Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1648098)

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.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1648136)

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 ;)]
http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...psc372a7a9.png

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.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1648136)

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 ;)]
http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...psc372a7a9.png

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.

Originally Posted by NWA320pilot (Post 1648127)

Hidden away with our last contract surveys.......:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1648151)

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.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1648154)

I see that, my napkin math compatriot!

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.