Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1488115)

Although I will say this, saying that we sold scope might be harsh, it's more like we got willfully snookered on scope.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1488130)

If a 50 seater doesn't make any profit, why did management want to keep 125 of them?:rolleyes: Oh, and that's with a management goal of a 10-12% operating margin...

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1488132)

You came from the regionals, right?:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by dalad (Post 1488135)

Yep, he did.

Originally Posted by LeineLodge (Post 1488094)

It doesn't matter once profit exceeds $2.5B - anything above is paid out at 20%. The "worst case", if you want to look at it that way, is if DL makes exactly $2.5B.

To keep the math easy, lets say $2.5B used to be (prior to C2012) worth $15 in profit sharing to the pilot group. Now under C2012 its worth $10. We lose a full $5 in profit sharing (the company gains the max advantage of the profit sharing reduction.) This $5 is roughly equal to 2% in pilot pay for the year.

Now, lets say DL only makes $1.25B (half of the example above.). Under C2012 this is worth $5 to the pilot group in profit sharing. But now, since we converted 5% to our hourly rates, you still get the $5 from above, bringing us to a net of $10. Under the old contract, the profit sharing would have been equivalent to $7.50 - or $2.50 less than C2012.

If DL loses money, or breaks even, you still get the $5. At this end of the range Delta received the minimum benefit of the reduction, as they saved nothing but still had to pay us the $5 that was turned into pilot pay rates. Bottom line it takes some of our risk out of the equation.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1488138)

IIRC, he was chief pilot at a corporate flight department when he got hired at DL.

What does where he came from have to do with it?

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1488114)

We increased the cap on 50+ seat aircraft from 255 to 325 and allowed more 76-seaters than was previously allowed under the old PWA given mainlines size because we dropped a fleet size requirement for a BH ratio that didn't require flying to be transferred. Just for DCI to shrink the jets EB refereed to as a lesser product, inefficient and takes up space.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1488132)

You came from the regionals, right?:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by dalad (Post 1488135)

No he did not.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1488138)

IIRC, he was chief pilot at a corporate flight department when he got hired at DL.

What does where he came from have to do with it?

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1488150)

But where was he before that? ;)

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 1488134)

125 of them are under long term contracts that Delta couldn't get out of, yet. Furthermore, why would management give back any scope the weren't required to? I'm sure if an efficient replacement comes along for the 200, they will be purchased for some markets.

We had several passengers this summer collapse due to heat stroke after flying on the 200, none on the 900.