Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
10-12-2012 | 03:48 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,876
Likes: 193
10-12-2012 | 04:25 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
You should sometime take the time to go over to marketing and talk with the people working in the department. You might actually find you learn something.
Could be buy 737's and jump into those routes? Sure we could to a certain extent. There would be problems. We would need to get gates in SEA. None are available at the moment or planned to come available. If we can work that issue out we then need to take down Alaska. It should be a breeze to knock down the highest rated airline for customer service and the airline with the single most loyal customer base in the world. They will flock to fly on Delta. It will have to be a epic fare war with huge amounts of blood spilled. Can we take Alaska on and attempt to put them under? Thats what it will take to ever make money on matching their routes. I would put it as somewhere around a snowballs chance in hell.
Oh by the way. Have you looked at the actual passenger numbers? How many they send to us and how many we send to them?
Could be buy 737's and jump into those routes? Sure we could to a certain extent. There would be problems. We would need to get gates in SEA. None are available at the moment or planned to come available. If we can work that issue out we then need to take down Alaska. It should be a breeze to knock down the highest rated airline for customer service and the airline with the single most loyal customer base in the world. They will flock to fly on Delta. It will have to be a epic fare war with huge amounts of blood spilled. Can we take Alaska on and attempt to put them under? Thats what it will take to ever make money on matching their routes. I would put it as somewhere around a snowballs chance in hell.
Oh by the way. Have you looked at the actual passenger numbers? How many they send to us and how many we send to them?
When I compare that even to a few years ago, I see us being slowly pushed eastward. It's gone from some in SEA to most N-S west coast flying and lately the trend has been toward transcons. Either they are immune from the economy that's holding us back, or we are planning to hand them a bunch more flying in the next few years. They are increasing their fleet by 20%. I call that big growth in an economic environment that's forcing a lot of carriers, including SWA, to keep flat capacity. Are they stupid to try to grow that much? Or is there a plan to continue to cede our routes to them?
My question: is there a point at which you, or ALPA, will start to be concerned? They own SEA. The latest rumor is that they are moving into SLC and our other hubs. Will we let them have everything west of the Mississippi? For the good of Delta? And the bad of the Delta pilots? At some point, whatever extra revenue is being generated by them flying our pax instead of us flying them will not help us. It would take a lot of 4% raises to make up for 10 more years of stagnation.
10-12-2012 | 04:26 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,876
Likes: 193
Purple Rain posted:
let's take a real look at how much C2012 will increase our productivity and reduce the number of pilots required. no, I'm not talking about DALPA's nonsensical numbers.
oh, and it's going to be virtually impossible to hire qualified replacements on a 1-for-1 basis with upcoming retirements.
Since you have clearly ran the numbers yourself to come up with the nonsensical comment why don't you post your numbers?
Delta has around 2000 pilots on reserve overall. Goes up and down winter to summer. DALPA posted the major changes will reduce the need for pilots about 15% or 300 to 340 pilots on the downside. That number however does not include the gains in other areas of the contract. So lets here your numbers for the sections where there were major changes.
1. ALV plus 15. Win for the company however on this very forum I talked about the ability to decline any trip putting you over the ALV and was soundly rebuked that no one would do that and everyone goes yellow high to fill up if they are close.
2.ALV to 84 however capped at 1 hour more for the year. Call that 1.2 percent. Thats about 80 jobs. What is your number.
3. Equalize days in the bid periods for the year. Another win for the company, again what are your numbers?
Total jobs estimated by ALPA again 300 to 340. Whats your number?
Now on the not a win for the company here are some changes off the top of my head.
1. Counting known absences like vacation into when a reserve is full.
2. Reserves full at reserve pay hours not ALV
3. Reduction/elimination of trip parking
4. 4:30 daily min
5. Increase in vacation value. (See number 1)
6. Increase in training pay (see number 1)
7. Increase of 4 to 5 X days per year per reserve pilot.
Note that none of the above includes the prior round of SOT changes which increased the companies need for pilots. The changes in recovery flying alone was huge.
Two other things. The company looking at pilot manning and the decisions on staffing such as hiring is viewing the contract as neutral at this point. Once they see the overall effects they may adjust.
The last thing and what will account for far more jobs then the contract is the quality of airline we are now running. The operation is light years better then it was just 2 years ago. Reroutes are way down which is one of the biggest drivers of needed reserves. If your running a good operation compared to the horrible airline we were for many years you need far fewer reserve pilots.
I suppose however in your mind the company running a good operation is all DALPA's fault!
So overall considering the contract changes and the SOT please let us know your numbers verses the ones you claim DALPA fabricated.
let's take a real look at how much C2012 will increase our productivity and reduce the number of pilots required. no, I'm not talking about DALPA's nonsensical numbers.
oh, and it's going to be virtually impossible to hire qualified replacements on a 1-for-1 basis with upcoming retirements.
Since you have clearly ran the numbers yourself to come up with the nonsensical comment why don't you post your numbers?
Delta has around 2000 pilots on reserve overall. Goes up and down winter to summer. DALPA posted the major changes will reduce the need for pilots about 15% or 300 to 340 pilots on the downside. That number however does not include the gains in other areas of the contract. So lets here your numbers for the sections where there were major changes.
1. ALV plus 15. Win for the company however on this very forum I talked about the ability to decline any trip putting you over the ALV and was soundly rebuked that no one would do that and everyone goes yellow high to fill up if they are close.
2.ALV to 84 however capped at 1 hour more for the year. Call that 1.2 percent. Thats about 80 jobs. What is your number.
3. Equalize days in the bid periods for the year. Another win for the company, again what are your numbers?
Total jobs estimated by ALPA again 300 to 340. Whats your number?
Now on the not a win for the company here are some changes off the top of my head.
1. Counting known absences like vacation into when a reserve is full.
2. Reserves full at reserve pay hours not ALV
3. Reduction/elimination of trip parking
4. 4:30 daily min
5. Increase in vacation value. (See number 1)
6. Increase in training pay (see number 1)
7. Increase of 4 to 5 X days per year per reserve pilot.
Note that none of the above includes the prior round of SOT changes which increased the companies need for pilots. The changes in recovery flying alone was huge.
Two other things. The company looking at pilot manning and the decisions on staffing such as hiring is viewing the contract as neutral at this point. Once they see the overall effects they may adjust.
The last thing and what will account for far more jobs then the contract is the quality of airline we are now running. The operation is light years better then it was just 2 years ago. Reroutes are way down which is one of the biggest drivers of needed reserves. If your running a good operation compared to the horrible airline we were for many years you need far fewer reserve pilots.
I suppose however in your mind the company running a good operation is all DALPA's fault!
So overall considering the contract changes and the SOT please let us know your numbers verses the ones you claim DALPA fabricated.
10-12-2012 | 04:46 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
10-12-2012 | 04:49 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
From: Captain Jack
Well, how about from the merger to date? parked 70 DC-9's....received about 20 MD-90's...oh yeh and 500 less pilots on seniority list.
If the crystal ball works hopefully all the 737's won't be pure replacement jets as the company and the union said during the contract. They say the 717 will be growth....88 planes....but I digress, we have parked 80ish dc9's since the merger with 17 to go. That's about 88...hmmm, no growth. No growth planed, no growth planes on order unless you want to count the 787 in 2020.
Do I think there has to be growth, no, not unless its good for the company and my job security, but you asked a "growth" question.
10-12-2012 | 04:54 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Sailing, our US routemap is turning green from left to right. Take a look: http://images.delta.com.edgesuite.ne...aps/us_map.pdf
When I compare that even to a few years ago, I see us being slowly pushed eastward. It's gone from some in SEA to most N-S west coast flying and lately the trend has been toward transcons. Either they are immune from the economy that's holding us back, or we are planning to hand them a bunch more flying in the next few years. They are increasing their fleet by 20%. I call that big growth in an economic environment that's forcing a lot of carriers, including SWA, to keep flat capacity. Are they stupid to try to grow that much? Or is there a plan to continue to cede our routes to them?
My question: is there a point at which you, or ALPA, will start to be concerned? They own SEA. The latest rumor is that they are moving into SLC and our other hubs. Will we let them have everything west of the Mississippi? For the good of Delta? And the bad of the Delta pilots? At some point, whatever extra revenue is being generated by them flying our pax instead of us flying them will not help us. It would take a lot of 4% raises to make up for 10 more years of stagnation.
When I compare that even to a few years ago, I see us being slowly pushed eastward. It's gone from some in SEA to most N-S west coast flying and lately the trend has been toward transcons. Either they are immune from the economy that's holding us back, or we are planning to hand them a bunch more flying in the next few years. They are increasing their fleet by 20%. I call that big growth in an economic environment that's forcing a lot of carriers, including SWA, to keep flat capacity. Are they stupid to try to grow that much? Or is there a plan to continue to cede our routes to them?
My question: is there a point at which you, or ALPA, will start to be concerned? They own SEA. The latest rumor is that they are moving into SLC and our other hubs. Will we let them have everything west of the Mississippi? For the good of Delta? And the bad of the Delta pilots? At some point, whatever extra revenue is being generated by them flying our pax instead of us flying them will not help us. It would take a lot of 4% raises to make up for 10 more years of stagnation.
10-12-2012 | 04:54 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
From: Captain Jack
I know my posts seem negative so let me clear the air by saying I actually am proud to be at Delta. I wouldn't want to work for any other airline more than Delta. I am not a widget basher, I think our company is doing better things, by far, than any other out there. I also believe they are better to us pilots than any other out there. I just don't like when I see us shrinking our presence(west) to a code share.
It also is worse when it is with a code share I am scared of. I am at the bottom at Delta and a merger in my eyes would kill any chance at a heavy CA slot some day. They don't have a single heavy but when(if) we merge all 1500 hundred of them will have the chance to ahead of me. Yup, they are a threat to me in my eyes, so when I see things like this.....i get defensive.
Last edited by Imapilot2; 10-12-2012 at 05:15 AM.
10-12-2012 | 05:11 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
There are already some rumors floating around that ALK is starting SLC service in 2013. I've heard SLC to LAX, LAS, PDX, and SEA will be ALK cities out of SLC. Now if ALK starts those routes and we pull SKYW flights out of those cities and keep our mainline service status quo then I'm cool with that. However, I have a feeling we will see the same number of SKYW ops into those cities and they will "right size" our domestic operations out of SLC.
If we pull flying out of SLC, it would more than likely be mainline. Due to the contracts with DCI, mainline is the accumulator in the system.
It would seem Alaska is a better run airline than Delta. Unfortunately, Delta management agrees.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 10-12-2012 at 05:28 AM.
10-12-2012 | 05:11 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,876
Likes: 193
Well, how about from the merger to date? parked 70 DC-9's....received about 20 MD-90's...oh yeh and 500 less pilots on seniority list.
If the crystal ball works hopefully all the 737's won't be pure replacement jets as the company and the union said during the contract. They say the 717 will be growth....88 planes....but I digress, we have parked 80ish dc9's since the merger with 17 to go. That's about 88...hmmm, no growth. No growth planed, no growth planes on order unless you want to count the 787 in 2020.
Do I think there has to be growth, no, not unless its good for the company and my job security, but you asked a "growth" question.
If the crystal ball works hopefully all the 737's won't be pure replacement jets as the company and the union said during the contract. They say the 717 will be growth....88 planes....but I digress, we have parked 80ish dc9's since the merger with 17 to go. That's about 88...hmmm, no growth. No growth planed, no growth planes on order unless you want to count the 787 in 2020.
Do I think there has to be growth, no, not unless its good for the company and my job security, but you asked a "growth" question.
We will have placed more then 40 90's into service by June of 13and that number may have gone to 50. In addition they have upped the block hours per aircraft a lot since the merger. You must have missed the little financial meltdown in 09 also. Until the economy turns around I have some news for you. We are not going to grow. Management has a new stupid goal to actually make money. The 717's are not growth aircraft. They are replacements for DCI airframes being retired.
10-12-2012 | 05:16 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Top and Bottom Outsourcing:
Now if only we could get an Alaska 738 in the picture, we could then title it top to bottom outsourcing.
Now if only we could get an Alaska 738 in the picture, we could then title it top to bottom outsourcing.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
