Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
06-23-2014 | 08:23 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Likes: 0
I know I know. Production balances and all. Look backs. Compliance.
When will the final verdict be in ?
06-23-2014 | 08:24 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 1
I think your are taking that to too much of an extreme. And sorry, but I don't buy the whole responsibility for XX number of lives as making any one pilots' job "worth" more than another's. Sorry, I just don't. Carl might think he is more important then you or me, but the AJC will still use the same font for it's headline if you or I bend metal. So using that as a metric for determining pay... again... imho.. is pure folly and short sighted.
Take Carl's pay being more than yours for example. Sure, maybe it doesn't make much sense.
But as far as life insurance policies and true spreadsheet "value" of what's on board, Carl's got ~400 people worth and you've got ~250 people worth and both of those are still an extremely steep ratio to a cargo plane with 2, 3, maybe 4 people on board.
400-to-3 is a 133 to 1 ratio.
250-to-3 is a 83 to 1 ratio.
Both are in the neighborhood of 100-to-1.
So, in this method of comparison, which is exactly what the FAA used to justify not making the 117 rules apply to cargo, even you and Carl and even most 717s and RJs are basically in the same league up against an MD-11.
The point: if it's about what's being carried, which you brought up with the diversion example, then the pax planes are carried way, way, way more valuable goods.
06-23-2014 | 08:29 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Likes: 0
I think your are taking that to too much of an extreme. And sorry, but I don't buy the whole responsibility for XX number of lives as making any one pilots' job "worth" more than another's. Sorry, I just don't. Carl might think he is more important then you or me, but the AJC will still use the same font for it's headline if you or I bend metal. So using that as a metric for determining pay... again... imho.. is pure folly and short sighted. Or maybe we should be paid for the number of people that are actually on the airplane if the responsibility for human lives is how you think we should be paid. I think the MD88 would go amazingly senior if that were the case. I think the point of a UPS/FDX comparison as far as management is concerned is from a business perspective in terms of profitability and excellence of those businesses. I think management is tired of the constant cyclical swings of this industry and are really working hard to break that cycle. Consolidation has helped immensely. The fees of which you speak are also a method to do that. As an added bonus it gets the gubbamint out of our wallet. IMHO, kudos for that.
With FAR 117 upon us now, I think we should be paid a "Federal regulatory recovery fee" in addition to our Current pay. Passengers don't think twice about them now at the hotel front desk or car rental counter.
This fee would be added to each ticket, per segment and labeled as such. It would then go directly to the pilots. Add that to our current pay and no one would be talking about restoration.
Talk about management twisting into a pretzel to explain it to those working on the other side of our door.
Last edited by TheManager; 06-23-2014 at 08:44 AM.
06-23-2014 | 08:30 AM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
Your logic is flawed though.
Take Carl's pay being more than yours for example. Sure, maybe it doesn't make much sense.
But as far as life insurance policies and true spreadsheet "value" of what's on board, Carl's got ~400 people worth and you've got ~250 people worth and both of those are still an extremely steep ratio to a cargo plane with 2, 3, maybe 4 people on board.
400-to-3 is a 133 to 1 ratio.
250-to-3 is a 83 to 1 ratio.
Both are in the neighborhood of 100-to-1.
So, in this method of comparison, which is exactly what the FAA used to justify not making the 117 rules apply to cargo, even you and Carl and even most 717s and RJs are basically in the same league up against an MD-11.
The point: if it's about what's being carried, which you brought up with the diversion example, then the pax planes are carried way, way, way more valuable goods.
Take Carl's pay being more than yours for example. Sure, maybe it doesn't make much sense.
But as far as life insurance policies and true spreadsheet "value" of what's on board, Carl's got ~400 people worth and you've got ~250 people worth and both of those are still an extremely steep ratio to a cargo plane with 2, 3, maybe 4 people on board.
400-to-3 is a 133 to 1 ratio.
250-to-3 is a 83 to 1 ratio.
Both are in the neighborhood of 100-to-1.
So, in this method of comparison, which is exactly what the FAA used to justify not making the 117 rules apply to cargo, even you and Carl and even most 717s and RJs are basically in the same league up against an MD-11.
The point: if it's about what's being carried, which you brought up with the diversion example, then the pax planes are carried way, way, way more valuable goods.
Let me get my M88 bid in on the next AE.
06-23-2014 | 08:33 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
The only thing dumber than spending big time money to commit to the long term business model of the world's largest 50 seat fleet that they couldn't staff anyway even if they were willing to fly their network with the most uncomfortable and insanely expensive seats in the industry (i.e. the mother of all empty threats) would have been to have furloughed 1200 pilots in 2012. We can barely handle the flying network gave us hiring 100 a month with all hands in the fleet on deck pushing a 100%+ oad factor (slightly exagerated but not much) as it is. Just when exactly could they have furloughed 1200 pilots only to immediately recall 1200 pilots, far, far, far under the typical 2 year "ROI" footprint for even a much smaller furlough.
So while you were only saying we were 200 fat instead of 1200, furloughing even that amount of pilots would have been a costly blunder.
06-23-2014 | 08:37 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 1
You gave an example of a diversion.
I gave an example of life value on board.
You still think a FDX pilot carrying envelopes deserves to be paid more for doing the same job that you are carrying billions in life insurance policies, not to mention the true "value" of someone's life?
06-23-2014 | 08:39 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,039
Likes: 0
From: 7ERB
06-23-2014 | 08:48 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
That is a fair question, but I think it boils down to the gubbamint "getting theirs". I think everybody that is paying attention now realizes that government backed student loans are what's driving the out of control costs of university education. The curves have finally crossed where those loans are no longer serviceable for degrees like women's studies and 19th century French Poetry. So like everything else now in a socialist government, it has essentially become an entitlement.... actually, for those WITH loans, it is slavery. Exactly what the current administration wants. I digress. So individuals are held to those agreements because the government gets theirs, but in the case of corporations, they can break agreements with third parties if necessary for "survival". It ain't fair, I agree, but that is what it is.... unfortunately. Actually, I don;t think student loans should be bankruptable. If Susie schoolteacher goes to Harvard to get her certificate, and only makes $20K/year, well she made a bad choice, and it ain't MY responsibility to pay for her mistake.
Big Ed is going to have to take a huge haircut. More like a full body shave. Paying 6 figures for a reading list of free stuff online and in libraries knowing full well there is no job at the end of it just to extend your childhood is just dumb. Forking that much over so your kids can do it is even dumber. We're cresting the hill of the crisis and yet still learning has not occured.
06-23-2014 | 08:49 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,039
Likes: 0
From: 7ERB
You bring up an interesting data point. American has 17 billion in total debt.
Delta has 9.4 billion in adjusted net debt.
American was able to put up better profit numbers while servicing a little less than twice the debt Delta has.
It is considered unwise actually to carry the amount of cash American has. (Think the beach boys my northern bros) It has a better use than sitting in a bank. If they paid down 8 billion in debt tomorrow and carried the remainder in cash they have almost identical debt and cash on hand numbers to Delta.
They have some integration costs to consider though going forward. That being said, they are able to generate incredible revenue even still.
They will be a strong number one for some time.
Delta has 9.4 billion in adjusted net debt.
American was able to put up better profit numbers while servicing a little less than twice the debt Delta has.
It is considered unwise actually to carry the amount of cash American has. (Think the beach boys my northern bros) It has a better use than sitting in a bank. If they paid down 8 billion in debt tomorrow and carried the remainder in cash they have almost identical debt and cash on hand numbers to Delta.
They have some integration costs to consider though going forward. That being said, they are able to generate incredible revenue even still.
They will be a strong number one for some time.
AAL-45billion
DAL-40billion
UAL-33billion
Yahoo Finance Balance sheets.
TEN
06-23-2014 | 08:51 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
There is no way RA is going to fall for it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
