Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-08-2014 | 06:21 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 6,561
Likes: 311
From: Sitting SC at the Five Towns
11-08-2014 | 06:24 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,058
Likes: 2
From: Capt
11-08-2014 | 06:24 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 0
From: A330 First Officer
Buzzpat are you sure about that? I thought if the flight operations has direct access to the ramp area then you can't bring family members into it. I know they have made a big deal about it in ATL and LAX has direct access to the ramp just like ATL.
11-08-2014 | 06:30 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 0
Well, it's a 22% increase to go from 320A to 330A (neither the highest nor the lowest paid narrow body or wide body aircraft).
11-08-2014 | 06:44 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 0
Our percentage of EASK's in this joint venture are down from where they are contractually required to be. Since the measuring metric is a percentage, that can ONLY mean that the Euro's percentage of EASK's are above where they are contractually required to be. It's not arguable...it's math.
Sailingfun's point, and I understand him to be correct, is that our percentage of EASK's is almost exactly what it was just prior to AZ joining the JV and the 50% requirement being established. Delta had plans at the time to increase its flying to Europe to about 50%, and wanted to set the requirement at that level, but the softening of the trans-Atlantic market almost immediately thereafter made them change their minds.
I'm not saying that this excuses their non-compliance, only that the PWA requires a higher percentage of flying than actually existed just prior to the JV.
11-08-2014 | 07:01 PM
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
Note to self: Don't drop the ball on the 4 yard line and start celebrating early.
What a bizarre play!
What a bizarre play!
11-08-2014 | 07:05 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
From: JFK A-330 A
How 'bout those Sun Devils???!!!
Go Sparky!!!
(Appropriate pix of Sparky and the usual hot ASU cheerleaders would follow,
but I don't post enough to know how to properly present them.)
Go Sparky!!!
(Appropriate pix of Sparky and the usual hot ASU cheerleaders would follow,
but I don't post enough to know how to properly present them.)
11-08-2014 | 07:07 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,707
Likes: 0
From: Permanently scarred
When I showed my son flight ops in ATL I had to have a manager who had escort privileges accompany us. For him to be with me on my own in flight ops was not authorized.
11-08-2014 | 09:09 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,724
Likes: 0
From: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
You did not understand the data. They stated the company would have to add 6 to 7 flights a day in the last year to bring the average up to be in compliance. That number was actually up to something around 14 departures per day in Aug. The less time left the more departures they would have to add to be in compliance. The overall rate for the entire period was just under two departures per day. With the AF strike that dropped to closer to one per day if you average it over the 4 years. I think however you could make a case before the arbitrator that the shutdown of AF for several weeks should not count as it was a aberration not considered by either side when the agreement was made.
I was just emailed more numbers but they match what I posted. Just prior to the AF strike we were just over 47% of the EASK which gave us over 65% of the actual block hours. To be contractually compliant the company needed to raise that to 48.5%. With 40 to 50 departures per day it's not hard to see that two more departures per day would have produced the percentage the company needed.
I was just emailed more numbers but they match what I posted. Just prior to the AF strike we were just over 47% of the EASK which gave us over 65% of the actual block hours. To be contractually compliant the company needed to raise that to 48.5%. With 40 to 50 departures per day it's not hard to see that two more departures per day would have produced the percentage the company needed.
A year or so into the first 3-year look-back window (2011?) RD told the MEC that to get from 47.2% to 50% would require the addition of 6-7 daily roundtrips over the course of the 3-year agreement, this wasn't a power point presentation.
Again the percentages have been accrued over years, so no, just adding a flight isn't going to magically make a 3-year lookback come up to meet the PWA test.
Even without the numbers its not hard to figure this out.
Adding Alitalia to the JV dropped our share by just over 4% points.
To claw back just 1% Delta would have to add around one quarter of all of Alitalia's North Atlantic flights.
And since our North Atlantic fleet produces fewer EASKs per departure than the fleet of the Europeans, that means even more Delta flights just to produce an equivalent number of EASKs.
Again, these are RDs numbers my friend. He said we would see 6-7 added flights over the course of the 3-year agreement.
They aren't here, and the list of excuses just keeps getting longer.
Cheers
George
11-08-2014 | 09:24 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,724
Likes: 0
From: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
- The PWA is a legally binding contract.
- That's the only thing that matters, and we elect and pay good people to make sure it stays that way.
- The shortfall in EASKs is a big deal.
Any effort to make the shortfall seem insignificant does the Delta pilots harm. It's nothing less than if the company decided they will just not give us the 3% contractually agreed upon pay raise next year...
Listening to what sailing is putting out here isn't much different than saying "it's just 3%, what's the big deal..."
Cheers
George
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
