Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
08-31-2018, 04:06 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,304
Originally Posted by gloopy
There was (and still is) lots of talk about sheer disbelief at how great a deal we got on them. If it was just a lease transfer with free paint then it could still have been a phenomenally good deal depending on what deal AT got on them. Judging by their ability to constantly salt the fields with ridiculous double digit fares all over the place, maybe the amazing deal was inherited. But either way all we've heard was how unbelievable it was.
In any case, I still don't buy the idea that they would have instead invested billions into decrepit obsolete guzzler 50 seaters that everyone hated and that they couldn't staff. Had they done that, they would have been right back in 2014ish begging for relief and offering another aircraft order deal because that simply wouldn't have worked for ten a few years before collapsing all round them.
Then again, when airline management makes mistakes, they make them in the Billion$ so there's at least president for that theory.
In any case, I still don't buy the idea that they would have instead invested billions into decrepit obsolete guzzler 50 seaters that everyone hated and that they couldn't staff. Had they done that, they would have been right back in 2014ish begging for relief and offering another aircraft order deal because that simply wouldn't have worked for ten a few years before collapsing all round them.
Then again, when airline management makes mistakes, they make them in the Billion$ so there's at least president for that theory.
08-31-2018, 05:56 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,414
Seems American and United have had no problem keeping the 50 seaters going.
During TA2 negotiations company asked for 50 more large RJs in exchange for the removal of all remaining 125 50 seaters. Word is the MEC finally gave the NC authority to use it as a bargaining chip after heated debate but at the table the company decided not to trade anything more for it.
While many see this type of trade as selling scope I see it as gaining scope while the company pays us more from the cost savings of removing expensive to operate 50 seaters from the fleet. Removing 6250 seats(125 50 seaters) adding 3800 seats(50 76 seaters) leaves a gulf of 2450 seats(22 110 seaters).
On the other hand one could adopt a longer term strategy, hold tight on current scope and wait out however long it takes for 50 seater lifespan to run out in order to replace the 6250 50 seater seats with 56 110 mainline jets.
IMO C2012 generated cries of selling scope when it actually drove significant hiring and movement within the Delta pilot ranks due to scope recapture. Hiring at Delta has far exceeded hiring at United and American. If a similar type trade reappears in C2019 negotiations I am in favor of it.
During TA2 negotiations company asked for 50 more large RJs in exchange for the removal of all remaining 125 50 seaters. Word is the MEC finally gave the NC authority to use it as a bargaining chip after heated debate but at the table the company decided not to trade anything more for it.
While many see this type of trade as selling scope I see it as gaining scope while the company pays us more from the cost savings of removing expensive to operate 50 seaters from the fleet. Removing 6250 seats(125 50 seaters) adding 3800 seats(50 76 seaters) leaves a gulf of 2450 seats(22 110 seaters).
On the other hand one could adopt a longer term strategy, hold tight on current scope and wait out however long it takes for 50 seater lifespan to run out in order to replace the 6250 50 seater seats with 56 110 mainline jets.
IMO C2012 generated cries of selling scope when it actually drove significant hiring and movement within the Delta pilot ranks due to scope recapture. Hiring at Delta has far exceeded hiring at United and American. If a similar type trade reappears in C2019 negotiations I am in favor of it.
08-31-2018, 08:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,512
Originally Posted by Trip7
Seems American and United have had no problem keeping the 50 seaters going.
During TA2 negotiations company asked for 50 more large RJs in exchange for the removal of all remaining 125 50 seaters. Word is the MEC finally gave the NC authority to use it as a bargaining chip after heated debate but at the table the company decided not to trade anything more for it.
While many see this type of trade as selling scope I see it as gaining scope while the company pays us more from the cost savings of removing expensive to operate 50 seaters from the fleet. Removing 6250 seats(125 50 seaters) adding 3800 seats(50 76 seaters) leaves a gulf of 2450 seats(22 110 seaters).
During TA2 negotiations company asked for 50 more large RJs in exchange for the removal of all remaining 125 50 seaters. Word is the MEC finally gave the NC authority to use it as a bargaining chip after heated debate but at the table the company decided not to trade anything more for it.
While many see this type of trade as selling scope I see it as gaining scope while the company pays us more from the cost savings of removing expensive to operate 50 seaters from the fleet. Removing 6250 seats(125 50 seaters) adding 3800 seats(50 76 seaters) leaves a gulf of 2450 seats(22 110 seaters).
08-31-2018, 09:59 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,524
Originally Posted by Trip7
...Removing 6250 seats(125 50 seaters) adding 3800 seats(50 76 seaters) leaves a gulf of 2450 seats(22 110 seaters)...
76 seaters, which are really 90 seaters, are way too big to be outsourced. More is no longer an option. They can operate as many as they want, and trade as many 50 seaters that they no longer want to get them, they just have to be flown by mainline pilots.
08-31-2018, 10:05 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,414
Originally Posted by gloopy
So would you be willing to allow 737's at DCI as long as the net DCI seat count was lower?
76 seaters, which are really 90 seaters, are way too big to be outsourced. More is no longer an option. They can operate as many as they want, and trade as many 50 seaters that they no longer want to get them, they just have to be flown by mainline pilots.
76 seaters, which are really 90 seaters, are way too big to be outsourced. More is no longer an option. They can operate as many as they want, and trade as many 50 seaters that they no longer want to get them, they just have to be flown by mainline pilots.
08-31-2018, 10:23 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,524
Originally Posted by Trip7
Absolutely not. The 737 is already a mainline airplane. The goal is to continue to shrink DCI at an increased pace while picking up jobs and increased benefits for mainline.
I'm not interested in allowing any more larger RJ's. The original order was for about twenty 70 seaters (you know, to "help" them help us develop markets for mainline LOL!) and now we have over 300. Let them choke on their aging POS 50 seaters as they try to staff them with medical school levels of debt new hires if that's what they want to do. They already have WAY more of the large RJ's than they should and the only negotiations about it should be about reducing that number.
08-31-2018, 10:46 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,414
Originally Posted by gloopy
The DC-9-10 was a mainline airplane.
I'm not interested in allowing any more larger RJ's. The original order was for about twenty 70 seaters (you know, to "help" them help us develop markets for mainline LOL!) and now we have over 300. Let them choke on their aging POS 50 seaters as they try to staff them with medical school levels of debt new hires if that's what they want to do. They already have WAY more of the large RJ's than they should and the only negotiations about it should be about reducing that number.
I'm not interested in allowing any more larger RJ's. The original order was for about twenty 70 seaters (you know, to "help" them help us develop markets for mainline LOL!) and now we have over 300. Let them choke on their aging POS 50 seaters as they try to staff them with medical school levels of debt new hires if that's what they want to do. They already have WAY more of the large RJ's than they should and the only negotiations about it should be about reducing that number.
Mathematics is key. Shrink DCI while increasing mainline pay, benefits and jobs.
C2012 proves this formula has been an overwhelming success.
08-31-2018, 11:08 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Originally Posted by Trip7
Seems American and United have had no problem keeping the 50 seaters going.
During TA2 negotiations company asked for 50 more large RJs in exchange for the removal of all remaining 125 50 seaters. Word is the MEC finally gave the NC authority to use it as a bargaining chip after heated debate but at the table the company decided not to trade anything more for it.
While many see this type of trade as selling scope I see it as gaining scope while the company pays us more from the cost savings of removing expensive to operate 50 seaters from the fleet. Removing 6250 seats(125 50 seaters) adding 3800 seats(50 76 seaters) leaves a gulf of 2450 seats(22 110 seaters).
While many see this type of trade as selling scope I see it as gaining scope while the company pays us more from the cost savings of removing expensive to operate 50 seaters from the fleet. Removing 6250 seats(125 50 seaters) adding 3800 seats(50 76 seaters) leaves a gulf of 2450 seats(22 110 seaters).
On the other hand one could adopt a longer term strategy, hold tight on current scope and wait out however long it takes for 50 seater lifespan to run out in order to replace the 6250 50 seater seats with 56 110 mainline jets.
IMO C2012 generated cries of selling scope when it actually drove significant hiring and movement within the Delta pilot ranks due to scope recapture. Hiring at Delta has far exceeded hiring at United and American. If a similar type trade reappears in C2019 negotiations I am in favor of it.
It was not scope recapture. It was giving the company something they wanted in exchange for us "getting" something the company already wanted I the first place.
By your logic, E195s at DCI would be acceptable if total seat count went down. We don't operate them as a mainline airplane after all.
08-31-2018, 12:32 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,524
Originally Posted by Trip7
Why let emotions get in the way.
Mathematics is key. Shrink DCI while increasing mainline pay, benefits and jobs.
C2012 proves this formula has been an overwhelming success.
Mathematics is key. Shrink DCI while increasing mainline pay, benefits and jobs.
C2012 proves this formula has been an overwhelming success.
More 76 seaters is a concession that is simply not needed.
08-31-2018, 12:38 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,656
Originally Posted by gloopy
We could shrink DCI by allowing 737's though. What's the difference? As long as DCI shrinks, why let emotions get in the way?
More 76 seaters is a concession that is simply not needed.
More 76 seaters is a concession that is simply not needed.
Last edited by Planetrain; 08-31-2018 at 12:53 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
