Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by satchip (Post 812598)

Hey everybody, you've got 20 minutes to change your mind! NYC sucks! Who would want to be based there.

Read the posting.

Bid closes at 1400 May 17th.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fly4hire (Post 812202)

Perhaps. It's not flying anywhere else either. :mad: This is the old the 100 seater is not profitable - at mainline rates.

I hope you are not suggesting that we give on 100 seat Scope so as to get more WB on the top end?

Sorry, I typed that wrong. I should have said contract issues are holding a announcement up. I meant the fences. I believe the company would like the fence dropped on the 777 before a announcement.

[quote=sailingfun;812194]Between new equipment and pilots who retire or medical out early the advancements at the airline should be quite a bit faster then a straight retirement curve. Historically it always has been. 50 percent of pilots did not make it to age 60 because of medicals or early retirements. There will not be a lot of early outs on the Delta side but should be some from the NWA side. The medicals will continue as always. 62.5 is based on no early retirements but the normal amount of medical retirements.
There may be some new metal sooner then some think. I will not however be a 100 seat aircraft. The 100 seater is never coming to the mainline. Management still does not feel they can fly a aircraft with less then 140 seats at the mainline except in some limited situations. They have felt this way since 1991 and nothing has changed today. There may however be some interesting moves on the top side for equipment. Perhaps as early as 2011 and yes their are contract issues on the new equipment involving the fences holding up a announcement.

Sailingfun

If the company was willing to pay protect any pilot that would not get that seat due to the loss of the fences, then maybe.

Why is everyone so fast to give up on the 100 seat jet? Delta can not outsource the 100 seat market unless WE let them. I do not get it we already have a scope clause that has done more to negatively affect the seniority list than ANYTHING else. That includes the SLI and all the North guys stealing Bar's seats :).

I am for one am prepared to strike over 100 seat scope.

Of course this is a good reason to print out your AE/MD/VD bid before it closes.

:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 812251)

I'm not going to say that "you're wrong sailing! We can see 100 seaters at mainline!" and blah blah rehash and so on from hundreds and hundreds of pages back which goes nowhere really.

Especially since I agree with your premise Sailing that we won't see them.

I believe this because unless Embraer or Bombardier can offer 100 seaters for $6-$10M, I don't know you can justify buying them over 150 seat MD90s and possibly in time used A319s and maybe 737s, who knows. To me some of the more profitable non-state supported operations have opted for a fleet of used aircraft over new.

But looking at RAH's 12 year EMB-190/175 pay scale ($96/hr A and $37/hr B) and looking at ours ($107.67/hr A and $73.54/hr B) you see a $48.21/hr pay difference on the cockpit pay alone and a majority of those savings comes on the backs of the first officers.

Say you flew 4000 hours a year per airframe and had a fleet of 50, at best thats $9.6M a year savings in cockpit crews. Tack on $20/hr savings on FAs and you come up to $13.6M a year in savings. I'll call maintenance a draw and all other things being equal it seems as if those savings would be eaten up by the cost of running another airline- especially if that airline is funding the creation of a potential major competitor.

And truth be known, these are 12 year RAH rates are applicable to the 76 seater and 100 seater, i.e., we cost $1.81/seat they cost $1.76/seat.

I think its a mistake for Delta Air Lines not to have an unlimited supply of, and 100% control of, what they feel works best for them. I think its in our best interest for ourselves and our airline to have both unlimited supply and 100% control.

I personally would like to see Embraer straighten out that EMB-195 wing and slap some of those cool 8 bladded mega props from the A400 on it and put that at mainline. Let Bombardier take on B&A, China, Russia and Fokker.

Anyways, friendly reminder, the 737-200 was in the Delta mainline stables until 2006. DC-9-30s... are still here. Anybody thats asking for 100 seaters at RAH or similiar airline, whether it be Bombardier, some at Delta, ALPA, etc, truth be known they're not getting back into aircraft we long abandoned but replacing aircraft we had at mainline less than 4 years ago.

Off to church to ask forgiveness for Ferd. :D

First, I used the wrong term when I said scope was a issue on the larger aircraft. I should have said fences.
On the rest of your post I agree with you. What you and I think however is not relevant. Management does not feel that a 100 seater fits in the fleet plan and that it can be operated at the margins they want to see. Even adjusted for fuel burn to a modern aircraft the DC-9 is not impressing them. Thats why the 30, and 40's are going so fast and no replacement.
They like to promise a replacement when they want something from us normally in the scope section.
Management has been trotting out the same old 100 seat presentation since 1991 when they retired the DC9's. They have just changed the candidate aircraft names. They always say they are very near a agreement to purchase a 100 seat aircraft. When they get what they want contractually or the issue dies then the rumors of a 100 seat aircraft from them die off also until the next want. Then they bring it back again. I have personally heard so many times they are going to purchase a 100 seat aircraft it falls on deaf ears now.
Talking with someone in the know the simple truth is that they don't want a airframe that size. They are not going to push for it at the connection carriers either. They are simply not going to get one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caddis (Post 812639)

Agreed !

Sailing, a 100 seater only makes a little sense for some of the destinations out of LGA. With a carrier of our size, it is easy to create a route system that works much more efficiently with larger airframes.

As a merged company what you say makes a lot of sense.