Carl Spackler

I know you don't see this as a lie. You see this as you being so clever that none of us line dolts could possibly see through it. Well DoubleTrouble and many others see through it. He's was polite enough to refer to it as "nice media school reply", but it's really just a plain old lie. His question and point wasn't whether "detailed" costing had been given to the reps, but rather has "real" costing been given to the reps. When you answer that very plain question by claiming that the reps either "misheard" or "misread" when you've purposely changed the subject of his question, that's a lie. It's not cleverness, it's not spin, it's lying.

And as the LEC reps have warned us, the MEC (and its unelected bureaucrats like you) are too invested in this TA to describe it objectively. You just keep proving how right they are. Now our entire group has the danger of being sold during road shows by people who are too invested in this to describe it objectively.

We've got a tough road ahead.

Carl

forgot to bid

I know. I went crazy on Bar over those numbers. Basically, I had heard enough to believe the 717s were coming. The thought that for no apparent reason they'd be tied to letting DCI have more CRJ-900XXXrs was asinine. I could see the 3:1 ratio kicking in but nothing more. There's no way anybody would be stupid enough to fall for a "pay me for what I have to give you anyways." That's stupid.

And it still is.

But somehow it became a reality, and that sucks.

So Bar was right, I was wrong. Now what else was Bar right about? CASMs?

Boomer

All but Comair. We went to C/I about 6 years ago, so while CHQ and 9E are plowing around at .82, Comair is at .74 to save on Delta's gas bill.

I'm sure we'll get credit for that in the next contract.

Bottom line, Delta cares less about the gas.

alfaromeo

Okay, go back and look at the chart. The segment for fuel CASM for the Skywest CRJ-900 is 0.0. So either Skywest has invented a plane that runs on air, or those are part of the pass through costs that aren't shown on that graph. The chart says that indirect costs don't include aircraft ownership fuel + oil and engine maintenance. So sure, if Skywest gets their airplanes for free and they run on air and the engines fix themselves then sure you have an accurate CASM. Well except for much of the labor costs are pass through costs also. So they get their airplanes for free, they run on air, the engines fix themselves, and their employees all work for nothing, then yes that is an accurate CASM. Well, there's more, do I need to go on or is that enough?

You can do your own research but it has to be based on fact. Instead, you guys latch onto anything you can find on the internet and say you have proven your point.

I am not the one fudging the numbers, but hey if you think lying is making your point then keep on. Here is a point to consider. If management is fudging their numbers wouldn't they want to show how low the costs of the 76 seaters are? Why would they lie on the high side?

So I admire your dedication to obfuscation and misleading everyone to try to make your point, but in the end truth always wins.

So for everyone else, here is the truth. There is only one mainline airplane that is close to the higher CASM's of RJ's and that is the DC-9. That should not be a surprise to anyone. The 737-800 is massively cheap to operate on a seat mile basis and beats all RJ's by huge proportions.

There is another metric and that is called trip costs. If you took an RJ-76 off side by side with a 737-800 or an MD-88 and then landed side by side an hour later, the total cost to operate that flight would be more on a mainline aircraft than on the RJ. Bigger jets burn more fuel, cost more to own, pilots make more money, flight attendants make more money, and on and on. The bigger airplanes have many more seats, so they are cheaper to operate on a seat mile basis.

So on a segment basis, they try to analyze whether the revenue gained with a larger jet justifies the higher trip costs associated with a larger jet. Unlike a carrier like Southwest or JetBlue, Delta covers a much wider array of markets to smaller cities and to smaller hubs. That is why Delta has to have different sized aircraft and can't operate with one fleet type like Southwest.

When Delta merged with Northwest, they both had fleets for medium sized airlines and served a much more fragmented industry. Now Delta is a mega carrier and the industry is much less fragmented. It makes much more sense for them to upgauge their fleet. The primary focus of this upgauging is to add more mainline aircraft. In fact the fleet plan envisions a net gain of around 100 aircraft at mainline while regionals lose 150.

They can't execute that plan unless they are able to take RJ-50's out of the market. They have signed agreements to operate those aircraft and they have ownership costs that they cannot unilaterally break. Yes, management made bad decisions back when they were independent carriers, but if they want to fix those issues and add mainline flying why should we say no?

So they need an incentive (bribe) to the DCI carriers and to the debt holders to break these agreements. The DCI carriers will cooperate if they can get some other type of flying (76 seaters) and the debt holders will cooperate if they can get additional jet orders since they view this as a jobs program for their country.

So in order to help the company execute their plan to massively increase mainline flying, we entered into this negotiation. Part of that negotiation was to transfer a lot of money that would otherwise be spent on third parties into our pockets. So if you are scared of change and want to live in the little world you inhabit now, then please crawl back in your shell. If you see the entrepreneurial nature of this deal and what it will mean to Delta pilot careers then jump on board. As part of this negotiation we told management that we were going to hold them to their business plan. That is the block hour ratio and the 50 seat reduction tables. It is extremely powerful protection for Delta pilots and it is ground breaking. It's too bad some try to mislead others by publishing spreadsheets with no logic or reasoning. I could show you in a spreadsheet how a 600 seat A-380 could replace 12 RJ-50's, but does that make one bit of sense to anyone? Some try to sell you the notion that Delta will have 300 180+ seat aircraft and get rid of almost every jet smaller than that. Does that make sense to you?

So, Dear Reader, I will let you judge the logic and reasoning of what I wrote and then the logic and reasoning that a SkyWest RJ-76 burns no fuel, came free from the manufacturer, and the engines fix themselves.

slowplay

Keyboard Kommando Karl,

Nice try. And you say I spin...

Real costing...detailed costing...in answer to doubletroubles question, that's where the costing was. In session with the MEC.

Where's the lie? What you typed? Some integrity you have there, keyboard warrior.

First law of holes, groundskeeper, when in one, stop digging.

You still can't handle the truth.

alfaromeo

Okay, Carl, if you can't understand basic English then here is the answer:

The reps saw the real, detailed, item by item costing exactly as the deal was figured by both sides. Down to the exact dollar.

If there is some other adjective I need to throw in there then please tell me what to add and I will add it.

Carl Spackler

It's all the difference in the world slowplay. Can you even imagine what it says about you MEC bureaucrats for an LEC rep to say that you MEC bureaucrats haven't given them REAL costing in over a decade? If it's FAKE costing, I don't care how DETAILED it is...it's still FAKE!

Again, this isn't me talking...it's the reps. You really look foolish trying to take out your rage against these insolent reps on me. But have at it. It's very important for the posters and lurkers here to see the MEC administration in action. The LEC reps are all too familiar with it.

Carl

Carl Spackler

See the above post alfa.

Carl

forgot to bid

Here's some more data I ran across.



Now if you look at this... http://www.team.aero/files/aviation_..._guide_crj.pdf... the one thing you'll see there is that on page 66 they show the CASM for a CRJ-900 running at the max we would allow (at least for 85% of their flights) to have a fuel burn of about 2 cents per ASM.

So even if the Skywest 5.3 CASM number for their CRJ-900 doesn't include fuel, just add 2 cents. Maybe 3. And you're still hovering around MD-88 territory. Thus, same cost plus a whipsaw. I think it's as clear as day as to why they keep asking us to give up scope on these jets.

I mean all we have to do is hold the line on 3 things with outsourcing: number, size and range. We're giving up on the number until the next time they need it raised. Winning.

slowplay

Wow, just wow.

Maybe you can point me to the reps that said they got fake costing, as you can't point to anything to support your delusions in my post.

You can't handle the truth.