Agreed. The best days of DCI were when CMR ran a huge out and back hub in CVG and SKYW did the same in SLC. Those were two operational powerhouses that ran very tight ships with only a few exceptions (very rare severe icing and IT meltdowns, etc). ASA didn't run nearly as good an operation at the time, but eventually came around. By the time they did though, the "spread it all around going spastic trying to mitigate a strike" strategy had already been implemented and the entire DCI operation was a downhill train wreck.

While I agree DL has some very smart managers, there are also a lot who faithfully stick to faulty B-school textbook paradigms and either cannot or will not change regardless of reality or result. Even if they are successful in some rediculous hour reduction, unless its back to the 250-300 hour range, which it won't be, it will have little to no effect. The lowest number I've heard anywhere in any context is 800 and that's only if its coupled with an insanely expensive million dollar plane glass ninja fantasy flight line training program. Shaving off a few hundred hours (while possibly increasing the training costs) will do nothing whatsoever to recruit and train future pilots.


Agreed. However the points you brought up WRT the political dynamics make almost any conceivable attempt at a staple a non starter. Even if a majority agreed to it, there would be an automatic sizeable minority that would use it as a vehicle to sue for arbitration. Just like last time, they would feign righteousness about "the process", especially if they had the advantage of taking the runway and reaching V1; they'd have absolutely nothing to lose and the rediculous McCaskill-Bond in their corner in an era of "relative rules" arbitrators.

Sure, we would make a compelling case about how relative should only be in tiered categories, and theirs would be at the bottom, but are you really willing to risk your career that we would come out the other side of that without any current pilots losing a single number? That's why I don't think its possible that way. Bring the planes to mainline and hire to the bottom of our list. We can give them pref interviews or even a flow through, but I don't see how we could mitigate the risks of a massive land grab by lots of "senior" pilots with nothing to lose once the decision to put them on our list has been made.

 

United Airlines plans to retire its 50-seat regional jets by next year, instead deploying larger Embraer regional jets that can seat 76 passengers. The Trefis Team writes that "fleet restructuring focused on replacing older, less fuel-efficient airplanes with new, more fuel-efficient airplanes will add growth to United's results in the coming years." Forbes (8/29)

Imagine that...an airline managed to get rid of 50 seaters without its union telling the pilots some story...

 

I keep hearing that too, but I can't seem to find the napkin with the math on it to show how it can be the case.

BTW, what do you think the potential 787 on this RFP means?

We already have slots coming in 2020 (supposedly) and a December RFP announcement (assuming it won't be delayed and delayed and delayed like so many other things…despite "speed wins" ) so what happens if the 787 loses? Do we cancel existing orders? If it wins, do we take orders we were going to take anyway, and if so could they realistically even be on property prior to 2020 anyway? Or do you think they are potential "growth" 787's and we will still take the 2020 ones anyway?

 

Imagine the laughing stock DL would be if they had green lighted the massive re-engine and heavy check committment to all those insanely expensive 50 seater block hours they could never staff anyway. Good thing the pilots saved their bacon by allowing them to get 717's.

 

Just heard via the grapevine that the "merger committee" has been holding "emergency" meetings!

I wonder what's up?!?!?!

Anyone else?

 

Agreed, but like the NWA Asian FA base, they could split it off. We should not be closed minded when it comes to unity. All ALPA need concern itself with is pilots.

 

Haven't heard that, but I'd hope we have very fleshed out stratedgies for at least 4 potential scenarios, and well thought out gameplans for a few others. There are at least 4 that should never take us by surprise and we should be ready to face in an instant.

 

Gloopy,

I don't know. The debate over the Import Export Bank involved some rather explicit rebuttals on both sides. One would not think Boeing would "trash talk" a premier client like Delta if Boeing were hopeful for an order.

The 787 is at least $15 million more than the A330. In my view the 787-900 is right sized for a large number of missions and it's fuel numbers have been coming in even better than promised.

I figured the A330/NEO for a winner until Qantas backed out of their order. That leaves the right airplanes at the right price for Delta. As completely screwed up as Boeing is (analysts putting sell ratings on Boeing the last few days because of 777 sales not being sufficient to keep the line operating until the -X programme) I would still like to see a 777 and 787 order. IMHO it is a better airplane, but I'm hugely biased towards the Boeing jet as a pilot.

 

Not hearing anything, but I expected Hawaiian. We have a merger committee training course which I'd suggest anyone with an interest for serving in the future attend if they can get their Reps to recommend them. The class is being taught by the best in the business.

 

Didn't the UAL pilots basically negotiate for Delta pilot's scope? Thereby increasing the number of large RJs allowed, and allowing 50 seaters to be parked?