Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-21-2014, 07:23 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I see what you mean.
But no. It is not cheaper to augment:
Present way:
....
OR modding every 73 and domestic 75 to accommodate Class 3 requirements....the current FC seat pitch would mean the FC seat BEHIND the rest seat would be blocked and the rest seat modified to allow it to recline further and install a proper leg/foot support.
Which means that the Company would lose 2 FC seats anyway and would have to mod a significant number of aircraft (In order to maintain fleet flexibility/spare capability). The cost would be very high indeed to still lose the revenue from two seats that are presently used.
We don't have the numbers, but is the savings of 1 CA versus no gain in revenue seating capacity, mod costs, and fleet disparity will make it rather unlikely that we will see augment there, IMHO.
But no. It is not cheaper to augment:
Present way:
....
OR modding every 73 and domestic 75 to accommodate Class 3 requirements....the current FC seat pitch would mean the FC seat BEHIND the rest seat would be blocked and the rest seat modified to allow it to recline further and install a proper leg/foot support.
Which means that the Company would lose 2 FC seats anyway and would have to mod a significant number of aircraft (In order to maintain fleet flexibility/spare capability). The cost would be very high indeed to still lose the revenue from two seats that are presently used.
We don't have the numbers, but is the savings of 1 CA versus no gain in revenue seating capacity, mod costs, and fleet disparity will make it rather unlikely that we will see augment there, IMHO.
Now forgive me, I went off and built a 5th line in the first "present way" so I didn't mean for it to look like a real PBS award. I just had to move some stuff around. See notes below.
[Note, this is as big as I could get it, you need CTRL+ and CTRL- to zoom in and out on your browser, if you have Apple, I have no idea how your overly expensive computer works
]
Now I am going to put my management hat on, which is appropriate, when I log onto Deltanet it goes to... Corporate. So now I have gravitas.
The way I see it, if I had to cover 1 single ATL-SFO-ATL trip where the airplane flew out and then flew right back 1 hour later, I would have 290 hours of block to cover.
But if I am constrained by the fact that under the PWA I cannot return those pilots (and let's say I have no other flights that day) then I have to give them a 24 hour overnight and make this a 3 day trip worth 13.30. By my estimation I would need 5 As and 5 Bs to cover it for the month and I still have a lot of open time to cover. If the contract allowed me to pay straight time on those open time trips this whole thing costs be $144K before overnight expenses.
If I had to GS those open time trips I pay out $187K.
If I could make them bring it right back then it's a turn worth 10.30. Now the trick is I have to pay for a 3rd FO. But under this scenario I only need 4 As and 8 Bs and the good thing is from my management hat on perspective I only have 1 trip in open time.
Cost to me $160K. If I GS that one trip $170K.
So it's cheaper to run it under the PWA and I only need 10 pilots under the PWA. Under the TA I would need 12 pilots and it costs more. That's what seems like the win.
Except that's 1 fewer A. Multiply this over 7 routes per day with the same constraints and now I go from needing 40 As under the PWA to 29 As under the TA, or 80 PWA pilots vs 87 TA pilots. Is that a win? Put everything to the side, what if that was what was offered, 8% growth in total pilots but 27% loss in As, is what a win? I could see it argued either way.
Now multiply this out and yeah, it's 12% more expensive to run it with the TA than PWA and the PWA has hotel costs and you saved on costs. But to me we've lost Captain positions. I'm not sure if that's a win but I'm open to changing my mind that it's a win if the TA is very restrictive but even then, it's eh on this subject. Although that TA schedule looks appetizing.
---
Also, I do wonder if the modification to get a 40 degrees of pitch and a spongebob in would be easier than losing 2 FC seats.
05-21-2014, 07:26 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Anyone at the meeting wanna update us?
I'm with flyallnite, where's the language?
(My guess is after the up, if up...but before the memory rat discussion.)
I'm with flyallnite, where's the language?
(My guess is after the up, if up...but before the memory rat discussion.)
05-21-2014, 07:32 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
As I understand it, the TA requires Delta to negotiate with us in order to augment on an aircraft that does not currently have an approved rest seat in the PWA. As none of our current domestic aircraft First Class seats recline anywhere close to 40 degrees, I do not believe that they would qualify as a Class 3 rest facility under the FARs.
e. on the B-757 aircraft the pilot relief seat will:
1) be a Business Class seat.
2) include a leg rest support that:
a) is adjustable to horizontal,
b) is padded and upholstered,
3) include an adjustable headrest extension
4) include a curtain that will be in compliance with the Joint Recommendations of 19 the B-757 Crew Rest Optimization Team, dated May 2007.
1) be a Business Class seat.
2) include a leg rest support that:
a) is adjustable to horizontal,
b) is padded and upholstered,
3) include an adjustable headrest extension
4) include a curtain that will be in compliance with the Joint Recommendations of 19 the B-757 Crew Rest Optimization Team, dated May 2007.
05-21-2014, 07:33 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,388
I understand and I completely get that the cost per the trip would be more expensive with 3 pilots. I don't dispute that on a leg by leg basis. But I think we would need fewer Captains in the month to cover the trips under the TA then we do now.
Now forgive me, I went off and built a 5th line in the first "present way" so I didn't mean for it to look like a real PBS award. I just had to move some stuff around. See notes below.
[Note, this is as big as I could get it, you need CTRL+ and CTRL- to zoom in and out on your browser, if you have Apple, I have no idea how your overly expensive computer works]
Now I am going to put my management hat on, which is appropriate, when I log onto Deltanet it goes to... Corporate. So now I have gravitas.
The way I see it, if I had to cover 1 single ATL-SFO-ATL trip where the airplane flew out and then flew right back 1 hour later, I would have 290 hours of block to cover.
But if I am constrained by the fact that under the PWA I cannot return those pilots (and let's say I have no other flights that day) then I have to give them a 24 hour overnight and make this a 3 day trip worth 13.30. By my estimation I would need 5 As and 5 Bs to cover it for the month and I still have a lot of open time to cover. If the contract allowed me to pay straight time on those open time trips this whole thing costs be $144K before overnight expenses.
If I had to GS those open time trips I pay out $187K.
If I could make them bring it right back then it's a turn worth 10.30. Now the trick is I have to pay for a 3rd FO. But under this scenario I only need 4 As and 8 Bs and the good thing is from my management hat on perspective I only have 1 trip in open time.
Cost to me $160K. If I GS that one trip $170K.
So it's cheaper to run it under the PWA and I only need 10 pilots under the PWA. Under the TA I would need 12 pilots and it costs more. That's what seems like the win.
Except that's 1 fewer A. Multiply this over 7 routes per day with the same constraints and now I go from needing 40 As under the PWA to 29 As under the TA, or 80 PWA pilots vs 87 TA pilots. Is that a win? Put everything to the side, what if that was what was offered, 8% growth in total pilots but 27% loss in As, is what a win? I could see it argued either way.
Now multiply this out and yeah, it's 12% more expensive to run it with the TA than PWA and you saved on costs. But to me we've lost Captain positions. I'm not sure if that's a win but I'm open to changing my mind that it's a win if the TA is very restrictive but even then, it's eh. Although that TA schedule looks appetizing.
---
Also, I do wonder if the modification to get a 40 degrees of pitch and a spongebob in would be easier than losing 2 FC seats.
Now forgive me, I went off and built a 5th line in the first "present way" so I didn't mean for it to look like a real PBS award. I just had to move some stuff around. See notes below.
[Note, this is as big as I could get it, you need CTRL+ and CTRL- to zoom in and out on your browser, if you have Apple, I have no idea how your overly expensive computer works
]Now I am going to put my management hat on, which is appropriate, when I log onto Deltanet it goes to... Corporate. So now I have gravitas.
The way I see it, if I had to cover 1 single ATL-SFO-ATL trip where the airplane flew out and then flew right back 1 hour later, I would have 290 hours of block to cover.
But if I am constrained by the fact that under the PWA I cannot return those pilots (and let's say I have no other flights that day) then I have to give them a 24 hour overnight and make this a 3 day trip worth 13.30. By my estimation I would need 5 As and 5 Bs to cover it for the month and I still have a lot of open time to cover. If the contract allowed me to pay straight time on those open time trips this whole thing costs be $144K before overnight expenses.
If I had to GS those open time trips I pay out $187K.
If I could make them bring it right back then it's a turn worth 10.30. Now the trick is I have to pay for a 3rd FO. But under this scenario I only need 4 As and 8 Bs and the good thing is from my management hat on perspective I only have 1 trip in open time.
Cost to me $160K. If I GS that one trip $170K.
So it's cheaper to run it under the PWA and I only need 10 pilots under the PWA. Under the TA I would need 12 pilots and it costs more. That's what seems like the win.
Except that's 1 fewer A. Multiply this over 7 routes per day with the same constraints and now I go from needing 40 As under the PWA to 29 As under the TA, or 80 PWA pilots vs 87 TA pilots. Is that a win? Put everything to the side, what if that was what was offered, 8% growth in total pilots but 27% loss in As, is what a win? I could see it argued either way.
Now multiply this out and yeah, it's 12% more expensive to run it with the TA than PWA and you saved on costs. But to me we've lost Captain positions. I'm not sure if that's a win but I'm open to changing my mind that it's a win if the TA is very restrictive but even then, it's eh. Although that TA schedule looks appetizing.
---
Also, I do wonder if the modification to get a 40 degrees of pitch and a spongebob in would be easier than losing 2 FC seats.
Pilot positions are based on block hours. They don't change with turns. We will not lose Captains. The company will not fly augmented turns except perhaps some mil charters or cities where a layover is unsafe.
05-21-2014, 07:35 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
I understand and I completely get that the cost per the trip would be more expensive with 3 pilots. I don't dispute that on a leg by leg basis. But I think we would need fewer Captains in the month to cover the trips under the TA then we do now.
Now forgive me, I went off and built a 5th line in the first "present way" so I didn't mean for it to look like a real PBS award. I just had to move some stuff around. See notes below.
[Note, this is as big as I could get it, you need CTRL+ and CTRL- to zoom in and out on your browser, if you have Apple, I have no idea how your overly expensive computer works]
Now I am going to put my management hat on, which is appropriate, when I log onto Deltanet it goes to... Corporate. So now I have gravitas.
The way I see it, if I had to cover 1 single ATL-SFO-ATL trip where the airplane flew out and then flew right back 1 hour later, I would have 290 hours of block to cover.
But if I am constrained by the fact that under the PWA I cannot return those pilots (and let's say I have no other flights that day) then I have to give them a 24 hour overnight and make this a 3 day trip worth 13.30. By my estimation I would need 5 As and 5 Bs to cover it for the month and I still have a lot of open time to cover. If the contract allowed me to pay straight time on those open time trips this whole thing costs be $144K before overnight expenses.
If I had to GS those open time trips I pay out $187K.
If I could make them bring it right back then it's a turn worth 10.30. Now the trick is I have to pay for a 3rd FO. But under this scenario I only need 4 As and 8 Bs and the good thing is from my management hat on perspective I only have 1 trip in open time.
Cost to me $160K. If I GS that one trip $170K.
So it's cheaper to run it under the PWA and I only need 10 pilots under the PWA. Under the TA I would need 12 pilots and it costs more. That's what seems like the win.
Except that's 1 fewer A. Multiply this over 7 routes per day with the same constraints and now I go from needing 40 As under the PWA to 29 As under the TA, or 80 pilots vs 87.
Now multiply this out and yea, it's 12% more expensive to run it with the TA than PWA and you saved on costs. But to me we've lost Captain positions. I'm not sure if that's a win but I'm open to changing my mind that it's a win if the TA is very restrictive but even then, it's eh. Although that TA schedule looks appetizing.
---
Also, I do wonder if the modification to get a 40 degrees of pitch and a spongebob in would be easier than losing 2 FC seats.
Now forgive me, I went off and built a 5th line in the first "present way" so I didn't mean for it to look like a real PBS award. I just had to move some stuff around. See notes below.
[Note, this is as big as I could get it, you need CTRL+ and CTRL- to zoom in and out on your browser, if you have Apple, I have no idea how your overly expensive computer works
]Now I am going to put my management hat on, which is appropriate, when I log onto Deltanet it goes to... Corporate. So now I have gravitas.
The way I see it, if I had to cover 1 single ATL-SFO-ATL trip where the airplane flew out and then flew right back 1 hour later, I would have 290 hours of block to cover.
But if I am constrained by the fact that under the PWA I cannot return those pilots (and let's say I have no other flights that day) then I have to give them a 24 hour overnight and make this a 3 day trip worth 13.30. By my estimation I would need 5 As and 5 Bs to cover it for the month and I still have a lot of open time to cover. If the contract allowed me to pay straight time on those open time trips this whole thing costs be $144K before overnight expenses.
If I had to GS those open time trips I pay out $187K.
If I could make them bring it right back then it's a turn worth 10.30. Now the trick is I have to pay for a 3rd FO. But under this scenario I only need 4 As and 8 Bs and the good thing is from my management hat on perspective I only have 1 trip in open time.
Cost to me $160K. If I GS that one trip $170K.
So it's cheaper to run it under the PWA and I only need 10 pilots under the PWA. Under the TA I would need 12 pilots and it costs more. That's what seems like the win.
Except that's 1 fewer A. Multiply this over 7 routes per day with the same constraints and now I go from needing 40 As under the PWA to 29 As under the TA, or 80 pilots vs 87.
Now multiply this out and yea, it's 12% more expensive to run it with the TA than PWA and you saved on costs. But to me we've lost Captain positions. I'm not sure if that's a win but I'm open to changing my mind that it's a win if the TA is very restrictive but even then, it's eh. Although that TA schedule looks appetizing.
---
Also, I do wonder if the modification to get a 40 degrees of pitch and a spongebob in would be easier than losing 2 FC seats.
The place I see it differently is that the company doesn't think in A/B positions; they look at overall pilot costs. It may be less overall "A" but if the total cost to run the operation is more, it benefits the company to fill the "A" positions to run an equally effective and less expensive operation (plus the BE seat revenue benefit).
Revenue - cost = profit
The company is interested in results, and not as much how we get there. When Henne-roed and Hummel show SD/RA it's still cheaper to use two/two and not three for a round trip.. I bet I know what RA will choose.
05-21-2014, 07:40 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
Posts: 1,898
Delta just made a bold move WRT insourcing data management. This should really take the stops off developing an entirely new technology backbone to replace the Atari 2600 we're currently using.
05-21-2014, 07:43 AM
Get's Every Day Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 1,860
05-21-2014, 07:50 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
Has anyone sat down and compared current PWA with straight FAR?
I'm pretty sure the PWA limits trump the 117 FDP limits with early/late reports. I know I have run up at this limit several times...
Cheers
George
I'm pretty sure the PWA limits trump the 117 FDP limits with early/late reports. I know I have run up at this limit several times...
Cheers
George
05-21-2014, 07:56 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Why does it have to be a 24 hour layover? You fly out on A day and back on B day. Zero credit and same value as the turn. Some rotations will be like that and others will simply integrate the legs into longer trips. The company is not going to build any 3 day two leg trips with the 5:15 daily minimum.
Pilot positions are based on block hours. They don't change with turns. We will not lose Captains. The company will not fly augmented turns except perhaps some mil charters or cities where a layover is unsafe.
Pilot positions are based on block hours. They don't change with turns. We will not lose Captains. The company will not fly augmented turns except perhaps some mil charters or cities where a layover is unsafe.
05-21-2014, 08:00 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,234
Looks like we got some flying for the LA guys. Taking over one of Virgins' flights from LHR-LAX and giving up one LHR-ATL. Good for LA bad for ATL. Nevermind, not sure who will do the LAX flights for Delta, didn't say what airframe. Might be a crew DH into LA like the SYD flight.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
