Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
06-24-2013, 03:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
Damn. I wonder if it was taxi che... taxing in or out?
I was talking to a 4th floor type. I know I know, but here me out. Same source that told me about the 88 focus on hand flying.
But they say the general consensus is 2 777s and 6-12 A330s. I asked, growth or replacement? All growth. I said so are we going to be larger than the 720 jets we have now?
Not necessarily. Is the 88 staying? Yes. So what's leaving if we're adding 717s? No real response. Not sure if they'd thought about it the way I was thinking about it.
I asked about the A321, he went mum. I'm wondering about the 321 now even though I see it painted everywhere.
If SEA became a hub doesn't that kick in some language that would severely limit Alaska and codesharing between our hubs and SEA? Isn't that why SEA was designed a non hub?
Or to put as the PWA puts it, a hub has 100+ Delta departures a day, but regardless of how many SEA has it's not a hub. (PWA 1.A definitions) Then they're freed from the language that limited AS code on DAL hub - DAL hub because SEA is not a hub. Thus the need to ensure SEA is not a hub.
So as I understood it they don't want AS doing LAX-ATL, MSP-ATL, MSP-JFK, etc, but AS can do SEA-LAX (exemption for it to allow it to be 100% Alaska at the time), SEA-ATL, SEA-MSP, etc, because no matter how many departures DAL does out of SEA it's not a hub.
Is that right?
I was talking to a 4th floor type. I know I know, but here me out. Same source that told me about the 88 focus on hand flying.
But they say the general consensus is 2 777s and 6-12 A330s. I asked, growth or replacement? All growth. I said so are we going to be larger than the 720 jets we have now?
Not necessarily. Is the 88 staying? Yes. So what's leaving if we're adding 717s? No real response. Not sure if they'd thought about it the way I was thinking about it.
I asked about the A321, he went mum. I'm wondering about the 321 now even though I see it painted everywhere.
If SEA became a hub doesn't that kick in some language that would severely limit Alaska and codesharing between our hubs and SEA? Isn't that why SEA was designed a non hub?
Or to put as the PWA puts it, a hub has 100+ Delta departures a day, but regardless of how many SEA has it's not a hub. (PWA 1.A definitions) Then they're freed from the language that limited AS code on DAL hub - DAL hub because SEA is not a hub. Thus the need to ensure SEA is not a hub.
So as I understood it they don't want AS doing LAX-ATL, MSP-ATL, MSP-JFK, etc, but AS can do SEA-LAX (exemption for it to allow it to be 100% Alaska at the time), SEA-ATL, SEA-MSP, etc, because no matter how many departures DAL does out of SEA it's not a hub.
Is that right?
WRT ALK and "hub" status, I guess you would be going in the right direction but it'd be better to talk to a scope/code share committee person at your union to dig into the deets on that.
We wouldn't have to worry about SEA's "hub" status if DAL were to try and merge with ALK though!!!!!
#wholenewsetofproblems
06-24-2013, 03:43 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Posts: 1,044
Originally Posted by johnso29
So the departures are forecasted to drop for one month below the minimum required, & you assume they'll remain that way? And why must you assume the compensation will come in the form of $$$? I was speaking of better scope, job protection, etc. I think that's more along the lines of what DALPA is going for. We should know soon.
06-24-2013, 04:02 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
This is what happens when a turbine disc decides to asplode on takeoff:
I'm guessing that they're more serious than average when they go to recurrent.
Treat it like the last real one.
06-24-2013, 04:28 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
Do you really, honestly see us as being 9000 pilots in 5 years? I agree with being on the defensive and ready.... but sheesh, that's way outside of the realm of reality.
DALPA and Mr. Moak will give you a dozen reasons why it could never have been done (and "outsourced RJ flying is good because it feeds our hubs") but all of the Compass jets should now currently be flying as mainline by Delta pilots. I know this has been beat to death already but this last deal that brought economics back to outsourced "RJ" flying....bad, very bad. Your union under the guise of "shrinking" an RJ populous that was going away on its own set us up for a couple more decades of outsourced flying that should have been at mainline. Btw, by some peoples count we are already down near a 1000 pilots that have not been replaced at Delta. Management is signing new JV's and Code shares up as fast as the ink runs through the pen....and buying ownership in other airlines.
My question to you, given your unions attitude and failed policies on scope along with promoting more pay by flying more hours...why not go down to 9000 pilots in five years? Delta likes the idea of "shrinking to profitability" (just listen to every single investor call the last 5 years and ask Gloopy to give you the breakdown of where we are headed), doesn't appear to be interested in competing other than through their JV's and new airline ownerships. Tell me, based upon the evidence and facts (not hearsay of hiring around the corner or rumors of 10 widebodies that wont make that much of an impact on growth if they do come), how you see differently?
06-24-2013, 04:43 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
This is what happens when a turbine disc decides to asplode on takeoff:
06-24-2013, 04:46 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 7ERB
Posts: 2,039
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
Fifteen years ago who would have thought a combined Delta/Northwest pilot list would be missing around 7000 pilots? Of course BK and letting thousands of RJ's out to roost didn't help but if you look at the moves of your national and Delta pilot union you will see many, many missteps that have and continue to contribute to the great shrinking mainline pilot lists.
DALPA and Mr. Moak will give you a dozen reasons why it could never have been done (and "outsourced RJ flying is good because it feeds our hubs") but all of the Compass jets should now currently be flying as mainline by Delta pilots. I know this has been beat to death already but this last deal that brought economics back to outsourced "RJ" flying....bad, very bad. Your union under the guise of "shrinking" an RJ populous that was going away on its own set us up for a couple more decades of outsourced flying that should have been at mainline. Btw, by some peoples count we are already down near a 1000 pilots that have not been replaced at Delta. Management is signing new JV's and Code shares up as fast as the ink runs through the pen....and buying ownership in other airlines.
My question to you, given your unions attitude and failed policies on scope along with promoting more pay by flying more hours...why not go down to 9000 pilots in five years? Delta likes the idea of "shrinking to profitability" (just listen to every single investor call the last 5 years and ask Gloopy to give you the breakdown of where we are headed), doesn't appear to be interested in competing other than through their JV's and new airline ownerships. Tell me, based upon the evidence and facts (not hearsay of hiring around the corner or rumors of 10 widebodies that wont make that much of an impact on growth if they do come), how you see differently?
DALPA and Mr. Moak will give you a dozen reasons why it could never have been done (and "outsourced RJ flying is good because it feeds our hubs") but all of the Compass jets should now currently be flying as mainline by Delta pilots. I know this has been beat to death already but this last deal that brought economics back to outsourced "RJ" flying....bad, very bad. Your union under the guise of "shrinking" an RJ populous that was going away on its own set us up for a couple more decades of outsourced flying that should have been at mainline. Btw, by some peoples count we are already down near a 1000 pilots that have not been replaced at Delta. Management is signing new JV's and Code shares up as fast as the ink runs through the pen....and buying ownership in other airlines.
My question to you, given your unions attitude and failed policies on scope along with promoting more pay by flying more hours...why not go down to 9000 pilots in five years? Delta likes the idea of "shrinking to profitability" (just listen to every single investor call the last 5 years and ask Gloopy to give you the breakdown of where we are headed), doesn't appear to be interested in competing other than through their JV's and new airline ownerships. Tell me, based upon the evidence and facts (not hearsay of hiring around the corner or rumors of 10 widebodies that wont make that much of an impact on growth if they do come), how you see differently?
Even Mr. Anderson implied to Charlie Rose that the future of our beloved Delta is in-organic growth. He does not deny outsourcing. Every letter he writes acknowledges our wonderful partners.
As far as the rumor for 8-18 wide-bodies, we got them!!! Congrats on the newly approved VA JV!!!
DALPA, please wake up. It seems like everything the company does is A-OK. Please grow a pair and reel in our flying.
RA is getting richer and richer. Our pilot group is shrinking and shrinking. What happens when RA decides he has enough for his own family and his net worth is suitable to retire? What will we be left with?
You have to ask yourself, why are other airlines buying new aircraft and growing? Why are we shrinking? Its good to be conservative, but I have a feeling our company is ultra conservative. We are going to miss the boat. UAL and AA (the pilots still have their pensions) will devour us.
Regretfully Worried,
TEN
06-24-2013, 04:49 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,242
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
Man did that come to a stop in a hurry.
06-24-2013, 04:52 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Originally Posted by shiznit
I have no idea what the Company is going to do WRT widebodies, just that the consensus of most of the "in the know" types have said that it is for growth....
WRT ALK and "hub" status, I guess you would be going in the right direction but it'd be better to talk to a scope/code share committee person at your union to dig into the deets on that.
We wouldn't have to worry about SEA's "hub" status if DAL were to try and merge with ALK though!!!!!
#wholenewsetofproblems
WRT ALK and "hub" status, I guess you would be going in the right direction but it'd be better to talk to a scope/code share committee person at your union to dig into the deets on that.
We wouldn't have to worry about SEA's "hub" status if DAL were to try and merge with ALK though!!!!!
#wholenewsetofproblems
1. Wait long enough to get the order in for the so called "Growth" wide body jets....you know "career expectations" and all that the arbitrators use these days to determine pilot integration.
2. Don't wait too long or the continued hiring at Alaska potentially ratios guys at the bottom of our list even lower.
06-24-2013, 04:57 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 7ERB
Posts: 2,039
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
Do you really, honestly see us as being 9000 pilots in 5 years? I agree with being on the defensive and ready.... but sheesh, that's way outside of the realm of reality.
9000 is only a number. Our trend is definitely pointing south and at this rate who knows. Our increasing efficiency, as a pilot group, is going to thin out our pilot group.
I will not be surprised if DAL will become a much smaller airline. Our network will be big under the Skyteam umbrella. Our profits will also be big. Excellent business plan, less CAPEX- more profits. DELTA is on its way to become a virtual airline. DALPA needs to wake up.
TEN
06-24-2013, 05:03 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
Damn. I wonder if it was taxi che... taxing in or out?
I was talking to a 4th floor type. I know I know, but here me out. Same source that told me about the 88 focus on hand flying.
But they say the general consensus is 2 777s and 6-12 A330s. I asked, growth or replacement? All growth. I said so are we going to be larger than the 720 jets we have now?
Not necessarily. Is the 88 staying? Yes. So what's leaving if we're adding 717s? No real response. Not sure if they'd thought about it the way I was thinking about it.
I asked about the A321, he went mum. I'm wondering about the 321 now even though I see it painted everywhere.
If SEA became a hub doesn't that kick in some language that would severely limit Alaska and codesharing between our hubs and SEA? Isn't that why SEA was designed a non hub?
Or to put as the PWA puts it, a hub has 100+ Delta departures a day, but regardless of how many SEA has it's not a hub. (PWA 1.A definitions) Then they're freed from the language that limited AS code on DAL hub - DAL hub because SEA is not a hub. Thus the need to ensure SEA is not a hub.
So as I understood it they don't want AS doing LAX-ATL, MSP-ATL, MSP-JFK, etc, but AS can do SEA-LAX (exemption for it to allow it to be 100% Alaska at the time), SEA-ATL, SEA-MSP, etc, because no matter how many departures DAL does out of SEA it's not a hub.
Is that right?
I was talking to a 4th floor type. I know I know, but here me out. Same source that told me about the 88 focus on hand flying.
But they say the general consensus is 2 777s and 6-12 A330s. I asked, growth or replacement? All growth. I said so are we going to be larger than the 720 jets we have now?
Not necessarily. Is the 88 staying? Yes. So what's leaving if we're adding 717s? No real response. Not sure if they'd thought about it the way I was thinking about it.
I asked about the A321, he went mum. I'm wondering about the 321 now even though I see it painted everywhere.
If SEA became a hub doesn't that kick in some language that would severely limit Alaska and codesharing between our hubs and SEA? Isn't that why SEA was designed a non hub?
Or to put as the PWA puts it, a hub has 100+ Delta departures a day, but regardless of how many SEA has it's not a hub. (PWA 1.A definitions) Then they're freed from the language that limited AS code on DAL hub - DAL hub because SEA is not a hub. Thus the need to ensure SEA is not a hub.
So as I understood it they don't want AS doing LAX-ATL, MSP-ATL, MSP-JFK, etc, but AS can do SEA-LAX (exemption for it to allow it to be 100% Alaska at the time), SEA-ATL, SEA-MSP, etc, because no matter how many departures DAL does out of SEA it's not a hub.
Is that right?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
