Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
02-16-2013, 05:54 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by SailorJerry
What's the difference, to a pilot, between the CRJ-200 and CRJ-900 other than length? I'm waiting.
So 348 to 125ish? 70 - 223 is an unreal number. Because its negative.
So 348 to 125ish? 70 - 223 is an unreal number. Because its negative.
02-16-2013, 05:55 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
I don't know all the details of it- I know they let the cat out of the bag on the jumbo RJs, which pretty much matches us now (woo hoo, once again we help proliferate outsourcing!)... I believe the AS flying is pretty close to what they had previously.
http://www.bigapplepilots.info/uploads/AIP-Nov2012.pdf
Last edited by johnso29; 02-16-2013 at 06:21 PM.
02-16-2013, 05:56 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: A big one that looks like a little one
Posts: 633
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
A) If outsourcing RJs is good for us then it must be good for Delta, and if it's good for Delta (obviously since they keep wanting to expand the outsourced jumbo RJ fleet) then why would they ever get rid of it?
B) We're not dismantling a 600 airplane fleet. We're removing 250 airplanes that EB said "customers don’t particularly prefer" and "the cost of continuing to keep the 50-seat RJs in the fleet but even more importantly the upcoming fairly significant maintenance costs that we’re going to be experiencing which will run into the hundreds of millions of dollars on that fleet if we had decided to retain that aircraft."
We are then adding back 70 jumbo RJs. So we're reducing 600 to 450, a 25% reduction. We are decreasing 50 seaters from 57% of the outsourced fleet to 27% and increasing the 50+ seat RJs from 42% of the outsourced fleet to 72%.
More importantly, we are increasing the 50+ seat jets by 70 more than the previous PWA allowed.
C) Rome was never outsourced.
B) 250 airplanes worth of capacity is a lot of seats. Even EB needs to move passengers. Again - from a pilot perspective (that's what you are, right?) what's the difference between a 200 and a 900 besides length?
C) Lemme find a picture of grumpy cat to clearly describe my disinterest in this.
02-16-2013, 05:57 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by SailorJerry
What's the difference, to a pilot, between the CRJ-200 and CRJ-900 other than length? I'm waiting.
2) Better performing jet
3) It's a jet Delta loves vs one they and (according to EB) our passengers don't like and obviously makes more money or we'd keep the 50 seaters. Thus, it has a future and the other one doesn't.
02-16-2013, 06:00 PM
Kerbal Rocket Surgeon
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DTW 717A
Posts: 1,099
Originally Posted by SailorJerry
So your saying though that Delta could pay DAL crew rates and benefits and have them dispatched and maintained by DAL employees, and we'd break even on cost? Is that your assertion?
Furthermore, since you were discussing profit sharing and revenue premiums, allow me to point out that your customers are willing to pay what you called a "RASM premium" because they perceive your product as being of a somewhat premium quality. If you agree with that statement, then perhaps you can see that bringing a product such as arrjay flying in house allows better quality control over your once outsourced product that is currently residing in those concourses you now likely try to avoid. Especially if you commute.
I'd like to know what percentage of travel itineraries purchased through "Delta" never actually fly on a Delta airplane. If you care about the next 10,20,30 years of your career at Delta, why would you be opposed to increased quality of your own product? Would that not enhance your customer's willingness to pay RASM premiums?
02-16-2013, 06:03 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: A big one that looks like a little one
Posts: 633
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
1) Pay
2) Better performing jet
3) It's a jet Delta loves vs one they and (according to EB) our passengers don't like and obviously makes more money or we'd keep the 50 seaters. Thus, it has a future and the other one doesn't.
I'll give the CRJ-900 a parade any day. It's here to stay. Cue when the saints go marching in.
02-16-2013, 06:05 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by SailorJerry
A) When they can't put pilots in the seats, they'll end the outsourcing. Anything else is speculative. You have your opinion, I have mine. We'll come back in 5-7 years and see who's right, ok?
B) 250 airplanes worth of capacity is a lot of seats. Even EB needs to move passengers. Again - from a pilot perspective (that's what you are, right?) what's the difference between a 200 and a 900 besides length?
C) Lemme find a picture of grumpy cat to clearly describe my disinterest in this.
B) 250 airplanes worth of capacity is a lot of seats. Even EB needs to move passengers. Again - from a pilot perspective (that's what you are, right?) what's the difference between a 200 and a 900 besides length?
C) Lemme find a picture of grumpy cat to clearly describe my disinterest in this.
B) 250 jets is a lot of capacity lost... actually, the union says 218 jets parked so even less. Run their numbers, 218 x 50 = 10900 seats lost AND THEN we add 70 new 76 seat jets which reduces the number of seats lost to only 5,580.
Now since we run stuff in miles take into account that they have said they can get better utilization out of the new jets than the old CR2s. You can close the gap further if they want.
C) Too late.
02-16-2013, 06:06 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by SailorJerry
You sound like you have SJS. It's the same type rating and an extra $6-10 an hour.
I'll give the CRJ-900 a parade any day. It's here to stay. Cue when the saints go marching in.
I'll give the CRJ-900 a parade any day. It's here to stay. Cue when the saints go marching in.
02-16-2013, 06:07 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by Phuz
I assert that your company would be more profitable with all of its flying under one roof. The reason this is not done already isn't because of profits, rather it is because of labor group fragmentation.
Furthermore, since you were discussing profit sharing and revenue premiums, allow me to point out that your customers are willing to pay what you called a "RASM premium" because they perceive your product as being of a somewhat premium quality. If you agree with that statement, then perhaps you can see that bringing a product such as arrjay flying in house allows better quality control over your once outsourced product that is currently residing in those concourses you now likely try to avoid. Especially if you commute.
I'd like to know what percentage of travel itineraries purchased through "Delta" never actually fly on a Delta airplane. If you care about the next 10,20,30 years of your career at Delta, why would you be opposed to increased quality of your own product? Would that not enhance your customer's willingness to pay RASM premiums?
Furthermore, since you were discussing profit sharing and revenue premiums, allow me to point out that your customers are willing to pay what you called a "RASM premium" because they perceive your product as being of a somewhat premium quality. If you agree with that statement, then perhaps you can see that bringing a product such as arrjay flying in house allows better quality control over your once outsourced product that is currently residing in those concourses you now likely try to avoid. Especially if you commute.
I'd like to know what percentage of travel itineraries purchased through "Delta" never actually fly on a Delta airplane. If you care about the next 10,20,30 years of your career at Delta, why would you be opposed to increased quality of your own product? Would that not enhance your customer's willingness to pay RASM premiums?
02-16-2013, 06:08 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
Those 50's were toast anyways... the company didn't want them and the customers hated them. So, instead of letting them die on the vine, we gave them more airplanes that are going to be around much longer.
Ok. They were toast......maybe. I haven't seen anything that proves that. It's true that they aren't fuel efficient, but neither is a DC9. Networking has found routes on which they make money though. I think they've done the same with 50 seaters. That's how Delta has been making money for years now. Right?
Also, 10K filings did show how long Delta was on the hook for keeping the 50 seaters flying. So let's say we didn't give them more 76 seaters. What then? Just curious as to what happens next. BTW, you know I voted NO. I'm just bored, and up for discussion.
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
1) Pay
2) Better performing jet
3) It's a jet Delta loves vs one they and (according to EB) our passengers don't like and obviously makes more money or we'd keep the 50 seaters. Thus, it has a future and the other one doesn't.
2) Better performing jet
3) It's a jet Delta loves vs one they and (according to EB) our passengers don't like and obviously makes more money or we'd keep the 50 seaters. Thus, it has a future and the other one doesn't.
FTB,
I personally think the regional industry is going through a morphing phase. Certain regionals are already having difficulty staffing their jets. I'm anxiously awaiting to see RAH staff these 53 E-175s they just signed up for. They can't even staff the Q400s now, & they only have 30ish of those. So I really think that critical staffing issues will cripple the reliability of the regionals. They won't be able to attract applicants. But Delta will. So what do we offer? Bringing RJs to mainline.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
