Originally Posted by Check Essential

alfa's numbers are a result of two things.
Delta's 2 captain rule for ultra long range flights and the addition of a couple 777s that were on order that Delta couldn't cancel in bankruptcy.

Give me a break. Our international fleet hasn't grown and everybody knows it.

Anyone who has been around this property for a few years knows that alfaromeo is the zen master of statistical analysis and also misleading statistical analysis when it suits his purpose. On a moment's notice he can produce a pie chart or a bar graph to prove 2+2 does not = 4.

We are supposedly a global powerhouse yet we have no widebody jets on order. Most of our intl fleet is soon to be obsolete 767s. Our codeshare partners have hundreds on order and we continue making these agreements that provide them with their US connections. We continue to retreat from point to point service fron CONUS to overseas and concentrate on flying into their hubs.
They will soon be flying all the big iron and DALPA will be happy because those pax are filling our 717s.

Maybe DALPA has no legal way to stop them and we are just making the best of a bad situation but are you seriously trying to tell us that these JV agreements aren't lopsided in favor of our partners?

The international stuff. 737-900s replacing 757s. The shrinking seniority list. etc. etc.

We are being slowly downsized and the MEC is managing it very well.
Congratulations and thank you very much, but how about let's try to stop it instead.
Quit the unconditional cooperation. Just once when its appropriate to raise hell then let's raise hell!

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

Compliments of Uncle Ferd... (WARNING- there is one F-bomb about half way through. Don't click on it if you don't want to hear it! )

Originally Posted by slowplay

This goes back to the crux of why there is code sharing.

Using the premise that all Delta coded flying be done by Delta pilots, our network (meaning in this case flights flown by Delta pilots) would be substantially smaller than it is today.

Oz - USA is a strategic route for VA. It is a boutique route to DL. Boutique routes go away when they don't make money. Strategic routes are ones that you "have" to fly in order to stay in business. Under Delta's current strategy, an example of strategic routes would be transcons to business markets; even though they're overserved and have tremendous competition, we have to be in them in order to maintain coporate contracts that pay the freight on the rest of our network.

So without the codeshare, we pull out of Oz. We also lose the 100-200 pax daily that VA puts into our network and the LAX 737 or 757 daily departures shrink by 1. It works the opposite way too. We fly to Sidney. VA takes our pax to Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Lose those pax and our Sydney flight is no longer profitable, as they then go to Qantas.

My example is oversimplified, but let me know if it doesn't speak to your point.

Originally Posted by Check Essential

What I can't figure out is why DALPA is so compliant with all this.
Our top end aircraft and most desirable routes are being slowly phased out and the union sends out these JV agreements with a smile and self-congratulations. WT* are they thinking?

They are proud of their accomplishments because the destruction of our international route structure is now written into our contract? They tell us management doesn't need our permission to do these deals so we give them our permission to do these deals and claim victory? How is that a good thing?

Is the MEC in a trance?
The ghost of Moak and his "whatever is good for the corporation is good for the pilots" philosophy is still haunting us. Constructive engagement has to have a limit. We can not continue to allow our jobs to be outsourced or we will be extinct.

Originally Posted by buzzpat

I would die a very painful death. Somebody would move up a number but it would be ugly. Plus, another Delta bro would have to deal with gate roulette in LA....and that wouldn't be right.

Originally Posted by Rogue24

First, I did not say it was the unions business how to buy these jets, I said how do you "force" the company to buy these jets. Big difference.

What this deal does is allows DAL to not have to pull down flying if V Oz does, it codifies what areas on the map, not just OZ-Mainland US are included in growth, it backstops the pull back of DAL in the market to five and worst case four frequencies a week.

If you realize the crew inefficiency of four weekly flights you will also realize the crews involved at this level of flying with our CDA and trip rigs.

It does not give us a day one increase in pilot bock hrs, but unlike the previous language which was did not guarantee any growth to us, this one does after one more daily rt is added by a very very very small carrier. 14-14 day one would be awesome, duh! The reality is that this market that this jv was signed for has been generally stable for the last few years wrt to frequencies between carriers.

As for your last comment. Go to a MEC meeting attend what you can, and see the work your reps do. I have been to a few over the years, and though the results are not always to my side of an issue, the debate is well thought out by all parties.

This JV passed 19-0. Ask your rep why he voted yes.

Originally Posted by FlyZ

Rogue, if that's the case, if there is that much stability in the market, how much chance is there that demand will be there for more than 21 departures? Seems to me, the company asked themselves what is the most this market will ever support, added a pad just to be sure we would never need to add Delta flying, and then got the pilots to buy off on it.

If catering to the business traveler and offering a "premium product" is DAL's strategy, how will that work out when less and less of that product is flown by DAL pilots using DAL airplanes? I'm starting to think that is investor talk only, and that management actually doesn't believe in our product that much at all.