Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
12-11-2014 | 09:18 AM
Banned
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,655
Likes: 0
From: Narrow/Left Wide/Right
The $300 or $360mm they paid Singapore for the 49% interest in Virgin has no effect on that years profits. That investment could be a bad investment or it could be a good investment. Right now it looks like a good investment as at the Investors Day presentation they said they are on track to have their full investment repaid by the end of 2015. While Virgin will be having more flying to the US than they did before, by redeploying aircraft from South Africa and India routes, it also means Delta will be taking over some additional slots at LHR that they otherwise would not have had, while at the same time improving Delta's competitiveness in the corporate market. Please consider the alternative, they could have taken those same $300 or $360mm and decided to buy 2 A380's and putting them to fly between SFO and HND. Whether they buy those aircraft with cash or debt or a combination that action does not affect profitability for that year in which the asset was acquired. However what you do with that asset and how much money it earns over the succeeding years determines your return. In this case if those hypothetical 2 A380's running SFO-HND at probably a 20% load factor or at fares way lower than the cost of the fuel would probably loose $100mm or $200mm a year But from a purely selfish point of view it would enable some senior 744/777 crews to fly some bigger metal.
12-11-2014 | 09:22 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
Did anyone catch the talk about used A321's?
12-11-2014 | 09:25 AM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Well Carl here is section 1.E.3 you quote.
If the Company's ownership level (i.e., the percentage of ownership referred to in Section 23 1 B. 16. a.) in a foreign air carrier exceeds 25%, the Company flying block hours scheduled in any month between the United States and any country to or from which the foreign air carrier operates from or to the United States, will not be less than the Company flying block hours scheduled between the two countries in the same month of the twelve-month period prior to the month in which the Company's ownership level first exceeds 25%.
As you can see Carl we have a block hour floor and not a percentage of flying. That is a huge difference. The union has also put out several communications explaining this.
If the Company's ownership level (i.e., the percentage of ownership referred to in Section 23 1 B. 16. a.) in a foreign air carrier exceeds 25%, the Company flying block hours scheduled in any month between the United States and any country to or from which the foreign air carrier operates from or to the United States, will not be less than the Company flying block hours scheduled between the two countries in the same month of the twelve-month period prior to the month in which the Company's ownership level first exceeds 25%.
As you can see Carl we have a block hour floor and not a percentage of flying. That is a huge difference. The union has also put out several communications explaining this.
What really troubles me is that I discussed this at length with an MEC admin guy last month, and he was clear about the fact that we had a percentage of the block hours as a protection. When I looked it up afterwards, I read into the language something that wasn't there because of that conversation.
It could also be that he meant some other bit of language other than 1.E.3, but who knows. It just shows me how impossibly complex our Section 1 has become when our own admins don't understand it as well as they thought. At this level of complexity (and we're about to add to that complexity), this can only work to the benefit of management.
Regardless, I was wrong and again apologize. We don't have a block hour percentage protection, just a block hour protection. If they grow a JV partner, we have no right to share that growth. If they shrink a JV partner, we are protected from being forced to share that shrinkage. Unless there's another document somewhere that reverses the entire interpretation.
Carl
12-11-2014 | 09:33 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
According to the presentation we plan to increase non Japan Asia flying by 10-15 %, but did not state where to or from.
12-11-2014 | 09:48 AM
Ex Pax: Saab Scandia
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
They appear to be looking at an opportunistic buy of 10 used A321's with the 2500 power plants. I wonder who has them. Also interesting that they commented that buying the used W/B did not pan out because of the huge cost to re-do the interiors (and probably get the mods certified and approved!). The announcement that the AA 787's are getting delayed by a few months because of the seats not being approved yet, made me think of this. I had really thought we would see an extra 6-10 used 777's being announced during this last wide body RFP, so maybe the cost proposition shell + rebuilt interiors ended up not making sense on a Capex basis for something that would presumably fly for another 10-12 years only. Maybe we will see the 3 parked 744 come back next summer on an interim basis if oil stays where it is!
12-11-2014 | 09:50 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
Also, I don't think they said they might dump 88's. They talked about the fact they can be parked at a moment's notice if needed. They seemed to be emphasizing the flexibility.
Also, as someone else mentioned, RA negotiates via webcast. He recently talked up used WB. After the recent order, he's saying used WB are "painful". He's pointing to used A321's, the (new?) B737-900/800.
So count on new B737-MAX.
12-11-2014 | 10:47 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 0
From: A330 First Officer
Ah, but it took between 9/11 and late 2004 to take any pay cuts. In fact, after the tragedy of 9/11, and billion$ in losses, we still took pay raises in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Um about 1,300 of us didn't Yes, we eventually gave them all back--and much more--but that actually was an example of "monetizing" possible PS into actual pay rates. My guess is that the guys who at some point in the late 90s were banging the PS drum were very quiet from 2002-04.
I don't know that anyone is in a hurry to monetize anything--certainly not me! I just know that Wall St hates such huge PS amounts. So what? Wall Street is often far too short-term-obsessed, and I am glad that our company really doesn't care--so far. That said, we need to know that the subject will be brought up at some point. It would have to take some huge "monetizing" for me to vote for any TA that would reduce the PS.
I don't know that anyone is in a hurry to monetize anything--certainly not me! I just know that Wall St hates such huge PS amounts. So what? Wall Street is often far too short-term-obsessed, and I am glad that our company really doesn't care--so far. That said, we need to know that the subject will be brought up at some point. It would have to take some huge "monetizing" for me to vote for any TA that would reduce the PS.
12-11-2014 | 10:57 AM
Doesn't Get Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,599
Likes: 2
Is there anywhere to listen to the investor presentation outside of work? All the links say you have to be on a company computer to listen.
12-11-2014 | 11:01 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
From: 757/767
How many 757s are there now? When will the fleet stabilize? Where do the NBA charter planes that I've heard so much about fit in?
12-11-2014 | 11:36 AM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
So yes we APPEAR to be gaining something we didn't have before, but we're paying for that by reducing our minimum floor significantly BELOW what we're flying now. That's a pattern. We did the exact same thing when we gave up our minimum required departures in NRT. We agree to lowering our minimums, in exchange for new minimums we didn't have before...that represent a lower minimum than what we have now.
In reality, the company is extracting concessions from us. And our union is trying to spin it as win-win.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
