|
|
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1678143)
From (in general terms) what level of the rumor mill?
I don't believe it, if even remotely true. Also when you read the ways to achieve SCS the new wrinkle is we are doing their hiring. Along with the fact that management pretends it's Delta in every way. To qualify among other things, HR needs to overlap. Other factors, maintenance, res, ground service (DGS), etc. If true, many factors favoring the granting of SCS. I would give it 50/50. 70/30 if RA were not CEO. Hearing rumblings from National, Endeavor and DALPA. |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1678161)
Doesn't sound too plausible unless there is some new issue with the regional pilot shortage and DCI **** poor embarrassing performance.
Also when you read the ways to achieve SCS the new wrinkle is we are doing their hiring. Along with the fact that management pretends it's Delta in every way. To qualify among other things, HR needs to overlap. Other factors, maintenance, res, ground service (DGS), etc. If true, many factors favoring the granting of SCS. I would give it 50/50. 70/30 if RA were not CEO. Hearing rumblings from National, Endeavor and DALPA. |
Air and Space 747
Delta acquired its 16 jumbos in 2009 when it merged with Northwest. Nat Pieper, Delta’s vice president of fleet strategy, says at the time, executives took a hard look at how much life was left in the -400s, which ranged in age from seven to 20 years, and asked, “How much would it cost when the time came for heavy maintenance?” and “What was the economic benefit of owning the airplanes?”
“We pay attention to the ownership and the fixed cost when we are evaluating the cost of operating the 747 between now and the end of the decade,” Pieper explains. “Yes, a Boeing 777 or an A330, a twin- versus a four-engine, is much more fuel-efficient, and the maintenance cost is less as well. But we sleep well at night because we know what the ownership advantage is” in having perhaps the world’s most recognizable airliner. Delta, in fact, plays up the 747’s glamour. It has 1,300 airliners in its fleet, and most of them look the same. But the 747, Pieper says, is “a great flagship.” Many of the airline’s ads feature the airplane that constitutes less than one percent of the fleet. Read more: 747: The World?s Airliner | Flight Today | Air & Space Magazine Save 47% when you subscribe to Air & Space magazine http://bit.ly/NaSX4X Follow us: @AirSpaceMag on Twitter |
Originally Posted by Wingnutdal
(Post 1678023)
Carl
I'm sure someone as smart and self assured as you seem to be realizes that ASMs are not the correct way to measure pilot productivity. You went to all of that effort and were comparing the wrong metrics! Good job with finding all of the ASMs and using your calculator.
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1677913)
Let's start with your graph of "pilots required":
From Jan 2013 to Dec 2013 we went from 9,650 "pilots required" to 9,720 "pilots required". A gain of 0.7%. From Jan 2013 to Dec 2013 our airline grew Available Seat Miles (ASM's) from 230,415 million to 232,740 million (Source: Statista). A gain of 1%. If our "required pilots" had kept up with the growth of the airline, our Dec 2013 "pilots required" number should have been 9,746...but we were 26 pilots short. This partly reflects our productivity concessions in C2012 which requires less pilots. From Jan 2014 to March 2014 we went from 9,780 "pilots required" to 9,900 "pilots required". A gain of 1.2%. From Jan 2014 to Mar 2014 our airline grew ASM's at 3% (Source: 1Q2014 10Q). If our "required pilots" had kept up with the growth of the airline, our Mar 2014 "pilots required" should have been 10,073...but we were 173 pilots short. This shows the accelerating value of our productivity concessions requiring a greater rate of less pilots as the airline grew. Keep in mind that in the above, we grew the airline by adding ASM's in smaller aircraft while removing them in larger aircraft. This should have required even more pilots, but again our productivity concessions helps this to not happen. Alfa, your entire premise ignores the growth of the airline in the stated time period. I'm sure it was just accidental. There's a more interesting point to make next, but I'll do so in response to a post from sailingfun. Carl |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1677940)
Show one place where I ever wrote that the 50 seaters would be re-engined.
You won't find it. Show one ALPA produced publication that said 50 seaters would be re-engined, or that all the 50 seaters would keep flying. You won't find it. After you've done your homework, report back to the forum what was actually written, then compare it to what's actually happened. See if you can handle the truth and finally come out of your negative spin cycle. It's unfortunate that you're showing (again) that you have no concept of truth. Or integrity. Hopefully everyone we'll see your undercutting and FUD campaign for what it is....because you, Carl Spackler, will definitely be leading another FUD campaign for C2015. As you and the others try to rehabilitate your reputations and hope people forget what you did and what you said, my job is to remind people. And they'll remember...despite your angry over-emotional protests now. Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1678245)
I didn't use ASM's to measure pilot productivity. I used ASM's to measure the growth of the airline. Then I reminded sailingfun that he was ignoring the growth of the airline in his attempt to use "required pilots" to prove that C2012 brought pilots a net gain in value. Here's my post again with bolded parts for your review:
Carl That has nothing to do with pilot positions, you can write it any way you want. You don't read, and you don't comprehend. You are so blinded by some kind of rage that you have no ability other than to argue invalid points, and when you are proven wrong change. ASMs have no valid measurement for pilot positions. You restating your idiotic data points don't change that. No matter how much you want what you wrote to be true, it's not true. You are wrong and don't know how to deal with it. |
Originally Posted by Wingnutdal
(Post 1678251)
ASMs have no valid measurement for pilot positions. You restating your idiotic data points don't change that.
|
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1678258)
YoY ASM comparisons are not a data point utilized to determine an airline's growth? :confused:
|
Originally Posted by Wingnutdal
(Post 1678261)
SWA is growing by ASMs a lot faster than it's pilots required.
|
Originally Posted by Wingnutdal
(Post 1678108)
Carl was talking pilots required, not compensation.
Originally Posted by Wingnutdal
(Post 1678108)
I specifically was responding to Carl's cherry picking of ASMs to reply to the previous posts regarding staffing.
Originally Posted by Wingnutdal
(Post 1678108)
He is picking data points that he thinks is going to embarrass slowplay, alpha, sailing.
Originally Posted by Wingnutdal
(Post 1678108)
I don't know which one of those guys stole his cookies, but he is ****ed and willing to go to any length to poke his finger in their eye, take things out of context, bully, chest thump and even lie.
Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:28 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands