Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)
-   -   Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Carl Spackler 12-15-2014 05:26 PM


Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1784022)
Ever since the JV agreement was signed as a six party agreement, they were supposed to end up with a 50/50 split of EASK's.

First, when was this JV ever a six party agreement? Second, before the addition of Alitalia, we were supposed to be at 51.5% and the euros were supposed to be at 48.5%. if memory serves, I don't believe we Delta pilots EVER got more than about 50.5%...and that was for a very short time.

From 51.5% to our approx 47% today represents an awful lot of actual jobs lost, and jobs we never got.

Carl

sailingfun 12-15-2014 05:27 PM


Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1784093)
And here is your shortfall:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Shortfall.png

Cheers
George

George, what you have just posted matches up almost exactly with what I posted a few days ago that you said was all wrong. I stated we were above 47%. The above confirms it and does not account for the AF strike which adds about a half percent.

Carl Spackler 12-15-2014 05:41 PM


Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1784022)
DAL was operating roughly 54-46% of the EASK's but had planned to growth to be "in the window" to comply.

DAL never operated 54% of the EASK's. Never. I think you meant to say DAL operated 46%-54% of the EASK's.


Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1784022)
Then the European meltdown happened and the transatlantic flying started to become unprofitable. DAL drew down flying to match capacity with demand.... AF and KL did not.

And that's where Delta first showed its contempt for our scope. They had no contractual right to draw down flying to match capacity with demand. Route profitability was not a reason in our scope that allowed them to be in non-compliance. Not even our negotiators would have agreed to a profitability provision. Yet here we are excusing it as a business decision.


Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1784022)
AF was viewed as a jobs creator for the French economy and the govt didn't want them to shrink and layoff more workers into the economy. UNSAT, IMHO... Business is business. Similar story with KL, but they did drawdown a little bit more than AF, but still not enough to match the DAL drawdown. RA doesn't want to lose money unless it's a strategic long term play.... Keeping up those North Atlantic numbers didn't fit any strategic plan.

Again, it wasn't supposed to matter what RA wants or doesn't want. That's why we have a contract instead of an FOM like at some non-union outfit.

Oh wait...

Carl

georgetg 12-15-2014 05:43 PM


Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1784119)
George, what you have just posted matches up almost exactly with what I posted a few days ago that you said was all wrong. I stated we were above 47%. The above confirms it and does not account for the AF strike which adds about a half percent.

First off the 47.1% snapshot was in February 2013, it is now December 2014 nearly 22 months later...

Take a look at the entire 36-month look-back period.

You'll see that the initial 36 months from April 2011 to March 2014 contain considerable portions above the lower compliance band.

When we measure the 36-months look-back at the end of March 2015, the start point will shift right to April 2012, and even the highest point of the 36-month rolling average will then fall below the 48.5% lower band...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ng-average.png

I'm sure you understand this...

Cheers
George

Cogf16 12-15-2014 05:48 PM


Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 1781097)
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?

I just heard from a reliable company pilot that the 757 fleet will be 100 +/- a few. Kinda looking for some "newer" used ones as well to replace some of our oldest ones. Keeping ER's longer as well.

Scoop 12-15-2014 06:09 PM


Originally Posted by Cogf16 (Post 1784145)
I just heard from a reliable company pilot that the 757 fleet will be 100 +/- a few. Kinda looking for some "newer" used ones as well to replace some of our oldest ones. Keeping ER's longer as well.



You are correct. I don't know what the confusion on this issue is. On September 30 S.D. and his team rolled into LAX for the FLT OPS roadshow. This exact question was asked and the answer was 90 DAL owned 757s and 10 leased back from the NBA.

Now everything is obviously subject to change but I have heard about 15 different numbers since then, but if you cant trust the FLT OPs team with the Network guy and the Fleet guy both saying 90 + 10, then all other numbers are also meaningless.

Scoop

RockyBoy 12-15-2014 06:17 PM


Originally Posted by Cogf16 (Post 1784145)
I just heard from a reliable company pilot that the 757 fleet will be 100 +/- a few. Kinda looking for some "newer" used ones as well to replace some of our oldest ones. Keeping ER's longer as well.

How many do we have right now? Anyone know that answer?

Justdoinmyjob 12-15-2014 06:28 PM


Originally Posted by RockyBoy (Post 1784168)
How many do we have right now? Anyone know that answer?

According to the ship attributes page, 141 757s.

Carl Spackler 12-15-2014 06:36 PM


Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1784022)
So now DAL EASK's fall as a survival measure, not as a "screw those Delta Pilots" move.

Unbelievable. A survival measure? We were and are making billions. Keeping those flights (and their word in the contract they signed with us) would have made those flights unprofitable most likely, but would have had no bearing on the survival of Delta. It might not have been "screw those Delta pilots", but it definitely was: "I'm not about to let that contract diminish our profit and my bonus." And with DALPA It was: If Richard's happy...we're happy."

Carl

Justdoinmyjob 12-15-2014 07:18 PM


Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1784184)
Unbelievable. A survival measure? We were and are making billions. Keeping those flights (and their word in the contract they signed with us) would have made those flights unprofitable most likely, but would have had no bearing on the survival of Delta. It might not have been "screw those Delta pilots", but it definitely was: "I'm not about to let that contract diminish our profit and my bonus." And with DALPA It was: If Richard's happy...we're happy."

Carl

How long do you think Delta would keep pilots on the payroll flying unprofitable flights just to meet a manning formula? How long did it take all the unprofitable flights Delta flew around under the "Carpet Bagger" to contribute to the bankruptcy?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:21 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands