TA 2012 Contract Highlights
06-15-2012, 11:44 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
Just for Alfa:
100 + 119 = 219 (1.19 ratio)
85 + 133 = 219 (1.56 ratio)
both examples have the 219 number of block hours.
100 reduced to 85 = 15% reduction
119 increased to 133 =11% increase
Cheers
George
100 + 119 = 219 (1.19 ratio)
85 + 133 = 219 (1.56 ratio)
both examples have the 219 number of block hours.
100 reduced to 85 = 15% reduction
119 increased to 133 =11% increase
Cheers
George
06-15-2012, 12:22 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Before Alitalia (AZ) joined the code share, Delta had a 50/50 share of the JV with AF/KLM. For illustration purposes, let's assume that we both had 50 units of capacity for a total of 100. AZ joins the alliance and brings 12 units of capacity for a total of 112.
MOU 16 now says that Delta's share of the JV is still going to be 50% of the alliance, but now our 50% share equals 56 units rather than 50. Only a fool would characterize that as a bad thing. What MOU 16 does is allow Delta a few years to grow into that increased amount of flying, while AF/KLM/AZ has to shrink from 62 to 56 units. Does that sound like a reasonable compromise to achieve gains or is that a concession? I will let you decide.
Delta currently is moving towards their 50% share, they are now around 48%. Yet that graph somehow leaves the impression that we are way out of compliance or that MOU 16 was anything other than a victory for Delta pilots.
06-15-2012, 12:33 PM
#23
veut gagner ŕ la loterie
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
If we ever get there, how many block hours would DCI 450/325 produce?
I think 1.245 million based off an average of 2,775 hours per DCI aircraft based on Alfa's math equation from a week or so ago.
Anyone else have a number?
Because 1.245M x 1.56 = 1.948M.
Which is barely above our current 1.940M block hours we do right now on the mainline side.
I think 1.245 million based off an average of 2,775 hours per DCI aircraft based on Alfa's math equation from a week or so ago.
Anyone else have a number?
Because 1.245M x 1.56 = 1.948M.
Which is barely above our current 1.940M block hours we do right now on the mainline side.
06-15-2012, 12:36 PM
#24
veut gagner ŕ la loterie
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Reason #14: He talks about the new SWA deal, but he doesn't mention that the follow on deal was WORSE than the first one. Yes he has a happy talk quote from the SWAPA president but it fails to mention the other aspects of the TA that got much worse. FEDEX did a deal that was a smart move at the time, but they got two 3% raises and basically nothing else for a two year extension. Is that what George wants? Because, Delta management would oblige him on that one.
06-15-2012, 12:45 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
Delta showed that slide at the investor conference.
Transatlantic JV down by 8 YoY
AFKLM/AZ down by 5 YoY
Delta down by 11 YoY
The current compliance period began April 1, 2011 and ends March 31, 2014.
Those cut occurred in the current compliance period
More cuts are ongoing
We just cancelled
ATL Barcelona
JFK Prague
We added one more ATL Paris flight
What is our share so far for the 15 months starting April 1,2011?
Cheers
George
06-15-2012, 05:46 PM
#26
veut gagner ŕ la loterie
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
06-15-2012, 06:01 PM
#27
veut gagner ŕ la loterie
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
06-15-2012, 06:02 PM
#28
veut gagner ŕ la loterie
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
06-15-2012, 06:07 PM
#29
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Anyone else notice that none of the unionoids on here will give any specifics on the very vague AMR proposal on the large RJs as well?
They threw the numbers out there with no qualification of what would allow such a large fleet...
(nicely done presentation, btw... quite a few people I know will be getting this!)
They threw the numbers out there with no qualification of what would allow such a large fleet...
(nicely done presentation, btw... quite a few people I know will be getting this!)
06-15-2012, 06:57 PM
#30
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Talk about massive misdirection and outright fabrication as well as sloppy analysis.
Reason #2: Delta's investment in the pilots is $1 billion in this deal and yet he shows $20 million. Sure that is not intentionally misleading.
Reason #5: It is clear he hasn't read the TA. There is no provision for a domestic Joint Venture, it is international only. So why is he talking about sharing revenue with Alaska, Republic, and whomever? That is not allowed. Currently we 0 protections. So maybe he can redraw the graphs and show how much flying Delta pilots have to do under the current contract. Oh yeah, ZERO. Why didn't George show that. Deception?
Reason #6 and 7: His math is completely wrong. Imagine you have to share 150 units of something. If you start at a share of 90 to 60 the ratio is 1.5 to 1. If you change the share to 100 to 50 the ratio is 2 to 1. The amount of decrease from 60 to 50 was 17% and the ratio changed by 33%. Notice he tries to do all his math on ratios to mislead you into thinking that he is calculating block hours.
Secondly, he argues for a grossly shrinking airline. I think the Touch and Go that was released showed quite clearly that Delta could shrink. Under our current contract, Delta could shrink mainline in half and still grow DCI. Now under gross shrinkage, Delta has to spread the pain out. Which scenario is better for mainline pilots? The Touch and Go showed how even at a 6% system shrinkage, the mainline fleet has a small amount of growth. That is because DCI capacity is being cut so much.
Those two slides show that he is purposely trying to deceive you, or he is incompetent as an analyst. You decide, either way his analysis is false.
Reason #9: The change in block hours now from winter to summer is going to be 13%. Yet his reserve analysis shows an 80% increase in reserve flying from winter to summer. How is that possible? In 2011 the average for Jun-Aug was 72,276 reserve hours flown while the Jan-Mar average was 71,376. The difference is 1.25% Somehow, the average is now going to jump 80% between winter and summer. Just because you put numbers on a pretty graph doesn't mean there is anything behind them other than a spreadsheet. A fourth grader can make an Excel graph, there has to be logic and analysis beyond a fourth grade level to make them valid as a decision tool.
Reason #10: First, he admits that this TA will produce more mainline jobs. Second, he shows that losing 21 DC-9's will produce more job loss than adding 30 MD-90's. That is deception pure and simple. Then he maintains that the loss of 21 DC-9's cause 275 jobs to be lost but only shows 572 job gains from 88 717's. How is that? Deception pure and simple. Never on his graph does he show pilots leaving from the early out. Why?
Reason #11: Much of the loss in DCI in the previous few years was Saabs and Comair. Well Comair is down to almost nothing and the Saabs are all gone. The majority of the rest of the fleet is contracted out through 2015 and beyond. You must understand the reason behind the trend line to then try to project that into the future.
Reason #14: He talks about the new SWA deal, but he doesn't mention that the follow on deal was WORSE than the first one. Yes he has a happy talk quote from the SWAPA president but it fails to mention the other aspects of the TA that got much worse. FEDEX did a deal that was a smart move at the time, but they got two 3% raises and basically nothing else for a two year extension. Is that what George wants? Because, Delta management would oblige him on that one.
Reason #2: Delta's investment in the pilots is $1 billion in this deal and yet he shows $20 million. Sure that is not intentionally misleading.
Reason #5: It is clear he hasn't read the TA. There is no provision for a domestic Joint Venture, it is international only. So why is he talking about sharing revenue with Alaska, Republic, and whomever? That is not allowed. Currently we 0 protections. So maybe he can redraw the graphs and show how much flying Delta pilots have to do under the current contract. Oh yeah, ZERO. Why didn't George show that. Deception?
Reason #6 and 7: His math is completely wrong. Imagine you have to share 150 units of something. If you start at a share of 90 to 60 the ratio is 1.5 to 1. If you change the share to 100 to 50 the ratio is 2 to 1. The amount of decrease from 60 to 50 was 17% and the ratio changed by 33%. Notice he tries to do all his math on ratios to mislead you into thinking that he is calculating block hours.
Secondly, he argues for a grossly shrinking airline. I think the Touch and Go that was released showed quite clearly that Delta could shrink. Under our current contract, Delta could shrink mainline in half and still grow DCI. Now under gross shrinkage, Delta has to spread the pain out. Which scenario is better for mainline pilots? The Touch and Go showed how even at a 6% system shrinkage, the mainline fleet has a small amount of growth. That is because DCI capacity is being cut so much.
Those two slides show that he is purposely trying to deceive you, or he is incompetent as an analyst. You decide, either way his analysis is false.
Reason #9: The change in block hours now from winter to summer is going to be 13%. Yet his reserve analysis shows an 80% increase in reserve flying from winter to summer. How is that possible? In 2011 the average for Jun-Aug was 72,276 reserve hours flown while the Jan-Mar average was 71,376. The difference is 1.25% Somehow, the average is now going to jump 80% between winter and summer. Just because you put numbers on a pretty graph doesn't mean there is anything behind them other than a spreadsheet. A fourth grader can make an Excel graph, there has to be logic and analysis beyond a fourth grade level to make them valid as a decision tool.
Reason #10: First, he admits that this TA will produce more mainline jobs. Second, he shows that losing 21 DC-9's will produce more job loss than adding 30 MD-90's. That is deception pure and simple. Then he maintains that the loss of 21 DC-9's cause 275 jobs to be lost but only shows 572 job gains from 88 717's. How is that? Deception pure and simple. Never on his graph does he show pilots leaving from the early out. Why?
Reason #11: Much of the loss in DCI in the previous few years was Saabs and Comair. Well Comair is down to almost nothing and the Saabs are all gone. The majority of the rest of the fleet is contracted out through 2015 and beyond. You must understand the reason behind the trend line to then try to project that into the future.
Reason #14: He talks about the new SWA deal, but he doesn't mention that the follow on deal was WORSE than the first one. Yes he has a happy talk quote from the SWAPA president but it fails to mention the other aspects of the TA that got much worse. FEDEX did a deal that was a smart move at the time, but they got two 3% raises and basically nothing else for a two year extension. Is that what George wants? Because, Delta management would oblige him on that one.
"We have an agreement that will add 1,000 new mainline jobs, but somehow that is a bad thing. Go figure."
I've asked alfaromeo to show us numerous times where this claim exists in the TA. But as expected, only the sound of crickets.
Don't you just hate shabby analysis and outright fabrications?
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
