Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-05-2014, 06:30 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Wingnutdal
Carl was talking pilots required, not compensation.
Originally Posted by Wingnutdal
I specifically was responding to Carl's cherry picking of ASMs to reply to the previous posts regarding staffing.
Originally Posted by Wingnutdal
He is picking data points that he thinks is going to embarrass slowplay, alpha, sailing.
Originally Posted by Wingnutdal
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
07-05-2014, 06:31 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
Surely you realize that is due to its ongoing merger synergies?
07-05-2014, 06:36 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
No, sailingfun was talking about pilots required. Carl was talking the fact that sailingfun and slowplay's thesis ignored the growth of the airline and I used ASM's as the metric to show airline growth.
You responded without reading what I said.
Both slowplay and sailingfun chose the data points. In both cases, they failed to include airline growth in their thesis. I included airline growth during the time frame and data points that they chose so that the comparisons would be both correct and fair.
I'll let others decide this one.
Carl
You responded without reading what I said.
Both slowplay and sailingfun chose the data points. In both cases, they failed to include airline growth in their thesis. I included airline growth during the time frame and data points that they chose so that the comparisons would be both correct and fair.
I'll let others decide this one.
Carl
You have obviously read Rules for Radicals. Very subtle changes to your argument don't change the fact that you are wrong.
You get the forms for the costing data. If they are available, you get them. The numbers were provided by the legally binding document the Corp has to provide. You didn't like that answer which proved you wrong, so you ask for a different form. If it's available, you get it.
Were you part of Tanksley?
07-05-2014, 06:37 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Wingnutdal
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.
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.
Carl
07-05-2014, 06:42 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
I mistook you for someone that could actually read and comprehend. That's the only reason I responded to you. I won't make that mistake again.
Carl
Carl
07-05-2014, 07:32 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
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
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
Carl maintains that our contract was "cost neutral" to pilots. I showed how in order to be cost neutral with a 19.5% increase in cash compensation you needed to increase productivity by shrinking the pilot count by 1,795. Carl now says we lost 173 pilots. So will he admit that he can't get to 1,795?
But instead of saying that, he is trying to show that my graph of pilot's required is misleading because it doesn't account for ASM growth. So Carl has abandoned his ridiculous argument about the contract being cost neutral and now he is trying to make it seem like I am underestimating the loss of pilot jobs by 173 because I didn't take into account ASM growth.
Bottom line: the contract was not cost neutral, Carl can't even get close to showing it was cost neutral, he is trapped in his deceptive claims and now he wriggles and squirms to change the subject.
But, hey, if we want to analyze the graph, then let's analyze the graph. First, it was widely advertised that the concessions in C2012 would cost about 125 jobs. So I didn't underestimate by 173, but by 48, if you believe Carl's growth scenario. I am off by 48 and Carl is off by 1,622 and I am the one that is WAAAAAAY off??
But even Carl's growth scenario is wrong. Delta is upgauging the fleet and adding seats to existing aircraft. We had MD-90's (160 seats) replace DC-9's (125 seats). As far as I know, both aircraft carry a crew of two, so an MD-90 crew produces more ASM's than a DC-9 crew even though they both take two pilots. So measuring ASM growth versus pilot's required is also a false comparison. We just added more seats to 777's, they can now produce more ASM's with the same crew complement. Part of the 767ER fleet was moved to the "high density" configuration with more seats and the same crew complement. Does everyone get the point now?
Summary:
- Carl was wrong about the contract being cost neutral. He has to prove we lost 1,795 jobs and he is up to 173 so far
- Even his 173 is wrong, because by upgauging aircraft they can grow ASM's with the same number of pilots
- When Carl is wrong, he deflects, squirms, wiggles, changes the point, diverts attention, makes personal attacks, rinse and repeat
- The contract was not cost neutral to Delta pilots and anyone who repeats this is just lying to you
Last edited by alfaromeo; 07-05-2014 at 07:43 PM.
07-05-2014, 07:33 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,923
Must have IPAD Apps
Guys,
Just got an IPAD. What are your favorite Apps and why?
What about DAL apps?
Thanks Scoop
Just got an IPAD. What are your favorite Apps and why?
What about DAL apps?
Thanks Scoop
07-05-2014, 07:47 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 364
Originally Posted by Wingnutdal
Were you part of Tanksley?
07-05-2014, 07:49 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: A320 Left seat
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Scoop
Guys,
Just got an IPAD. What are your favorite Apps and why?
What about DAL apps?
Thanks Scoop
Just got an IPAD. What are your favorite Apps and why?
What about DAL apps?
Thanks Scoop
07-05-2014, 08:01 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: A320 Left seat
Posts: 2,582
My Aunt passed away 3 days ago and I know Aunt's aren't covered in any kind of paid leave excuse. The services are on Wednesday and I was much closer to my Aunt than I could have ever been to a step parent-in-law (which is considered bereavement). I am on reserve Monday-Thursday. I don't want to wait and get assigned a 4 day trip tomorrow and then have a problem. I would like to be there, paid or not, but the reserves required/avail for my category is upside down all month so dropping the day of reserve is not an option. Is the CPSC staffed this time of night and is that who I call? Or do I just call scheduling? Thanks for any help, E
Last edited by Big E 757; 07-05-2014 at 08:13 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
