Good report and I agree with your analysis.

Frankly, I do not believe we yet have the numbers which could accurately describe where the Company and the Association would need to be in order to recapture scope, or re-unify Delta flying. It will boil down to the numbers in the political environment we have now (that will likely change, but we are at least two years out *).

Delta, and other major carriers have struggled to develop models which accurately report the costs of outsourcing. If you look at the typical Delta 8-K report outsourcing produces margins of 22% to around 30%. In other words DCI is reported to be 300% the profitability of mainline. Yet, when F4D carrier report their own numbers, they tend to lose or barely break even on "at risk" flying. The numbers make little sense because investors (and we pilots) have no idea how Delta and other carriers are allocating costs.

One look at LGA tells the analytically minded that the Companies involved aren't considering aircraft and crew utilization in their modelling. They are not considering the cost of separate certificates which can not be called on to assist during irops or mechanicals. Want to know why Comair's costs were so terrible? Just a glance across the ramp was enough to know the aircraft utilization was in the toilet due to deliberately trying to dilute Comair's flying from CVG (same happened to ASA in Atlanta and made ASA's numbers look nearly as terrible, as happened with Mesa while GoJets was replacing them ... now GoJets is in the tank).

One of my jobs was to figure out the lost profits of RJ's when they were taken out of service. To figure out this number a reliable model is needed of the revenues and costs, flight by flight. Such a model truly does not exist within these companies. In each case we've handled I've had to build the model and thus far the parties to the dispute have accepted my work to resolve their differences.

If Delta begins changing the model (as they did with the 717) that will be a pretty good sign that they've improved their modelling and stopped treating costs like "peanut butter" ... ( spread it around). Does it make sense to tie up a gate with an RJ? Does it make sense to over fly one certificate with another certificate just to prevent one pilot group from reaching a critical mass from which a labor action could cripple the network? Does "labor peace" make it unnecessary to carry the redundant costs of multiple certificates?

I dunno and do not have access to enough of the numbers to make a definitive case (and if I ever do it will probably be the last you hear from me on APC).

We know Delta is having a awful time staffing Endeavor. The experiment may fail on that basis alone. We know Delta wants to sell the FAA on a mentorship program to reduce the 1,500 hour ATP requirement. We know Delta has some very smart managers.

I expect change. Just look at the outstanding level of ALPA PAC support coming in from our new hire classes. That is an objective sign that these pilots understand unity.

If anything is going to happen the Endeavor pilots are going to have to reasonable and humble. A staple at Delta is better than #1 on the Endeavor list by at multiple orders of magnitude (run a spreadsheet). The last time this was attempted, it ran sideways on the politics. The facts were and are that Delta pilots benefit also, but nearly none of them see it that way. ALPA is a political animal. It will try to deliver what the pilots want.

Not exactly, but you should see the bomb shelters they built around the redlight on Powers Ferry at the Chattahoochee. At first commuters could take it out with a .22. Then it took a shotgun blast. After it got dynamited a couple of times they built what looks like a NORAD facility around it.

We rednecks like to blow up them red lights.

The funny thing was, when traffic was moving efficiently you knew someone had blown the red light to smithereens and you'd giggle as you went through the intersection at 45 instead of 3 miles per hour.

Maybe a vocal few of the extremely senior bunch but the bulk of the list would welcome it. Most Endeavor pilots see the company as a sinking ship except for the recruiting team, and we all know how well that's going.

Yes, for the love of all that is good and holy, please, please don't lump a few vocal loud mouths and their rotten attitudes in with the rest of the group. Unfortunatley there are always a few in every bunch.

Yeah I don't see the company doing/asking for this. I know it doesn't show it on this site since we don't have the aircraft on property at mainline, but we have mainline rates for the CRJ900. According to this site the 12 year Capt rate at Endeavor is $87/hr and the FO rate is $39/hr. Our rate is $135/hr and $92/hr.

We have always been told by management that pilot costs are not the reason the aircraft are not at mainline. The total cost of all the personnel and the benefits associated with them make it cost prohibitive.

Just saw on news delta had to divert into Jackson for an unruly pax. Something about an argument over reclining seat. Figured details would be here already...man we are slipping!
;-)

Are serious 747 MX problems really that frequent though? If BA can fly 6000 miles after fireballing an engine on takeoff (not that I condone such insanity, even from the world's premier aviators :rolleyes: ) what is going on with our whales that are causing so many air returns?

I could buy into that theory if they coupled the parking announcement with an identical capacity announcement but they didn't. 1/4 of the whale fleet is being parked with nothing new coming outside the mysterious widebody RFP. That RFP will be mostly (or all) replacement for ER's anyway, and on a negative pilot block hour ratio too. The RFP also contains potential 787's, but only if they win the bid, but we already have 787's for 2020 delivery :confused:

Meanwhile the JV balance is bad and getting worse with no intention to honor the contract. Meanwhile the great ER purge continues and while we split a dwindiling percentage of the US-AMS/CDG bock hours/ESK's, the once direct markets that now connect on them stop counting our share as soon as the pax transfer in their hubs. :eek:

If your theory were the case, they would have needed to immediately announce 5 or 6 growth 777's (or even more 330's, etc) for almost immediate delivery. Instead we continue to shrink our already anemic widebody fleet and the only definite plans in the upcoming RFP will be replacing more ER's with fewer 330's or equivalent.

I find it hard to believe that we were sitting 4 whales fat on underutilized system block hours all along and they just suddenly flexed up utilization on existing airframes to fund it. Even if that's the case, I doubt it could be credibly argued that the remaining 12 whales worth of lift are as well. If so, we would have gotten rid of them years ago.

Not sure what you mean, but we have existing payrates for their large equipment, as well as all of our work rules and other benefits. I don't think it would cause much of a problem at all in recruitment. Especially with a nice *affordable* raise attatched across the board, amirite?

By that logic, let's outsource all narrowbodies, that way we can be an all widebody airline and second year pilot pay would go way up!

Gloopy,

Agreed that the timing was unfortunate. It would have been better to put the 747 retirement in about paragraph three of a letter on the widebody RFP selection.

During the winter we do have the capacity to flex up. Of course by the time the 747 pilots are displaced, it will be spring again. Their decision on the AE forced their hand into making an impolitic announcement.

Rumors are the Widebody RFP will contain growth. We shall see.