|
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1420186)
That's the old contract.
The new contract is where all you have to do is add B717s to mainline and they can add 70 more 76-seaters without the requirement to park any 70-seaters. Taking jumbo RJs from 255 to 325. The mainline count doesn't matter because 76-seat growth was decoupled from mainlines size and coupled instead to the addition of new B717s, addition of more 76-seaters and then a BH ratio depending on the number added. So add 88 B717s and subtract 88 mainline jets elsewhere and shrink DCI to 450 jets and you hit your 1.56 ratio. You're good to go. Not so with the last contract. But we had to give this up because we had to make sure Delta didn't order 1000 Dash Q400s and use them to fly JFK-DFW, ATL-COS, ATL-YYZ and the like. They only have to reduce DCI to 450 airframes if we add 717s and thus they add 76-seaters. Mix the pot up and there is no loss in ASMs, there is a gain. Drop 218 50-seaters and add 70 76-seaters + 88 B717s and you net +4,100 seats. /possible chihuahua driver... depending on this surprise AE based on clarity from network |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1420056)
What do you mean ala NWA...this is NWA.
Carl um......... no its not:cool: |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1420176)
If they don't grow the mainline they can't take delivery of a single one of the new 76 seaters for DCI. They still have to reduce DCI to 450 airframes even if they don't add new aircraft to the mainline. The net effect will be a far greater drop in ASM's then the last 5 years. Not likely to happen.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1420210)
Come on sailingfun this is getting ridiculous. They don't have to grow mainline at all to get every single one of their beloved jumbo RJ's. Pardon me...their beloved and ALPA's beloved jumbo RJ's. They only have to get those Lumberg jets, and then they're allowed to get every jumbo RJ...thanks to the TA you pushed so hard for.
Carl You can also explain why there have not been massive displacements with all the job loss you claim. When the contract was signed we were staffed about right for Captains in most categories. The surplus pilots were staffed in the copilot seats. Since the contract was signed we have seen a net increase of over 200 Captains. How can this be? There should have been displacements of hundreds of Captains out of their seats back to co pilot according to your statements. Is the company that screwed up they don't realize the bonanza they were handed in manning? |
Sometimes I'm pretty convinced sailingfun is a 17 year old from airliners.net. He gets around 1 talking point right each post (which sometimes is only the mgmt or ALPA buzz phrase of the week). From there, it's this cascade of just awful, flawed logic with math as bad as his grammar...
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1420202)
Your correct on the first part of your post. Where I think your wrong is the block hour ratio. It has to go to 1.56 DCI to mainline narrow body domestic aircraft(plus remaining 767 non ER aircraft). Not the entire fleet. If DCI ends up at 450 aircraft and their utilization is roughly the same as mainline aircraft then we will require 702 domestic aircraft. Currently we have somewhere around 720 aircraft of which 145 are exempt from the ratio. that means we have 575 aircraft in the domestic fleet. If aircraft utilization is about the same Delta has to add 127 aircraft to the domestic fleet. Having said that I do not think utilization is the same. I believe we get a higher utilization then DCI. If I recall from the road show the difference actually would require a addition of about 76 aircraft to meet the 1.56 to one. So yes they could park a few domestic aircraft and meet the ratio but only a handful. That would leave almost all the 717's as growth aircraft.
Here's why: we had 54% of the total 3.6M BH flying in 2012 didn't we? Which is a 1.17 ratio and has us flying 1.940M BH. With 600 airplanes at DCI and 566 with us (by my count at contract time) that had them at around 2800 hours and us around 3400 hours. What does that mean? If DCI goes down to 450 jets x 2800 hours they're around 1.26M BH. Multiply that by 1.56, that's our minimum. 1.26M x 1.56 = 1.948M BH. Remember that we were at 1.940M BH. So what does that mean? So if DCI shrunk to 450 jets we'd need to fly a little shy of 8000 more hours per year which requires 2.25 more aircraft than the 566 we had. Basically, the ratio means status quo here if they go to 450 jets. It means the 717s can be replacement jets and the ratio is met just fine. They don't have to be growth jets because there is no minimum mainline number. We got rid of that from the old PWA and went to the ratio. So what does that really mean? We left the gate wide open for 88 B717s to be acquired, trickle in, announce MD88 retirements (sorry, new cockpits only for the 90s) and then make up the loss in ASMs with A321s. Give or take a few planes you can keep the ASM on its current trajectory. But what if? What if the ratio isn't met, we are below 1.56, do they park jets? (for those wondering, the higher number is better for DAL pilots, a lower number is worse) My answer, No. Speed them up. Fly more ASMs with less BHs. Notice the jumbo RJs cruising around behind you at M.80? They can do that. If it mattered. Or as Sailing mentioned, park 25 more 50-seaters. Call that a win but in reality, THERE IS NO MINIMUM CUMULATIVE BLOCK HOURS in the PWA. That'd be hard to put in anyways. But with no minimum then there is no requirement that as 50-seaters are parked the flying must be transferred over to mainline to keep the 3.6M BHs we had before. If Delta is okay with jets flying less, the flying isn't transferred, it leaves the system. |
FWIW, I'm pretty sure come a year from now most of us will actually have moved up noticeably compared to creepy crawling back to about where we were in 2008. (marginally net positive bids after years of major backsliding doesn't exact do much positive when you're still so in the negative) Some of the koolaid does come true, and we're actively seeing mainline taking over markets that in some cases have never seen non-DCI service. Hopefully we'll actually grow the oceanic stuff, too.
ftb is at least partially correct in theoretically what can happen since DCI is apparently going to be at lower airframes than allowed. I don't see it playing out to that extreme. I think we're going to see significant 757 parking, BUT i think there will be some hefty narrowbody replacements on top of what is already ordered and rumored (why only have a fleet of 30 321s??) It's been acknowledged that the 900ER order was a holdover for the first batch of 757/old320/88 replacement. More of that will be coming- you've got to account for that. Oh, and around 10% of the ATL320 flew on or will be flying a green slip this weekend. Going to be a fun fun summer.... |
My problem is we left the gate open in writing and didn't require them to put in writing what we've been told they said would happen.
http://a3.img.mobypicture.com/03e33f...b3ff5_view.jpg Sometimes I think we'd give up our tiny little dimes for that big shinny nickle. If next year is better, which I hope it is, I think a lot of it will come from taking back flying from Alaska. Oh well, we're committed to whatever happens now. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1420226)
It's been acknowledged that the 900ER order was a holdover for the first batch of 757/old320/88 replacement. More of that will be coming- you've got to account for that.
Oh, and around 10% of the ATL320 flew on a green slip this weekend. Going to be a fun fun summer.... In so many ways, there is no such thing as an MD-88 replacement... or at least a press release on it. They just said a few years back the jets were at their half life, hey, look, a https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...LPMCSUzPUfGasw We're getting 717s!? Cool. I'm so glad we said yes so that we got those things. Could you imagine if we had said no and Delta told SWA no thanks, we'll keep our 50 seaters. http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress...-chihuahua.jpg What were talking about? MD-88s? |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1420232)
I think the 900 was mentioned as a 757/320/767 replacement.
In so many ways, there is no such thing as an MD-88 replacement... or at least a press release on it. They just said a few years back the jets were at their half life, hey, look, a https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...LPMCSUzPUfGasw We're getting 717s!? Cool. I'm so glad we said yes so that we got those things. Could you imagine if we had said no and Delta told SWA no thanks, we'll keep our 50 seaters. http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress...-chihuahua.jpg What were talking about? MD-88s? +717!! |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:48 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands