View Single Post
Old 06-30-2015 | 12:08 PM
  #379  
Mesabah
:-)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 1
Default

Originally Posted by gloopy
The second part of that may happen to some soft degree. But keep in mind airlines rarely, if ever, even give slight credit to type commonality in the US. The closest we've seen here were SWA until recently (and even they only did it primarily to thin the application stack and show motivation) or brief start up hiring like JB/VX where 320 types were desired the first year or so, if that. Beyond that, no one cares, ever, and its not likely this would manifest itself into anything to do with DL/Endeavor.

The first part of that could happen, but DL scope (with or without the TA) does nothing to allow it so it doesn't look good that this would be a likelihood. More importantly though, it would junk punch the FA's and Mechs (and possibly the dispatchers, etc) and would do more to help get more unions on property than the minuscule to zero "savings" they would even see from it on paper anyway.

If DL gets the E190/195 they could easily, at anytime, pref hire typed pilots at many regionals, but they probably won't. JB and USAir didn't really care about that in their hiring, so why would DL?

I think some are trying to read way more into this than reality supports. That said, there may or may not be a closer hiring relationship with Endeavor and DL going forward. But if so, that will likely be the case regardless of the 175/190 issue. Its just not that significant.
The FA's and mechs on the E190 would be Delta mainline. Delta would simply lease the planes to Endeavor at a price that causes END to near bankruptcy. Delta then books the lease payments as profit, and inject free cash into END to keep it afloat. You then book the sticker price of each jet as future profit. This is simply part of the RJ shell game. The employees of the E190 would be all mainline. The service bills would go to END though, so END would pay Delta employees to service the planes. See where I'm going with this?
Reply