Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-21-2014, 08:02 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
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.
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.
i just dont want to leave any gate open because producitivty is a heard of bulls that want out.
05-21-2014, 08:08 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
05-21-2014, 08:08 AM
meh
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 828
When a pilot's schedule is built, it is "full" at a certain CREDIT. When a pilot tries to pick up more flying, it is limited by CREDIT. This results in that pilot being unusable by company and another one must be hired and flown to handle the remaining block the first pilot didn't actually fly but got capped out by similar credit.
This entire discussion revolves around the company's ability to reduce CREDIT hours for the same block hours, perhaps in a couple ways. Less synthetic credit for a 30 hour layover; and maybe flying stuff for PAY NO CREDIT. Allowing the company to reduce credit, while still flying the same actual flights (block) results in fewer pilots and less $$ spent on them by Delta. Bad.
Every time you insist that manning is based on block hours, you lose sight of the entire crux of this costing decision, and where the nut-cutting of whether this is better for us or the company will happen; and you mislead the thought process of other pilots away from "truth".
In this case, I don't think you're probably doing it on purpose, I think you're just so used to saying that incorrect mantra you're maybe missing the critical piece here.
If Delta can fly 100 block hours on certain CREDIT COSTLY routes for say 200 credit hours currently, but by adding split duty and CDOs and some targeted 3 man ops they can operate those routes for a hard-time block of 150, then it's a win for them, and a LOSS FOR US.
Didn't throw in any example, just want you to think on and consider the credit vs. block argument and that Delta's continuing mission is always to reduce credit to equal block. I'm following your posts on this, much useful info, hoping you'll factor this critical and driving goal of Delta into your considerations.
Thx
05-21-2014, 08:11 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 243
Everyone need to tell the REPS to send this thing back.
05-21-2014, 08:12 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
05-21-2014, 08:25 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
I don't think this simplification is true, sailing. Pilot positions are based on CREDIT HOURS. Credit hours do NOT EQUAL block hours... based on them sure, but always more. And the company's goal is to reduce the disparity so that credit hours = block hours (no extra credit). Which means more productivity for us and more work for the same pay.
When a pilot's schedule is built, it is "full" at a certain CREDIT. When a pilot tries to pick up more flying, it is limited by CREDIT. This results in that pilot being unusable by company and another one must be hired and flown to handle the remaining block the first pilot didn't actually fly but got capped out by similar credit.
This entire discussion revolves around the company's ability to reduce CREDIT hours for the same block hours, perhaps in a couple ways. Less synthetic credit for a 30 hour layover; and maybe flying stuff for PAY NO CREDIT. Allowing the company to reduce credit, while still flying the same actual flights (block) results in fewer pilots and less $$ spent on them by Delta. Bad.
Every time you insist that manning is based on block hours, you lose sight of the entire crux of this costing decision, and where the nut-cutting of whether this is better for us or the company will happen; and you mislead the thought process of other pilots away from "truth".
In this case, I don't think you're probably doing it on purpose, I think you're just so used to saying that incorrect mantra you're maybe missing the critical piece here.
If Delta can fly 100 block hours on certain CREDIT COSTLY routes for say 200 credit hours currently, but by adding split duty and CDOs and some targeted 3 man ops they can operate those routes for a hard-time block of 150, then it's a win for them, and a LOSS FOR US.
Didn't throw in any example, just want you to think on and consider the credit vs. block argument and that Delta's continuing mission is always to reduce credit to equal block. I'm following your posts on this, much useful info, hoping you'll factor this critical and driving goal of Delta into your considerations.
Thx
When a pilot's schedule is built, it is "full" at a certain CREDIT. When a pilot tries to pick up more flying, it is limited by CREDIT. This results in that pilot being unusable by company and another one must be hired and flown to handle the remaining block the first pilot didn't actually fly but got capped out by similar credit.
This entire discussion revolves around the company's ability to reduce CREDIT hours for the same block hours, perhaps in a couple ways. Less synthetic credit for a 30 hour layover; and maybe flying stuff for PAY NO CREDIT. Allowing the company to reduce credit, while still flying the same actual flights (block) results in fewer pilots and less $$ spent on them by Delta. Bad.
Every time you insist that manning is based on block hours, you lose sight of the entire crux of this costing decision, and where the nut-cutting of whether this is better for us or the company will happen; and you mislead the thought process of other pilots away from "truth".
In this case, I don't think you're probably doing it on purpose, I think you're just so used to saying that incorrect mantra you're maybe missing the critical piece here.
If Delta can fly 100 block hours on certain CREDIT COSTLY routes for say 200 credit hours currently, but by adding split duty and CDOs and some targeted 3 man ops they can operate those routes for a hard-time block of 150, then it's a win for them, and a LOSS FOR US.
Didn't throw in any example, just want you to think on and consider the credit vs. block argument and that Delta's continuing mission is always to reduce credit to equal block. I'm following your posts on this, much useful info, hoping you'll factor this critical and driving goal of Delta into your considerations.
Thx
Augmented domestic will decrease useful "block" per pilot (as someone is in the rest seat most of the time and taking away a revenue opportunity BE seat), and increase that as essentially "credit" time in the eyes of the company.
On to the CDO:
The CDO's at worst case (for the company), going to trigger a 6:51 credit and 7:30 pay for a max block time of 4:00.
That is a minimum of 3:30 pay and 1:09 monthly credit disparity; much more in reality, the CDO average mathematically can't be at the max, so pay and credit in the trip will go UP as the flight/duty period gets shorter.
The company will try to avoid (they hate paying a trip with credit and will do anything to reduce it). The CDO will only come into play where there is no other option other than having a crew do absolutely NOTHING on a 30 layover that will now pay 5:15 in credit. 3:30+/1:09+ of pay/credit versus 5:15 in credit for no work is better in the eyes of crew staffing.
Crew staffing would MUCH rather have crews fly normal layovers when they can to keep trips in the "block pay" category over the length of the rotation.
Did that make sense?
05-21-2014, 08:26 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
The Virgin Dance begins
Get ready to see a big Virgin in ATL soon.
Delta, Virgin Atlantic announce Atlanta, LA schedules | Travel Daily UK
Delta, Virgin Atlantic announce Atlanta, LA schedules | Travel Daily UK
05-21-2014, 08:49 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: 737 Left
Posts: 1,826
Get ready to see a big Virgin in ATL soon.
Delta, Virgin Atlantic announce Atlanta, LA schedules | Travel Daily UK
Delta, Virgin Atlantic announce Atlanta, LA schedules | Travel Daily UK
05-21-2014, 08:54 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Position: On the hotel shuttle
Posts: 5,840
05-21-2014, 09:00 AM
meh
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 828
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.
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.
This is probably NOT the case. In fact there is a massive hidden gain by the company in just reducing overall pilots. For most businesses, the cost of an employee is almost 50% or more than their salary, when you account for taxes/retirement/insurance/admin-overhead. Every pilot you reduce results in HUGE gains to the company that you are not costing out when you look at this as a "can they fly ATL-SFO turns cheaper with 4 or 3?". Add in the synergistic gains of the company staying marginally away from what may in fact turn out to be the critical limiting factor soon, ability to hire and train pilots to fill positions, the whole picture changes.
You can see that the actual costs to fly/pay for any particular routes may not in fact be the critical factor or goal at all! In fact there may be some ratio of increased per/pilot cost increase vs. pilot's reduced that is better for the company.
Every time someone tries to sell me on how a reduced overall number of pilots needed will be better for me... I know they're absolutely not on MY side. And will probably be just fine with me stagnating at the bottom for another 5 years.
ps. good answer from you up above, I'll have to digest some of that a bit. Lots of good thoughts and ideas on what the company MAY be after here.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
