And what trend vector gives you the remotest of thoughts that this is a possibility? 737-900s < 757s 717s < M88s How is that hopey thingy working?

Interesting point, but the alliance isn't free to allocate flying to one side of the pond or another at a whim. Each carrier puts up certain number of EASK's. They generally put theirs in fewer, bigger aircraft, perhaps because their labor costs are high. It would be interesting to know how they structure their pay to get to that type of decision, although pilot costs probably wouldn't tell the whole picture. Total employee cost would have to be considered. I would bet the French and Dutch will do anything to need fewer employees per flight. This is why it's worth their while to invest in super-tugs and use one guy for pushback, whereas we have crap tugs, but three or four employees per push.

If we had G&LP, and it cost as much to provide flight crews for a 747 as for a 767, the pilot side of the equation would favor a 747 over two 767's. FA's are rougly constant (1 FA for any 50 seats). Ground employees, like pilots, could be cut.

Bottom line: G&LP gives a discount per seat for larger airplanes. For a short period, you might see a boost in aggregate pay, then the natural evolution should be to larger aircraft, with less pilots.

The smartest way is to keep pilot costs per seat constant, and let the economics dictate aircraft size. We're only part of the way there. We're probably closer to G&LP now that a constant per-seat cost. Why do management a favor and close the gap?

Sorry, but I really think you guys are dead wrong on this. Management has more to be gained with G&LP than we do. Even more so as we get retirements and (maybe) newhires.

Had El Jeffe on my flight the other day and these are my interpretations of what he said: He really likes the 330 for what DL wants the immediate RFP for and the 777-300ER will probably be the eventual replacement for the 747. Boeing was in ATL a couple of weeks ago and put on quite an impressive dog and pony show. Airbus was there last week, haven't heard how that went yet. Carl would be able to add to this but I think 2017 is when the 747's start leaving.

It seems as if you assume that pilot costs are the predominant driving factor behind their choice of airframes. I highly doubt that it is much of a real consideration. In aggregate, maybe being that there are 11,000 or so of us, but as to whether they would do away with 767s in favor of a single 747 because of the slight improvement in employee costs doesn't hold water. Frequency is still a very real driving factor for marketing. One 747 a day to LHR instead of 4 or 5 767s would kill us.

And "G&LP" is not funny.

Impossible. That's a positive rumor, and therefore clearly a BS campaign. Unless the rumor is negative in nature, there is no way it can become true. ;) :D

I believe the leases are up in 2018, so 2017 seems plausible.

I agree that is the plan and it has been repeated over and over again, but there's no need to be so snarky about being optimistic all the time like you've been doing. All it does is polarize and hurt your credibility.

How would you rate his credibility? Doesn't strike me as better or worse than the average poster.

Correct on the 739s mostly, but the 717s are primarily going to be replacing the 50 seat lift as they are parked... the current trend vector now is the A319 doing that flying, actually.

Thanks to me getting my payback days pulled from me, I'll likely be spending father's day with 32 hrs in Charleston, WV!

When I flew for NW airlink, CRW didn't even get jet service... Saab 340 only. Pretty major upgauging...

Really? I get lambasted everyday for my optimism. :rolleyes: One particular individual just labeled my optimism as a "BS campaign" that came "crashing into numbers". So excuse me for deflecting the constant barrage of negativity with a little snarky attitude now and then.

BTW, are you sure you of all people should be labeling others as snarky? :D