|
|
Originally Posted by flyallnite
(Post 1422026)
The whole "no hiring" thing from the CR newsletter sure sounds like they've accidentally broken the code on a coming merger. Can't imagine why we'd delay hiring pilots with the retirements coming up, and staff with inefficient and costly displacements, followed by reinstatements, "We've received clarity" is more like "shut up and do what we tell you" from marketing. And despite all this, our capacity is flat, our routes are unchanged, hubs the same, it's not like there's a whole lot of crazy going on at Delta Air Lines. Make ready the boarding party!
Progress! Carl |
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
(Post 1421969)
What ink are we talking about? Has anybody bothered to read the latest Crew Planning News that came out a couple hours ago?
The pilot block hour info SF has been posting doesn't seem to jive what Crew Planning is saying.
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
(Post 1421981)
Based on what is being communicated now, it sounds like backpeddling for hiring even in 2014.
Those of you who say the "overstaffing" situation and fleet adjustments were not known while ALPA/Management were selling the daylights out of C2012 (which included large productivity gains which stymies hiring) with "we may begin the hiring process in fall 2012" are not being honest with yourselves or your fellow pilots. Read paragraph 5 and 6 of the latest Crew Planning memo. "While the plan is still preliminary...." "...hiring has not been authorized at this time, and with a surplus of pilots at a system level we have to utilize our existing pilot staffing. As a result, we must displace now in order to staff the hours that Network has given us." We realize we are displacing from the 7ER First Officer position in order to fill vacancies in the M88 First Officer categories. We also understand that as we take deliveries of the 717 and 737-900 and post Captain positions on those fleets pilots who are displaced down will quickly rebound back up. Ideally, we would hire to fill the M88 F/O positions. However, hiring has not been authorized at this time, and with a surplus of pilots at a system level we have to utilize our existing pilot staffing. As a result, we must displace now in order to staff the hours that Network has given us So what they said was we needed to hire yesterday but management wouldn't approve. Since they didn't listen we now have to displace pilots to cover new hire positions only to watch these pilots bid right back up to a higher paying airplane. |
Originally Posted by dalad
(Post 1422012)
Wrong again, we never had 156 737-200's. We had I believe 54-56.Back then the fleet consisted of 14 MD-11's, 55-60 L-1011's, the ER's, 16 767-200's, the domestic 767-300's, 70 737-800's, 125ish 727's, the 73G, some 737-300's that were former Western, the MD-88's and MD-90's, and the 54-56 737-200's.
Either way, 54 732s in 2000, 0 now, 0 jumbo RJs then 255 and 70 on order now. I do remember why I thought the number sounded right because one time when discussing this we also threw in all the DC-9s smaller than the 40 series at NWA in 2000. Btw, what was the again in wrong again? |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1422039)
So what they said was we needed to hire yesterday but management wouldn't approve. Since they didn't listen we now have to displace pilots to cover new hire positions only to watch these pilots bid right back up to a higher paying airplane. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1422039)
So what they said was we needed to hire yesterday but management wouldn't approve. Since they didn't listen we now have to displace pilots to cover new hire positions only to watch these pilots bid right back up to a higher paying airplane.
...and with a surplus of pilots at a system level we have to utilize our existing pilot staffing. As a result, we must displace now in order to staff the hours that Network has given us So, network gave a need for less hours going forward at a time when we have a system level surplus, operating with our new contract that gave back productivity to fund our COLA pay raises. That's why management won't approve hiring. No mystery there. Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1422045)
No, they didn't say that either. I know because they said this:
...and with a surplus of pilots at a system level we have to utilize our existing pilot staffing. As a result, we must displace now in order to staff the hours that Network has given us So, network gave a need for less hours going forward at a time when we have a system level surplus, operating with our new contract that gave back productivity to fund our COLA pay raises. That's why management won't approve hiring. No mystery there. Carl |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1422042)
I got it from wiki but I added the 727-200 and 737-200 that was right below it. So it is 54 according to them.
Either way, 54 732s in 2000, 0 now, 0 jumbo RJs then 255 and 70 on order now. I do remember why I thought the number sounded right because one time when discussing this we also threw in all the DC-9s smaller than the 40 series at NWA in 2000. Btw, what was the again in wrong again? |
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
(Post 1422048)
OK, what Carl said....he said it more succinctly and with better emphasis than I could.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1422057)
Yeah, but you said it first. :D
Carl |
Just remember that we fly airplanes, we don’t buy them.
And yes I will beat that drum til C2015. Because while I will fly our airplanes for whatever price 50.1% of the pilot group agrees to, I do not want to do another “if you… then we will give you these airplanes to fly”. That stuff is none of our business. And I think maybe if we get out of that business they won’t take outsourcing to the max allowed out of the fear that we won’t bail them out when outsourcing bites the bottomline as much it bites our bottoms. Just look at what we found out after we bought ourselves 717s... 2012 Q2 Earnings Call: RA: The first investment we are making is to restructure our domestic fleet by eliminating a substantial portion of our 50-seat regional jet fleet. We’ve already completely retired our propeller fleet. We will ultimately replace 75% of our 50-seat flying with more cost-effective mainline aircraft and two-class regional jets. Our 50-seaters peaked at more than 500 in 2008 and we intend to reduce it to less than 125 aircraft over the next two years. EB: We haven’t publicly disclosed the impact. Obviously we believe it to be substantial. If you look at the, not just 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. So not just a savings on the current cost structure but a substantial benefit to offset future cost rises. RA: With the benefits achieved with our new pilot agreement, we have the flexibility we need to both accelerate our fleet restructuring and improve pilot productivity as we vary our capacity by season. The agreement enables us to up-gauge our domestic fleet by acquiring 717s and two-class regional jets which will replace more than 200 50-seat aircraft over the next few years. 2012 Q3 Earnings Call: RA: So by up-gauging the domestic with MD-90 and 717s which are really capital efficient and then the 737-900s, we’ll be able to produce the same number of seats but we’ll do it with fewer airplanes, fewer takeoffs and landings which is where the scale leverage comes from, from the fleet changes. EB: No, because actually, we’ll be mindful of our frequency by market and that’s a key driver, and the 717 deal, particularly, gives us much better gauge and the second thing is, I don’t think customers want to fly 800, 900 miles on a 50-seater. Part of what we’re doing here is putting a better product in the market, better fuel efficiency, fewer airplanes in the air and our customers tell us they much prefer flying on mainline airplanes rather than 34-, 44-, and 50-seat airplanes. EB: So we will look at all alternatives in terms of which balance sheet they end up on, the regional partner on Delta but when you think about it from a total liability perspective, what our goal is, is to take out the debt and significant costs that are part of owning all these 50-seaters. In all my reading I haven't run across a "we'd been fine either way if the pilots had said no. We could've lived just fine without the 717s and large regional jets and instead just kept our large fleet of 50-seaters." Or "Our only regret is we didn't get to purchase Dash 8-400s." All I see is we wanted out of 50 seat RJs really bad and we really wanted the 717s and more large RJs. We got rid of airplanes we didnt want and got ones we did want and the pilots were the key. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:44 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands