Originally Posted by notEnuf

Why is this even a Delta disillusion? Managements buy the airplanes they think they can make money with in their particular network. Pilots don't have anything to do with this, period.

Originally Posted by notEnuf

Why is this even a Delta disillusion? Managements buy the airplanes they think they can make money with in their particular network. Pilots don't have anything to do with this, period.

Originally Posted by m3113n1a1

Exactly. Do people really think pilots are that crucial to the cost of the operation?

It's everything else that makes outsourcing supposedly cost efficient (FAs, MX, Scheduling, Corporate, etc), yes pilots are a tiny part of that.

Originally Posted by Trip7

There is little downside as the gained block hours should be contractually protected as they are with Delta and the 717. Sure they can be removed during bankruptcy but in this new era of consolidated legacies that have so much pricing power that Warren Buffet has become the largest shareholder, chances of that are slim

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

If an airplane's operation has to be subsidized by sub-standard pilot pay & working conditions, then the airplane's got a design problem. It really does not matter who's flying it.

Outsourcing is a false economy. Delta management, under Ed Bastian running the accounting, did a poor job of cost allocation from 1999 to 2008'ish and failed to understand the "overhead" costs of redundant flight operations. These costs run 7% to 10% over the all-in block hour costs for the jets. So, to break even by outsourcing, one would have to find $550 to $600 from somewhere.

What RJ's did do, momentarily, for Delta is introduce accidental, but effective, yield management. Pulling a 727, backfilling with a MD88 and sticking a 50 seat RJ on the remainder so constrained the available capacity that RSM did shoot up. The CASM shot up as well, as operations had fewer passengers to spread the costs around. Again, the capacity changes caused the data to jump around and Delta's 8-K reports from those days leading into bankruptcy were f'n near comical. As costs were passed through to mainline the regional operations became real darlings. Delta reported that regional jet outsourcing arrangements accounted for 21% of the company's 2011 revenues ($6.39b) but 47% ($929m) of Delta's 2011 operating profit.

ALPA (perhaps unwittingly) did a pretty good job of capturing the surplus of management's terrible math. Delta put a real premium on outsourcing and ALPA made the trade. Perhaps ALPA kept their brilliance hidden, but the people I've spoken with were true believers in management's numbers. The purpose of setting up ALPA's Scope Compliance and Analysis Committee was not just compliance, but also to create an economic skill set so that we could leverage these kind of errors to benefit labor. In an ideal world, we would be running live models and could calculate the effect of scope changes to the job level nearly instantly. As much as is possible, scope aligned with the company's cash flows, is effective and mutually beneficial. In effect, scope should mirror the company's economic structures, operated by Delta pilots.

I've not heard Paul Jacobsen speak on the subject. Just as they would be reassured by hearing a pilot state what they did wrong, lessons learned and promises not to repeat the error(s), it would be comforting to hear senior management admit to "peanut butter" cost allocation (definition: "just spread it around"). I'd like them to fess up to the fact somewhere in the vicinity of $20 billion was wasted on outsourcing and lesson learned.

Yes, Richard Anderson and others improved the operation. Glen Hauenstein and Ed Bastian have done wonders improving our product, network, yield and profitability. Delta's really become and epic success story and these men deserve the credit they are receiving for their current work.

United - from what I understand, is basically trying to copy our Contract 2012. Says a lot about where Delta is today.

Originally Posted by Spudhauler

Uh, no. Look at airline history. Imagine if the max goes back into service and a US carrier has an accident, or that Saudi attack in Pensacola was a pilot crashing a plane into something again. It can and has turned on a dime, so we best make sure we get as good a contract as we can with real job protections in case the unthinkable happens. To do otherwise would be foolish laziness on our part.

Originally Posted by Trip7

You can't look at airline history. The pre consolidation airline business is completely different from the post consolidation airline business. It's like telling AT&T employees to look what happened during the Cingular days

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Trip7

You can't look at airline history. The pre consolidation airline business is completely different from the post consolidation airline business. It's like telling AT&T employees to look what happened during the Cingular days

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by tunes

What’s that saying about those that ignore history....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Trip7

You can either be paranoid about the dark past of a fundamentally different industry, or you can realize it is a Brave New World in the airline industry, adapt to it and use it to your advantage. Like Warren Buffet did.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...tition-is-over

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lat...ml%3f_amp=true

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk