Originally Posted by
shiznit
If no hiring occurs and the company decides to keep everything at the status quo (meaning no 717's or other aircraft acquisitions):
The first six months of the TA will cost the company somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-75 million.
Using the
no reduction in staffing table, I got $32M. That is just for 2012 and is a 4% increase for 6 months. If I did it for the year I'd get $60M.
BTW, going forward on this post I'm not going to assume hiring happens because if the TA doesn't require it so my numbers don't add it unless I mention they're added.
Originally Posted by
shiznit
The first year past the amendable date will run roughly 4 times that amount against the current PWA.
You get 4x and I get 5x. You pick. But we started at a different number. If you look at the chart I posted 2013 TA vs 2012 PWA (not the differences 3rd column but actually just subtracting 2012 PWA from the 2013 TA) and you get $178M. Or 5x the $32M.
Originally Posted by
shiznit
By the 2015 numbers are in play the value to Delta pilots PER YEAR will be in the 420-440 million range more than the current PWA.
Is that with or without hiring? I got $291.
So using the $291M, if you add in 700-900 717 pilots averaging $165K/ea (12 yr A and 6 yr B in 2015) it brings my $291M up by $115M to $149M. Or a total of $407M to $440M.
So I agree $410-$440M is possible, but not required if hiring is not required. If we had just done a hard hull count on nb mainline aircraft this would be a different story.
Originally Posted by
shiznit
Add it up and in 3.5 years it is worth over a BILLION dollars to Delta pilots.
If you look at the difference of each year of the TA on my chart vs 2012 on the chart it comes up to $735M. A little lower than over a billion but again add the hiring and it comes up to nearly $900M.
So do you still feel the numbers are way off? I am more inclined however to use the chart reducing staffing by 300 pilots and not adding hiring. I can absolutely rerack the numbers and see if you and I come up closer.
Originally Posted by
shiznit
FTB, you are flat out wrong and bordering on out of line on your "chart".
Seriously, Alfa is right. Just say you'll vote NO to any more large RJ's in any TA presented and you'd keep a lot more credibility.
The twisting and spinning of inaccuracies isn't helping you or anyone else for that matter.
Shiz... you and I do not have to go down the road of posting like a 50 year old on FPL with a helmet fire.
You and I despite being on the opposing sides of this TA are far better able to have an open and honest conversation about this TA and I welcome it. FWIW, the right way for someone to handle opposing data is to post their own. No commentary needed. Just the numbers and the assumptions they're based on. Slow actually does this pretty well... at times. It allows for a conversation and sharing of info and molding assumptions.
But remember we're the buyers, they're the sellers, running numbers off places like airlinefinancials.com or BTS/SEC data is the nearest thing we have to consumer reports.
That's what I am doing. I don't like the 325 number but beyond that I'm stress testing this TA and in this case trying to answer the questions on this thread as to whether this TA is cost neutral or not? That's where I added in the talk about the CR2 leases because if you factor in what they save there and our undeniable pay increases I think you could make a case that it is possible to make this cost neutral based on the most detrimental assumptions that this TA allows.
Is it cost neutral for us? Not in terms of pay, but staffing and outsourcing issues added in I don't think it is neutral, I think it's less. That's imho looking at the same numbers in the same TA and basing that off the trajectory the jumbo RJs are on given the lack of a hull count minimum for mainline aircraft.
wce.