|
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1198095)
.
Could you elaborate on how the 717 works for Delta when it does not work for Southwest ? How great a threat should / would the C Series be to our 717 fleet ? There are an awful lot of sub 2 hour legs at hubs like ATL, DTW, and MSP that used to be flown by DC-9's. There are regions of the country that have too many airports too close together for the population base. Look at PIA, BMI, and SPI, all within an hour's drive of each other. DL provides service to both PIA and BMI with multiple RJ's to multiple hubs. Flying half to 2/3rds as many flights on B717 vice 50/70/76 seat RJ's gives Delta lower costs and potentially higher revenue. For an airport that is slot constrained like LGA, upgauging is the only way to increase capacity. There are a lot of places within 3 hours of LGA. As the LGA hub is built out and connectivity increases it will be upgauged. The C series is still a paper airplane. The 787 is over 5 years late on realizing its economic promises, and that's from a company that's built lots of different types of aircraft. At its acquisition cost, the B717 is a very competitive airframe for its intended role in Delta's network. |
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
(Post 1198116)
All right, scambo1. Here's your chance as this one can be determined with absolute certainty. Care to make a $100 wager that ATN pilots do NOT come with those 717s? Yes or No? I'll even give you 2-1 odds on this one.
Another bet from a known welcher?:D Fool me once and all... But PG, I am glad you are back on this forum, and I'm also glad to see that you interacted with those pesky 130 seat SWA guys making $200,000-$350,000 per year. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1198049)
What I am questioning is why the reps have stated that it did not meet their direction and was below it. Does that not mean that the nc and admin should go back and determine if the MEC is fine with the level the nc is at, or unwilling to accept it. After talking to a few of the yes reps, the impression was left that they would have wanted more if the deal had not reached the status of TA but was right before the handshake signifying the end of the talks.
They inferred that after having the deal TAed it took options off the table. Im not sure,but it seems that the direction for an expidited deal and items like pay were off and not marginally. Is that true? |
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
(Post 1198048)
Because he's a widebody captain with less than 10 years left. I think you can figure out the rest of why he's selling like this guy...
(B) I have 13 years left Do we know each other? Do you think I'm going to intimidated by you personalizing this? Do you think this will help you in your sell job against the TA? |
Originally Posted by Whidbey
(Post 1198110)
I'm not supporting a no vote based on any prediction of next year's presidential election and the resultant NMB memebership.
DALPA is putting forward the argument that I should vote YES at least partly based on their prediction of future NMB behavior, behavior which is gleaned from an analysis that has intentionally introduced selection bias, just like the pay increase chart from 2008-2015. As they are putting forward this argument, it is appropriate to analyze its merits. Have ALPA's NMB analyses included the fact that the last major airline strike was approved and executed under a second term democrat? I'm voting no because this agreement surrenders 70 large regional jets, the work rules do not appreciably improve my quality of life, and the compensation falls well below the dollar amount for which I'm willing to be gone half or more of each month. I would argue that it is REALLY foolish to vote yes based on fear, as you have permanently signaled your unwillingness to fight for anything more than what is given. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1198093)
...The DCI refleeting option is a less expensive option than eating the sunk costs, engine maintenance and aircraft overhaul expense associated with management's option of going without us. That was the opportunity that created this deal. Delta will invest in DCI one way or another, the question is whether or not Delta pilots will benefit from that investment...
I've been an avid proponent of the 717 deal for the past few months. The ratios are better than I thought. My trepidation is that we are not purchasing the 717 but subleasing them from SWA. The CRJ-900 is around 20M. The 717 runs about 12.5M If we had bought the 717 I would be more amicable to the deal. Leasing the cheaper plane, to buy the more expensive plane and putting that jet at DCI is what worries me. To top it off it will increase the super-premium DCI pilot jets by nearly 50%, while it will add the lowest paying jet to the Delta pilots. Add in the exemption from holding company language for Republic (Chautauqua Shuttle America) and Brian Bedfords stated plans of flying the C-Series for SkyTeam, outside of any "production balance" or "block hour ratio" and I can't see how this is supposed to be good. Cheers George |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1198122)
At its acquisition cost, the B717 is a very competitive airframe for its intended role in Delta's network.
subleasing 717s from SWA isn't exactly "acquiring" more like "renting" Cheers George |
Originally Posted by whitt767
(Post 1198118)
Ok, so how would that happen?
- We get the planes and the pilots and they majically appear on our Seniority list - They are fenced infinitely so that nobody ever can fly the 717's except the AT pilots (zero training cost) - They fly using AT Rules (it would cost money to train them to use our FOM, etc) - They keep the ugly blue/green paint and the giant "a". (it would cost money to paint the aircraft) - the FAA lets us do this without a separate operating certificate - blah, blah, blah I can prove to you that the Sun will rise tomorrow, but I have no legal documents that say that it will happen Japan had just concluded a peaceful negotiation with the United States when they bombed Pearl Harbor. You can choose to believe whatever you want, but you poison the (reasoning) pool if you put your hope and theory out there as fact. This isn't an arguement between you and me and we can't solve it. If you choose to hope one way, that's fine. I choose to have a legally enforceable guarantee before I believe the pilots are staying at SWA. |
...and yes, Legoland was great, thanks for asking ;-)
Cheers George |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1198131)
Japan had just concluded a peaceful negotiation with the United States when they bombed Pearl Harbor.
You can choose to believe whatever you want, but you poison the (reasoning) pool if you put your hope and theory out there as fact. This isn't an arguement between you and me and we can't solve it. If you choose to hope one way, that's fine. I choose to have a legally enforceable guarantee before I believe the pilots are staying at SWA. "appeasement" was the first thing that came to my mind after I had read through the TA Cheers George |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:55 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands