Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-18-2012 | 06:05 AM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
I cut and pasted below the pertinent paragraph from the article BB posted.
"SkyWest subsidiaries SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet operate about 90 and 60 Bombardier CRJ200 aircraft , respectively, for Delta, under 15-year contracts that Kraupp says do not expire until 2020. Kraupp is emphatic that Delta does not have any rights in the current contract to tell SkyWest to cease the 50-seater operations before the agreements expire."
Denny
"SkyWest subsidiaries SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet operate about 90 and 60 Bombardier CRJ200 aircraft , respectively, for Delta, under 15-year contracts that Kraupp says do not expire until 2020. Kraupp is emphatic that Delta does not have any rights in the current contract to tell SkyWest to cease the 50-seater operations before the agreements expire."
Denny
What he is saying here is their current CPA was negotiated prior to CH11, prior to our TA and therefore cannot force them in be in compliance with the holding company language within our PWA if they opt not to re-negotiate their CPA's with DAL for a RJ swap. Effectively em fighting words.
07-18-2012 | 06:09 AM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
They have eight years to worry about it. From the chatter over at their multiple carriers, it sounds like he is going to make a significant move towards proving that our PWA provisions do not apply to a previously negotiated CPA early next year.
Of course his words are qualified, so he may back down, but as I said earlier, there is chatter over there that something big that does not inclide RJ's is going to go down early next year. All I know is it does not include RJ's, or DAL. From what I gather, people there see it as an event that will make SKW Holdings a career airline.
My guesses are a purchase of someone like NKS, or Virgin America.
07-18-2012 | 06:12 AM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
*777 may not materialize on this bid if they opt to keep DHing ATL crews. At some point we will see a shift of 777s to DTW though.
07-18-2012 | 06:19 AM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
ABC affiliate, Channel 9, reporting Comair getting shut down October 1.
No Delta sources quoted on confirmation.
Of course thee billions of dollars flushed are not considered a cost of outsourcing. Sorry to hear this, if true. Many had nothing to do with the unpleasant events hat divided our union. Comair was a multi billion dollar company; then Delta bought them.
No Delta sources quoted on confirmation.
Of course thee billions of dollars flushed are not considered a cost of outsourcing. Sorry to hear this, if true. Many had nothing to do with the unpleasant events hat divided our union. Comair was a multi billion dollar company; then Delta bought them.
Would not surprise me one bit. Time to get our resident OH pilot on our list.
07-18-2012 | 06:54 AM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
07-18-2012 | 06:59 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
They have eight years to worry about it. From the chatter over at their multiple carriers, it sounds like he is going to make a significant move towards proving that our PWA provisions do not apply to a previously negotiated CPA early next year.
Of course his words are qualified, so he may back down, but as I said earlier, there is chatter over there that something big that does not inclide RJ's is going to go down early next year. All I know is it does not include RJ's, or DAL. From what I gather, people there see it as an event that will make SKW Holdings a career airline.
My guesses are a purchase of someone like NKS, or Virgin America.
Of course his words are qualified, so he may back down, but as I said earlier, there is chatter over there that something big that does not inclide RJ's is going to go down early next year. All I know is it does not include RJ's, or DAL. From what I gather, people there see it as an event that will make SKW Holdings a career airline.
My guesses are a purchase of someone like NKS, or Virgin America.
Plus some wouldn't need to go until 2015 anyway. I'm sure by then quite a few SKYW/ASA/ExpressJet leases will be long expired. The company also has some "flex" of about a dozen 70 and 76 seaters coming off lease prior to the end of 2015 anyway, which could be used to lower the hull count in the "hard cap". I have no problem making them do that. I would also give them relief for 5 fifty seaters for a couple years if they permantly remove five 99.9Klbs jets from non union DPJ or fly them with our pilots. After 2015, 70 and 76 seaters start coming off lease fast and furiously. DL would only have to carry a little bit of RJ fat (yet remain in compliance through lower utilization) until 2015, and then the problem would rapidly fix itself as that meglomaniac JA flails around trying to run a real airline as his saved millions fly out the door.
And anything can be cancelled. The worst we may have to pay are the leases (that we are 100% paying anyway, directly or indirectly, and which will be taken care of by the 2:1 swap regardless) and early out penalties. Force the company to pay those. Let's flush that out right now if we could: how much, exactly, are those penalties? DAL is going to have to pay them, and I seriously doubt they are on the hook for countless billions like some like to pretend. Remember, the cost of the leases, which is by far the lions share of early out penalties, is a zero cost item in this case. Zero.
07-18-2012 | 07:01 AM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
and
Yes, really: incentivize. On the pilot cost side of the equation, (and I'm sure they look at this in purchasing decisions... remember the 3B6 777 tug-of-war?), LBP incentivizes getting big airplanes, since there is no penalty in terms of added pilot costs. LBP obviously ties pilot pay to airframes, so the bigger the airframe, the lower the pilot cost per seat. On the flip-side of this, the smaller the airplane, the greater the pilot cost per seat. The incentive is for bigger airplanes.
Hell, the incentive is always towards bigger airplanes, as even the productivity system doesn't capture the value of every incremental seat (a 747 doens't pay twice as much as a 757). But LBP ties pilot costs to airframes, and the producticity system ties it more to seats. That's not value judgment on my part, I think it's a simple statement of facts.
As we add seats, we want more pilot money. We have an incentive to ask for this, the company has an incentive to ask for the opposite. The two major beneficiaries to LBP are the company, and senior pilots that don't like what their seniority is buying them right now, and want to downgrade equipment for better in category seniority, without taking a paycut.
The current sytem isn't flawed T, the problem is that it's incompatible with your wishes. The guy one junior to you that's flying the M88 made a sacrfice in pay, and some other areas, but he's senior. He doesn't want your flying, or he'd bid for it, and he doesn't deserve to have you show up in his category under a LBP sytsem. He's already done what you don't want to do, and made compromises on how to leverage his seniority.
So you're approaching the problem backwards, and asking how we might make the system conform to your wishes. The problem you're running into is that the productivity system is better, and provides more money to the group as a whole. There is no logical argument for LBP that works for the average pilot, only certain senior pilots that might benefit. You simply took a wrong turn when you decided, somewhere, that there is no reason you couldn't fly a 737 in a simpler base, for the same money, since you're senior.
But there is a reason, and it's an obstacle in your way: the productivity system is better. You just can't see it, partly because I think you're a good guy, and you're sincere in your motivations, but what you're advocating is 100% wrong for the group, and amounts to pulling up the ladder. I'm not accusing you of doing this consciously, or with malice. I'm just pointing out why you're banging your head on this, and failing to convince some of us on LBP: your QOL desires are understandeable, but the LBP system you require to make them a reality is a poor system.
Yes, really: incentivize. On the pilot cost side of the equation, (and I'm sure they look at this in purchasing decisions... remember the 3B6 777 tug-of-war?), LBP incentivizes getting big airplanes, since there is no penalty in terms of added pilot costs. LBP obviously ties pilot pay to airframes, so the bigger the airframe, the lower the pilot cost per seat. On the flip-side of this, the smaller the airplane, the greater the pilot cost per seat. The incentive is for bigger airplanes.
Hell, the incentive is always towards bigger airplanes, as even the productivity system doesn't capture the value of every incremental seat (a 747 doens't pay twice as much as a 757). But LBP ties pilot costs to airframes, and the producticity system ties it more to seats. That's not value judgment on my part, I think it's a simple statement of facts.
As we add seats, we want more pilot money. We have an incentive to ask for this, the company has an incentive to ask for the opposite. The two major beneficiaries to LBP are the company, and senior pilots that don't like what their seniority is buying them right now, and want to downgrade equipment for better in category seniority, without taking a paycut.
The current sytem isn't flawed T, the problem is that it's incompatible with your wishes. The guy one junior to you that's flying the M88 made a sacrfice in pay, and some other areas, but he's senior. He doesn't want your flying, or he'd bid for it, and he doesn't deserve to have you show up in his category under a LBP sytsem. He's already done what you don't want to do, and made compromises on how to leverage his seniority.
So you're approaching the problem backwards, and asking how we might make the system conform to your wishes. The problem you're running into is that the productivity system is better, and provides more money to the group as a whole. There is no logical argument for LBP that works for the average pilot, only certain senior pilots that might benefit. You simply took a wrong turn when you decided, somewhere, that there is no reason you couldn't fly a 737 in a simpler base, for the same money, since you're senior.
But there is a reason, and it's an obstacle in your way: the productivity system is better. You just can't see it, partly because I think you're a good guy, and you're sincere in your motivations, but what you're advocating is 100% wrong for the group, and amounts to pulling up the ladder. I'm not accusing you of doing this consciously, or with malice. I'm just pointing out why you're banging your head on this, and failing to convince some of us on LBP: your QOL desires are understandeable, but the LBP system you require to make them a reality is a poor system.
But I am tired of the discussion, so I will be happy to say that I will agree with you to just disagree and let it go at that. And I thank you for your perception that I am not in int for myself, but looking at it for the group as a whole..
Last edited by tsquare; 07-18-2012 at 07:16 AM.
07-18-2012 | 07:13 AM
Line Holder
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 643
Likes: 52
can someone please define LBP, LGBP etc..? I have enough acronyms to remember working here and I dont know what these are.
07-18-2012 | 07:15 AM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
07-18-2012 | 07:17 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
What he is saying here is their current CPA was negotiated prior to CH11, prior to our TA and therefore cannot force them in be in compliance with the holding company language within our PWA if they opt not to re-negotiate their CPA's with DAL for a RJ swap. Effectively em fighting words.
These damn outsourcing providers are parasites. Why does our management and ALPA find them "good for Delta" ? Even if you ignore the harm to mainline careers, competing deals have siphoned off the capital value of a 3+ Billion investment in Comair. All of these losses should be accounted for in the cost of outsourcing.
Wonder if Delta will "replace" the 50 seater SkyWest's Captain Gone Bonzo destroyed. (Single piece spar and chemically milled skin ... it is totaled) In associated news George Stephancanopololoponouous has been reporting all day that "COMMERCIAL JETLINERS AREN"T LOCKED" ... "THIS IS A SECURITY THREAT" ... "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!!" ... thanks Skywest. Thanks a pant load for not screening or monitoring the people you hire to replace Delta pilots.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
