|
|
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1674618)
Wrong. They were largely (but not completely) offset by revenue enhancements from the fleet upgauging that may or may not have happened anyway, and from maintenance savings on 50-seaters that they might or might not have parked anyway.
The $400M in increased pilot costs is a net figure as far as what we directly cost Delta. |
Originally Posted by badflaps
(Post 1674549)
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.
A) I am surprised, shocked, confused, when we're not 98+12=110 (full). We seem to always be full. B) We are doing some RJ routes, but, we are doing a lot of the same routes I did on the MD-88 and I don't remember being empty on the 149 seat MD-88 while doing them. Such as, ATL-IAH/HOU/EWR/SAV/ORD/JAN/EWR/BNA/EWR/JAN/CLT/EWR/TYS/EWR/CHS/SAV/HSV/EWR/MYR/CLE/EWR/PIT/EWR/LEX/JAN. Did I by chance mention EWR? Just one mans observation though. |
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.
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. Absolutely correct. C2012 added $268 million dollars in costs on Day 1. It added $1 billion over 3 years. Some folks think that when management states the contract was cost neutral it implies that C2012 cost the same as our previous contract. That's an incorrect assumption. It's similar to when the 737-900ER purchase was announced and labeled as "capacity neutral." 50 seaters out, and 737-900ERs in. Capacity neutral, yet mainline growth. A contract which is cost neutral to Delta does not mean the contract is not more expensive than the last. |
Just had an 19 Jul rotation removed from my line, 23K no note, but appears to be from a 100 in 28 conflict caused by the Res rotation I was just assigned on 27 Jun. Do I have any recovery obligation under this or did I just get a free trip?
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1674575)
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. |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1674606)
That is friggn' hilarious! I watched a couple matches today, and the amount of flopping was obscene! I only wish it were from sniper fire! Thanks for the laugh 80K!
I'd play soccer. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1674630)
You might want to look at the number of 76 seaters the company is now planning to operate and then look at how many they could have operated with a mainline fleet of 850 aircraft under the old contract.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1674630)
You might want to look at the number of 76 seaters the company is now planning to operate and then look at how many they could have operated with a mainline fleet of 850 aircraft under the old contract.
Before C2012, yes the 76 seater count could have increased once mainline aircraft got above 767. BUT... and this is the key part... they would have had to park a 70 seater for each 76 seater added. C2012 allowed them to add more 76 seaters without parking 70 seaters. Yes, the overall total possible 76 seaters previously was technically more, but they would have had to park most of the 70 seaters to get to that level. Capish? |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1674606)
That is friggn' hilarious! I watched a couple matches today, and the amount of flopping was obscene! I only wish it were from sniper fire! Thanks for the laugh 80K!
|
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1674606)
That is friggn' hilarious! I watched a couple matches today, and the amount of flopping was obscene! I only wish it were from sniper fire! Thanks for the laugh 80K!
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:47 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands