|
Originally Posted by LeineLodge
(Post 875104)
Can you explain how the new rest rules will make the regionals more expensive/less efficient? My understanding is they will now be able to fly more block hours, just less duty time. If scheduled properly this could make them MORE efficient, but will require them to get rid of the 3-5 hour hub sits.
I honestly don't know enough about the FTDT proposal to know if it's a good thing or not. So far it doesn't seem like a good thing to me: 2 man crews deeper into Europe More block hours/legs per day - potentially Transcon turns that were previously not legal Probably more that I cannot think of. I'm asking because I don't know. How does the new proposal HELP pilots, and Delta pilots specifically? |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 875082)
That is getting in to trade secret data that is protected by NDA. I am sure if can be data mined but the only public data you will get is city pairs, frequency and what is reported to the government on the 8 and 10-K's.
As I have stated, we are close or at the upper limit on allowable 70/76 seat airframes. This phenomenon that you see will no longer be allowed to occur without further scope sales. They can still replace 70 with 76 seat jets as our size allows, but they cannot go above the 255 total. Pilot numbers have gone done, but depending on the NPRM they count may spike. That depends on a lot. Based upon current staffing models the number of pilots at DCI is going down. Go look at the airline data pages on this site. ASM's are reported and as you say have gone up. Total block hrs peaked at around 63% and have declined from that high water mark. I do not have the specific number in front of me but my guess is that it is in the mid to love 50's. Just a guess though. I do not have public passenger data, and have not data mined number of seats and number of city pairs. It can be done though. I like you look at block hrs and airframes. You know where I stand on scope, and it is my guess that another opportunity will present itself when the rest rules change the staffing requirements at these airlines and the CASM goes up even more. There will probably be a urge to put more seats in these jets due to these costs, and I am sure I know what our answer will be. Like I have said, I have no fear that our reps will do the correct thing, and that National will back our decision because frankly there is no way they cannot. We have leverage at national and frankly there is nothing in the by-laws that prohibit it. On a greater level if I were ALPA President I would want more mainline pilots because they provide more money per pilot. It works in their best interest as well. But the quote I was responding to was asserting that RJ flying has not gone up during Lee Moak's "tenure". You seem to be citing recent reductions in number of hulls, etc. But that's not the same thing as saying RJ flying has gone down over Lee Moak's tenure. Captain Moak became MEC Chairman in 2004? If you take a snapshot of RJ flying (including things like airframes, seats, block hours, city pairs, passengers carried, etc.) at the moment in time when he first became MEC Chairman, and compare it with a snapshot of all those things as they are today, has RJ flying gone up, down, or stayed the same during his tenure? That is the question as I understand it. |
WRT to regional feeders:
Most of these guys do not sit in the hubs. Some do but not on the scale we do. Most of these pilots do not have staged overnights so rest would be longer. Most of these airlines will bump up against max duty rules. 10 hrs of time will not come in to play with most regionals as they do not fly the stage lengths that would allow this in a max duty day of 13 hrs. Most regional schedules are built to 14-15 hrs and always go over. My experience was that I went more than 30 mins past the scheduled duty day at least twice a week. (Limit looks at one per week over 30 mins and multiple times under 30. This proposal is also seeking more input on this subject) These operators really plan on a 16 hr duty day, or close. These guys do not employ the max sked duty limits that DAL has depending on report time. This will really effect the duty day of a great deal of their schedules. Looking at pairing construction and these proposed regulations it appears that duty days will be shortened by no less than 10% a day on average. Due to their stage lengths they will be caught up in the inability to block a consistent eight hrs a day and then will not come in to play except on one or two PLS turns with a short leg to a layo. Will bump up constantly on the behind the door language because it is not how they plan their pairings now. Trip construction will be less efficient by a country mile. Limiting duty days like we do with the penalties of going +30 over and the 60 day reporting requirement will force them to add buffer due to the fact that they are constantly late. When you compile this and a few more layered protections it will require at least one more crew per jet to make sure they do not have jets and crews timing out all over the system. (my assumption) One must remember that these will be FAR's not contractual limits that they can bust though. They will be dealing with legal ramifications not a grievance process. That will result in heavy fines if they try to skirt it. Because of this they will be forced to fly these guys more days, hit a max duty limit, and as a result will need more bodies to fly the schedule. That adds costs to these jets that need to make every penny possible. Of course who knows what the final ruling will be but given the proposal this will be a marked change in the way regional flying and scheduling is accomplished. Think of putting our paring limits at a regional. Also one item that will effect all of us is the min rest in a week, and max duty. The pickup patterns at the regional airlines is insane as this is the way they make ends meat. This will fall sharply due to FAR limits not contractual limits, further necessitating a need for more bodies to fulfill the block hr requirements. After reading these rest rules I liked most of it, but was concerned with some of it. I saw a layering of limits that will really change the way the bottom end does business. There is another thread on what it does to majors. |
DAL88;
I do not have 2004 hull numbers but the answer is up then down. :D I need to dig for that data and it is on a backup drive sitting in my closet. Not even sure I can access it. We know what happened in CH11 no one disputes that. In the end the pilots of DAL voted for it. I say, if you do not like it throw it back. Remember your feelings and fears at that time as well. It is easy to talk big when our company is on the verge of posting a record quarterly profit for the second quarter in a row. As I have said, hind sight is 20/20. With this perfect recollection and experience we should know what not to do in the future. I think everyone has learned in the process, I know I have. |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 875111)
Two man flights deeper into Europe will not happen, regardless of the new rules. Our current PWA (Contract) states 3 pilots for any flight over 8 hours. Do you think Dalpa would give that up? No. The FAA rules do not supercede the contract. The company probably isn't happy about the new rules, since Dalpa can take advantage of some new parts, and the company cannot take advantage of certain parts because we have it in our contract that they cannot.
|
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 875066)
My interest in this is purely... photographic. I'm looking at Fraulein #2 (the one without an adam's apple). Must have been shooting in portrait mode, because in portrait, the intended subject is sharp and everything else (aka. "background") is blurry.
Nicely done! |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 875081)
I would agree with that. However...
Obviously by far (if not the only) reason total RJ numbers are down is the unsuccessful business model of the current massive fleet of 50 seaters. As for the caps on larger RJ's, we should take little comfort in outsourcing caps that run right up to the currently allowable red line. What that means is if they could, there would be more (that goes for total frames of existing 70-76 seaters as well as, of course, anything larger). What that means, obviously, is that management is just now bumping up against the limits they agreed to previously, yet limits that for the entire history of this discussion have been slowly and methodically raised, in good times for a token bribe (which is usually taken away during the next bad times anyway) and in bad times for a slightly lesser lashing. Then we have some guys claiming these limits mitigate furloughs, when in fact all they can possibly or conceivably do is to maybe mitigate some or all of the furloughs that their very existance would have paved the way for in the first place. And that's best case scenario, with a flow down, like Compass. Let's outsource all narrowbodies to Mesa, but with a flow, so that if anyone is furloughed they can flow. I just can't follow the logic of defending that philosophy, yet many employ it. The other scope concessions were flat out give aways that would at best contribute to and at worst directly cause furloughs by allowing management to do more and more Delta flying without Delta pilots. Again, as to the bumping up against the limits of RJ outsourcing, we need to be very, very concerned about this. As in top tier issue. The history of RJ outsourcing has been one of constantly (although at some times slowly, at other times quickly) raised limits on total airframes as well as total seat count. Whenever you bump up against the newest limit (in this case total "large RJ" airframe limits, even if the total RJ count is down purely by anti-50 seater market forces) that is when you know you need to watch your back. Management clearly would LOVE to outsource more 70 and 76 seaters, and they would rev the engine and pop the clutch on the opportunity for anything larger. The fact that any such limits are being reached means that management will be right around the corner, in good times or in bad, to increase those limits. Count on it. If they "have to" they will gladly write in a flow back. Pilot training costs is nothing compared to the glory of outsourcing more and more flying. And they will even give up "guaranteed ratios to mainline growth" if they have to, particularly when almost all such limits are one way check valves. But either is like agreeing to have someone cut a 6 inch gash in an artery (hey, we talked em down from 8) as long as they agree to stitch 2 inches of it right back up. Management seeks every opportunity to raise scope limits in good times and in bad. Sec 6 negotiations and BK negotiations are their main windows of opportunity and they know one of them will be opening wide in the very near future. Now is the time to watch our backs, not only from management but from those sworn to serve and protect us as well. I see no issue with any of the above. Scope definitely will continuously remain THE defining issue in any contract, and not just on the small-gauge end of the fleet. As economies, populations, and airline grow, the natural evolution, from the company's standpoint, will be towards larger and larger airframes to outsource. We will need to be vigilant and aggressive on this point, like a rottweiller at his food bowl, surrounded by a pack of hungry pit-bulls. I think there are some mitigating factors coming that could reduce the attraction to outsourced RJ flying, but that makes for nice daydreaming, not a negotiating strategy. |
Originally Posted by nwaf16dude
(Post 875123)
Just shooting in auto mode with a nikon d90. Makes it pretty easy. Frau #1 looked better in person, trust me. Overall, it was an epic event. My second year there, plan on making it next year as well. Luckily the 3rd week of sept is pretty easy to get for vacation.
I use a D90 also. I guess it's not the portrait mode, but where you were focused. The eyes are a little blurry, but the necklace :rolleyes: sure looks very sharp... |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 875121)
DAL88;
I do not have 2004 hull numbers but the answer is up then down. :D I need to dig for that data and it is on a backup drive sitting in my closet. Not even sure I can access it. We know what happened in CH11 no one disputes that. In the end the pilots of DAL voted for it. I say, if you do not like it throw it back. Remember your feelings and fears at that time as well. It is easy to talk big when our company is on the verge of posting a record quarterly profit for the second quarter in a row. As I have said, hind sight is 20/20. With this perfect recollection and experience we should know what not to do in the future. I think everyone has learned in the process, I know I have. As for the hull number... You say that from 2004 to present they were up, then down. Is the total number of hulls less today than it was in 2004 or not? And, of course, as we have discussed this isn't necessarily the best measure of whether RJ flying has or has not increased or decreased during LM's tenure. |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 875111)
Two man flights deeper into Europe will not happen, regardless of the new rules. Our current PWA (Contract) states 3 pilots for any flight over 8 hours. Do you think Dalpa would give that up? No. The FAA rules do not supercede the contract. The company probably isn't happy about the new rules, since Dalpa can take advantage of some new parts, and the company cannot take advantage of certain parts because we have it in our contract that they cannot.
For now... |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:30 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands