name, and opted to codeshare over building up the Delta name over there; The other two legacies didn't have that issue.
Here is how proud they are of not buying airplanes...
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/da.../image_012.jpg
04-12-2016, 08:43 AM
#19
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 430
But you just said that we have no control of what the company buys. We are buying no heavy airplanes bigger than the 330. The 747s are dead. The 777s are probably maxed out. Our biggest fleet is getting smaller. (And YOU JUST SAID, a management decision). I do not advocate support of a downgauge, I propose leveraging what we can in that regard because, again as you just said, we do not control what the company buys.
The bottom line is this: 330s are bigger than 757s. That means more EASKs on OUR side of the fence, and as their 747s die, since the 330 is smaller, fewer on theirs. Do the math.
The bottom line is this: 330s are bigger than 757s. That means more EASKs on OUR side of the fence, and as their 747s die, since the 330 is smaller, fewer on theirs. Do the math.
04-12-2016, 08:51 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
