Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-30-2012, 12:19 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
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.
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.
I find it interesting that T and I are on the same side of the viewpoint on this one. Not a barb at all T. However, I saw the TA as a scope loss (viable long term hulls) and you saw it as scope recapture (reduction in outsourced seats). In this case, it is a scope loss ("but they can feed our domestic jets" - what a fly on the wall of the echo chamber maybe heard).
If this new JV was short term, it might be OK for a year or two. Isn't the US mostly where the people come from on these Australia round trips? Aren't we the airline with the US roots and routes? Shouldn't we be the winners in this JV?
11-30-2012, 12:21 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
11-30-2012, 01:09 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 403
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.
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.
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.
11-30-2012, 01:19 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
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.
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.
Its almost as if the next ALPA BOD meeting was going to be held at the motel 6 in Juarez Mexico.
11-30-2012, 01:34 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 403
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.
How does it benefit the DELTA pilots to have a bigger network if we do less and less of the flying in smaller and smaller airplanes? A bigger network is not better if the additional flying is done by other airlines.
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.
Do you mean "you" have to fly as in DELTA, or "you" as in Delta, DCI, Alaska, Skyteam, or any other jet "you" can put pax on?
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.
Do you mean strategic markets like SEA-ATL, SEA-SLC, SEA-DFW, and PDX-BOS, and LAX-DCA? Because we apparently don't HAVE to fly those - Alaska can do it for us. Here's the latest routemap: http://www.delta.com/content/dam/del...-route-map.pdf. Please just open it and look how much green crosses the Mississippi river and goes in and out of our hubs. It's actually gotten a lot worse since I posted it less than a month ago. It's hard to count because they are so blended together (and transparent to the customer), but they are flying our pax on at least 10 transcons so we don't need to do that flying.
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 but more realistically the AS 737 going wherever the Aussie wants to travel 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.
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.
How does it benefit the DELTA pilots to have a bigger network if we do less and less of the flying in smaller and smaller airplanes? A bigger network is not better if the additional flying is done by other airlines.
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.
Do you mean "you" have to fly as in DELTA, or "you" as in Delta, DCI, Alaska, Skyteam, or any other jet "you" can put pax on?
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.
Do you mean strategic markets like SEA-ATL, SEA-SLC, SEA-DFW, and PDX-BOS, and LAX-DCA? Because we apparently don't HAVE to fly those - Alaska can do it for us. Here's the latest routemap: http://www.delta.com/content/dam/del...-route-map.pdf. Please just open it and look how much green crosses the Mississippi river and goes in and out of our hubs. It's actually gotten a lot worse since I posted it less than a month ago. It's hard to count because they are so blended together (and transparent to the customer), but they are flying our pax on at least 10 transcons so we don't need to do that flying.
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 but more realistically the AS 737 going wherever the Aussie wants to travel 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.
11-30-2012, 01:41 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
)
11-30-2012, 02:22 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Permanently scarred
Posts: 1,707
11-30-2012, 03:01 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,534
No way, but trolololol nonetheless!
11-30-2012, 03:08 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,534
I'm far more concerned with the 2:1 imbalance now and the potential 3:1 imbalance we are giving them than I am about the growth after that point. Its doubtful there will ever be growth beyond that point unless UAL or Qantas cancells service. Both of which have a zero chance of happening.
Like tsquare said, this is our pot of gold, not theirs. We just gave a tiny podunk upstart underdog dominance over us for that theatre forever, with no real chance of an upside. Although I guess DL mainline might get a small portion of the non AS, non DCI traffic that flows through our west coast nonhubs.
11-30-2012, 03:12 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,534
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
