Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)
-   -   Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Wilbur Wright 06-29-2014 03:45 PM


Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1674430)
I might add an hour plus to that 13 hours. SEA-HKG is blocked at 14:14. 4 day trip total 27:13.

Denny

Denny,

Good point. I originally said 13-14, but to be safe dumped the 14 and added "comfortably." (And block is more than flight time)

Carl Spackler 06-29-2014 04:33 PM


Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1673922)
But don't forget the $400M per year more in pilot costs that this way costs them.

Don't forget those $400 million in increased pilot costs were more than offset by over $400 million in pilot concessions. That's why management refers to our contract as not only cost neutral, but allows them to invest in initiatives to benefit other employee groups at Delta.

It's good to know that with our help, all other employees at Delta are back to their pre-bankruptcy wages.

Carl

Carl Spackler 06-29-2014 04:40 PM


Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1673835)
The total number of allowed 76 seat jets was reduced in contract 2012.


Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1673853)
Technically, yes, but not universally. As it was, we were frozen at 153, with no way to increase without trading in an equal number of 70-seaters AND increasing mainline airframes above a certain number. Now, Delta can add 76-seaters simply by buying 717's (which they arguably might have done anyway) without having to trade in 70-seaters.

Why do you continue to make a fool of yourself sailingfun? I know you and that old guard MEC admin thinks you can get away with such blatantly distorted posts because the issue is too complex, and people will just believe you. Alan's posts and the others should show you that tactic doesn't fly in the new world of social media. Yet you stubbornly persist. Why?

Carl

shiznit 06-29-2014 05:30 PM


Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1674476)
Don't forget those $400 million in increased pilot costs were more than offset by over $400 million in pilot concessions. That's why management refers to our contract as not only cost neutral, but allows them to invest in initiatives to benefit other employee groups at Delta.

It's good to know that with our help, all other employees at Delta are back to their pre-bankruptcy wages.

Carl

It is simply not correct Carl, and just because you keep saying it over and over again doesn't change that truth.

The $400 million is the NET (as in after all the pluses and minuses) increase in YOY costs that are now enriching the bank accounts of Delta Pilots.

Let me repeat it for others, because you really don't get it: DAL reduced a couple hundred million in DCI expenses on one part of their ledger and that amount was then put into the pilot PWA.

Cost neutral to the overall enterprise but significantly cost positive to the Delta pilots.

badflaps 06-29-2014 06:03 PM

I don't know what the big deal is with the 76 seaters, there doesn't seem to be any less than eighty people going anywhere. Eventually even the company will figure that one out. I sure would like to know what the load factor is for the 717.

Gomerglideslope 06-29-2014 06:18 PM


Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1674482)
Why do you continue to make a fool of yourself sailingfun? I know you and that old guard MEC admin thinks you can get away with such blatantly distorted posts because the issue is too complex, and people will just believe you. Alan's posts and the others should show you that tactic doesn't fly in the new world of social media. Yet you stubbornly persist. Why?

Carl

Not sure why you hurl insults like that. I don't come around here much, but like it or not Sailing comes off as a good bit more intelligent than you do (no offense intended because the real Carl Spackler is a national treasure)...and as someone just pointed out, you continue to trot out discredited canards, I suppose to attract adherents to a view that is eroding more quickly every day...but I'm sure a successful DPA vote is imminent and will change all that...."Freeze Gopher"

Carl Spackler 06-29-2014 06:20 PM


Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1674527)
It is simply not correct Carl, and just because you keep saying it over and over again doesn't change that truth.

It is exactly true shiznit. No matter how many times you MEC types want to define over and over again what management said, management said it. They've never taken it back. We're seeing the results today.


Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1674527)
The $400 million is the NET (as in after all the pluses and minuses) increase in YOY costs that are now enriching the bank accounts of Delta Pilots.

That number changes constantly from you MEC types. Why? Because you've made it up. You won't show your numbers any more than you'll show the survey results from the last contract. Nobody's buying it.


Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1674527)
Let me repeat it for others, because you really don't get it: DAL reduced a couple hundred million in DCI expenses on one part of their ledger and that amount was then put into the pilot PWA.

I'll repeat what mangement said because I know it's your job to spin. Management said our contract was cost neutral. But they went further. They said that the pilot's contract was so "good" that it would provide for Delta being able to invest in initiatives that would benefit other employee groups at Delta. We're seeing that now with all other employee groups being back to their pre-bankruptcy wages.


Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1674527)
Cost neutral to the overall enterprise but significantly cost positive to the Delta pilots.

No matter how often you want to redefine this with statements and numbers you can't possibly back up, it's just not true. Maybe we'll be getting a thank you from the other employee groups for our concessions.

Carl

Carl Spackler 06-29-2014 06:22 PM


Originally Posted by Gomerglideslope (Post 1674558)
Not sure why you hurl insults like that. I don't come around here much, but like it or not Sailing comes off as a good bit more intelligent than you do (no offense intended because the real Carl Spackler is a national treasure)...and as someone just pointed out, you continue to trot out discredited canards, I suppose to attract adherents to a view that is eroding more quickly every day...but I'm sure a successful DPA vote is imminent and will change all that...."Freeze Gopher"

You need to change your talking points Gomer. DPA has nothing to do with this. Never has. Try to stay on topic.

Carl

sailingfun 06-29-2014 06:32 PM


Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1674482)
Why do you continue to make a fool of yourself sailingfun? I know you and that old guard MEC admin thinks you can get away with such blatantly distorted posts because the issue is too complex, and people will just believe you. Alan's posts and the others should show you that tactic doesn't fly in the new world of social media. Yet you stubbornly persist. Why?

Carl

The poster stated we increased the allowed number of 76 seaters. That was not the case and all I stated. In fact based on the newest fleet plan they could have the number of 76 seaters they seem content with under the old or new contract.

80ktsClamp 06-29-2014 06:37 PM


Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1674572)
The poster stated we increased the allowed number of 76 seaters. That was not the case and all I stated. In fact based on the newest fleet plan they could have the number of 76 seaters they seem content with under the old or new contract.

IF and ONLY IF they parked 70 seaters. Those are aircraft that they want to keep.

You're only reemphasizing my continued assertion that you are just awful at analysis.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:11 AM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands