We may get to reinvent the short call wheel here and I bet some folks in crew resources and planning are going to be busy.
One way could be to offer two options for rsv. 12-13 days a month off with a max of 6 short calls at 75-78 hours pay, or unlimited short calls and 14-15 days a month off at 75-78 hours pay with seniority based window bidding. Pilot's choice.
That would be bi-winning for the company and the pilots. Those who benefit more from long call can keep the current system (with a higher guarantee of course) and those that want more guaranteed days off can opt for all short calls significantly increasing the company's flexibility and coverage options.
A lot of pilots love and greatly benefit from long call and the 6 short call max limitation we currently have. Many other pilots get little to no benefit from long call other than the ability to legally sip 25 year old Scotch from the balcony of their 5th avenue crashpad. Rather than trying to negotiate all one or the other for everyone, a split system at the pilot's discretion would seem to benefit all parties, and we all win, the shareholders win, and that's what its all about. Underboob.
This may have been discussed earlier but has anyone thought of the ramifications of the new rest requirements on the regionals and then that impact to Delta. I know Pinnacle which has around 140 aircraft flying under the DAL banner routinely schedules a large percentage of overnights for reduced (<9 hours) rest. With the other requirements, I'm curious what the staffing requirements will be once this is implemented. Further, is this considered a pass through cost that DAL will have to absorb? I don't know how the Air Service Agreements read for the 9 or so carriers we have but this could cost us a pretty penny to the tune of a couple of hundred million dollars.
There's also a lot of talk about Pinnacle likely going into Ch.11 bankruptcy reorganization. If they do, can we drop that flying if we don't agree to the new terms or can the courts force us to stay in the deal? Also, aren't we paying them 25 million for higher pilot costs due to their recent contract even though they are asking for concessions and going to the courts to force them either way.
Either way it could be another large opportunity to cull more 50 seaters besides from just Comair as well as drop (and hopefully reduce permanently) more large RJ's from our insane 250+ DC-9-10 replacement fleet.
To summarize, the initial allocation of flying as a result of this slot swap is not what we envisioned two years ago. The long-term expectations of Delta pilots remains the same. We expect the Slot Swap to be good for Delta pilots and for Delta, and that formed the basis for our support for this transaction. While the slot swap will not initially generate the jobs we were lead to believe, that doesn’t take away from the strategic importance of this transaction and the additional revenue it will generate, which we were all instrumental in obtaining, revenue which should support significant improvements in our new contract and potentially provide mainline growth opportunities in the future. It’s also important to recognize the real estate component of the transaction. It is as important as the slots and will take time to develop. Finally, the value of the Delta pilot’s participation in this process should not be lost on anyone.[/I]
I almost thought they were getting it until this. I don't care what aircraft the company thinks are needed on those routes or if RJ's really will lead to larger jets some day. That doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that the overwhelming vast supermajority of the LGA growth is outsourced. Would it be "better" if all the growth was "mainline" 737-900's but flown by Alaska pilots? The company can put all the ultra high CASM, ultra high fuel per passenger, super narrowtube low capacity RJ's they want on super premium slot controlled markets but we need to be the ones doing the flying and we are not. That is inexcusable and the urgency for massive scope recapture has just significantly increased. That should have been what that letter said but it fell quite short IMO.
...In last week’s code-a-phone, management stated that they intend to initiate service into these new markets in LGA with smaller gauge aircraft in order to build the market and then up gauge to mainline aircraft as demand and the markets mature...
Remember back in 2010:
Quote:
Delta Air Lines announced the launch of an 11-times-daily New York LaGuardia-Chicago O'Hare E-175 shuttle service beginning June 10,2010
Current Status:
18 months after service start, still all EMB-170 Shuttle America
June 10 2012, 2-years later: still all EMB-170 Shuttle America
You know, because LGA-ORD is an "emerging market"...
I can see the company "testing out" new markets with RJs in LGA or from small routes like Norfolk-LGA, but Dallas to LGA, RJs 6 times a day? That's the 4th largest metroplex in the country to the largest in the country.
How much bigger a market do you need for mainline jet?
Can someone explain our retirement benefits for me? I was looking in the PWA, and it looks like our DC plan should be 11% contribution from the company, but when I divide the contribution on my paycheck by my gross earnings it is always under that, so far the paychecks I looked at are between 8.9% and 10.9%. Also, what is the company contribution to the other retirement account? I couldn't find it. Thanks
I can see the company "testing out" new markets with RJs in LGA or from small routes like Norfolk-LGA, but Dallas to LGA, RJs 6 times a day? That's the 4th largest metroplex in the country to the largest in the country.
How much bigger a market do you need for mainline jet?
There's no money between massive markets. NYC-DFW should be outsourced just like LA-SEA and BOS-SEA. No money to be made in either. At least we're going after JB's dominance in upstate NY and VT. What better way to compete than with an inferior product with less room, tiny overhead bins, no IFE, high CASM and high per passenger fuel consumption.
I almost thought they were getting it until this. I don't care what aircraft the company thinks are needed on those routes or if RJ's really will lead to larger jets some day. That doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that the overwhelming vast supermajority of the LGA growth is outsourced. Would it be "better" if all the growth was "mainline" 737-900's but flown by Alaska pilots? The company can put all the ultra high CASM, ultra high fuel per passenger, super narrowtube low capacity RJ's they want on super premium slot controlled markets but we need to be the ones doing the flying and we are not. That is inexcusable and the urgency for massive scope recapture has just significantly increased. That should have been what that letter said but it fell quite short IMO.
Of course, the the letter has a certain context to it. Yes, they did not go to the point of saying, "RJ's need to be flying by us," but the fact is the Slot swap had nothing to do with recapturing RJ flying. Mainline growth, yes, but not by scope recapture. Again, the kept the letter in the context of the slot swap, and what "assurance" were made.
As with everything, if the pilot go gravitate to the next shiny ball, and do not continually state their discontent with what the company did here, then nothing will ever by gained.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
