Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1198863)

http://www.oliverwyman.com/pdf_files...c_Analysis.pdf

Okay, this is exactly from the report you cited:

Quote:

Regional carriers have different expense payment arrangements in their Capacity Purchase Agreements (CPAs) with their mainline partners. The number of expense categories paid directly by mainlines, and not appearing in the regional carriers’ costs, has increased over time. Fuel and aircraft ownership were among the first to be directly paid in some CPAs; more recently some mainlines have taken over payment for ground handling and engine maintenance. As a result, measuring total CASM across regional carriers and aircraft is misleading.

So quit misleading people by quoting those numbers. Even the source of those numbers say your comparison is misleading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1198872)

If you don't like the numbers, please provide us with Delta's actual MD88, MD90, 738, 737, 320, 319, DC9, estimated 717 and all of the RJ CASMs. You can group the RJ CASMs together by seat size if it helps.

And forgive us if we don't just take your word for it, afterall, you committee guys are trying to get us to buy off on this thing like a frantic used car dealer. We'd like hard numbers.

Thanks.
FTB

Well, you know I can't give you that data. I already showed how your source admits those numbers are misleading and only make sense in comparison from one CPA carrier to another. You also already admitted how you cooked up a fleet plan that is completely unrealistic and posted your cooked numbers on this forum with the intent to mislead people. So if you are complaining about hard numbers, then look in the mirror.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1198899)

Even the source of those numbers say your comparison is misleading.

As opposed to your trustworthy sources? :mad:

I don't see you coming up with any hard numbers to refute FTB's....Just a lot of insults and indignant arm flapping.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1198607)

Thanks for sharing. I just have to remember your point of view is a little off from the mainstream:

Despite what you post above, scope is significantly tightened in this agreement. From JV to Alaska to DCI, there are more restrictions placed on how DL can use its code without Delta pilots at the controls, and this TA accelerates the transition of flying to the mainline.

The profit sharing conversion removes some risk from the table. In May of 2001 we were arguing over C2K (which some on this board voted against and now they're clamoring for restoration to, go figure). Less than 6 months later the first 400 of 1310 furloughs happened. 1060 of our pilots did not see one dime of benefit from that contract. If pre-tax income in 2013 is identical to last year pilots will see a $28 million reduction in profit sharing. Instead they'll receive about $260 million more in pay. If Iran attacks Israel, if Europe melts down, or if there's something that takes our profitability down pilots have pocketed an additional $40+ million in pay. If we are wildly profitable we still get 20% of the PTIX above $2.5 billion.

I think I'm going to modify my signature line for awhile..thanks for this, Scambo.

Where do all these pay numbers about value to pilots come from? Are they the same people (see Tim O'Malley's compensation NNP) that say we should get 1000 credit hours per year. I don't know about you but the 1000 hour number is a myth I heard in new hire school. Since PBS unless you're willing to white slip like hell (I have seen premium pay ONCE on an IA I took once I checked it out) you will only see ALV (PBS takes into account your vacation and training for pay, no credit) for the year - which right now is 70 hours for reserve (840/year) and maybe 72 hours for line holders (868/year) not extra (over and above) for training and vacation. Maybe I don't know how to bid and there's a way to get 84 hours/month (1000 hours/year) without working my a** off. If you look at the LAX 73B lines it is hard to get ALV without working 15-16 days a month (10:30 3 days, 17:30 4 days - not all of these will go away with this new contract). Do the math - at 4:30 average daily guarantee and no improvements to our other duty rigs to get a 72 hour month requires 16 DAYS of work/month - I want to work 12-13 days to fill up (yes I was able to do this in my early days in LA before the backwards movement started - now, it is impossible).

I would like to apologize to all active and former military servicemen. I was responding to Carl's post accusing the junior pilots as the one's that will vote yes to this. I took offense to that and responded in an inappropriate manner. I made this post sometime last week. It was a cheap shot at senior pilots. I threw the military comment in there because almost all of our senior pilots have some military affiliation. The airline used to hire almost all military while the pilots hired in the last few years are almost all civilian. My comment about not thinking for themselves came from the fact that a TA has never been voted down. I know this does not make my comment any better. I am sorry. I did not realize that one comment would offend so many people. Thank you guys and girls for defending our country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 1198908)

Good for you Hockey, well said. It's a difficult time (shouldn't be really:confused:) and we are all a bit stressed out over it. Hopefully we can all keep it somewhat civil, at least on good 'ol APC!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1198899)

Okay, this is exactly from the report you cited:

So quit misleading people by quoting those numbers. Even the source of those numbers say your comparison is misleading.

Alfa,

You didn't finish the quote: From Oliver Wyman's report page 19 starting right after the words you quoted goes on to say:

Quote:

Instead, a more segmented view of CASM is needed to compare performance. In Exhibit 18 we have grouped the costs into four buckets: defined specifically for this regional carrier analysis: Indirect costs (including ground handling), Fuel, Other (including engine maintenance and aircraft ownership), and Modified Direct CASM (including pilots, pilot training, airframe maintenance, maintenance burden, and other direct costs, but NOT aircraft ownership, engine maintenance, and fuel & oil costs). The last bucket includes cost items that are universally paid for by the regional airline and therefore represent the best measure of comparison. While a small portion of the regionals’ total costs, it is on the basis of these costs that regional carriers tend to compete for new flying from mainline partners.

The numbers FTB cited were from that segmented table. I admire your dedication to ALPA, but please don't continue the strategy that has gotten them in trouble. They think we're stupid and can't due our own research. Ok, mostly we let FTB and Bar do it:D, but you get my point.

Delta wants to acquire 3 aircraft right now. The 739, 717 and CRJ900. I think it's obvious why the 739, it's got to have great CASMs. The 717? SWA is giving it away, you can't really refuse that especially when you have a huge fleet of make and model.

The CRJ900? Well, why would they be tripping over themselves to get more CRJ-900s? What is it about the CRJ-900 they want in almost the same quantity as the 717? Bad CASMs? I doubt it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1198722)

That money is put into one pocket, and taken out with other concessions and profit sharing loss. Our TA is COST NEUTRAL to the company.

Carl

I am sorry Carl but please explain to me how your $50/ hr raise and $40,000 + per year dc is being taken out of your other pocket?

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1198915)

To give them some credit, I highly doubt the 900 has that good of CASM... I remember you and I discussing how unrealistic Bar's CASM numbers were on the plane just by fuel burn alone. Don't forget that on top of that, the regionals fly those things around FAST. They burn the gas flying .80 and don't care. Add on to that redundant management structures and all the other outsourced crap.

I think they want the 900 because a. It continues the outsourcing b. it allows them to open the CPAs to accelerate parking 50 seaters and , c. it is better CASM than the 50 and is still viable in small markets.

It still doesn't change the fact that I believe we allowed way too many additional in this TA. The new 900s are a first class product (they will never have 90 seats... Delta wants first class in as many planes as possible. Doesn't mean they wont ask for 82 or so...), will be around for a long time, and continue the viability of the regionals longer than they would be if left to their own devices to die of a failing business model.