... and ... These, plus all the other guys on the board who's opinions I respect and appreciate. ...

I do my own analytical work and frankly, did not anticipate the economy doing as well as it has. 300 is a skinny margin & does not actually cover attrition since we've stopped hiring. Pulling more capacity out of a declining fleet count is a magic trick that can only be sustained for so long. Delta does it better than anyone else. An issue on the 737 is "cold tires." I suspect some jets go days without "cold tires" on the ground.

My coming concern is the need for 250 billion worth of airplanes if we truly replace the 757's and a couple older 767's with airplanes of similar capacity and capability. The engineers tell me there is not a viable way to extend the life of the 757's airframe. With all the other pressures to outsource, we don't need a crisis on the capital expenditure side weighing against us. Management seems to be thinking the same thing as they are putting their money where their mouth is by being very disciplined on fixing our balance sheet ASAP.

I'm not in the negotiating committee (obviously) but I'm the worst case prognosticator you NEED writing job protection and scope language. Apparently not the guy you want writing the headline number on pay raises.

As for "restoration" I'm not sure what that means. I hear a lot about pay, but pay has a lot to do with upgrade potential. When you look at the stove pipe effect on first officers getting a command job, there are significant pay opportunities by restoring scope and our job protections. But not much (anything really) is pursued in restoring Section 1 and we only take nibbles at Section 23. We need stricter limits on "SkyTeam" and Alaska, maybe percentages, maybe a threat to flip the switch, but we compromise our position when we agree that our jobs are for sale but we want to quibble over the price, IMHO.

80 knots ... as I wrote then & I repeat now ... hope (glad) I was wrong.

 

Bar and I have discussed these data points many times over the last few years.

I could be mistaken but I beleive his point is that Pay is great and we all want it, but we need to realize that the issue of our aging fleet. Delta literally will need to spend tens of billions of dollars on jets in the next few years.
I suspect that he will further state that DAL will use this cost of new jets as a reason to outsource smaller flying because they cannot add that amount of debt to the balance sheet.

Every time we have discussed this prior it has never been my opinion that he feels we need to make less pay to make sure DAL can afford these jets. It is more of a point that DAL will make that, given our pay, etc, they cannot afford to renew the fleet under the current umbrella.

It is part of the reason why Scope is so important. It cannot be sold for anything.

 

When the time comes to replace those airframes as a general rule the new airframes are more efficient and should cover the cost of the replacement over time. Generating revenue to replace aircraft is a company function. If you take a look at the total cost of leasing and purchasing aircraft its not nearly as significant as fuel. The next generation of aircraft in the larger narrow aisle seat count may gain enough to actual be cheaper overall including the cost to purchase or lease. This will be especially true if fuel prices increase.
I am not sure what the issue is with 757 airframe life. Its the exact same tube as the 737. Same construction just longer. Fedex is buying lots of used 757's and plans on keeping them in service for 20 more years.

 

Sailing, agreed. New airplanes cost money and what DAL is doing by buying used jets is trying to flatten out the CAPEx that will be needed for this. It puts off a lot of the replacement needs until the 2020-2022 time frame.

The 320's could be replaced earlier, but a new engine with a 15% increase in efficiency will take care of a lot of that for DAL.

 

If you and others want to keep on making management's points for them for heavens sake go get a management job, you're obviously in the wrong position now.

It is management's job to pay employees as little as possible.

It ain't the employee's job to help them do it.

 

Dude,

Once again. You are hilarious.

 

Acl,

I understand what you are saying. The company needs money for airplanes in the future. All I am saying is that I gave already.

1.) Take a 45% paycut to help the company buy airplanes for someone else: Done. Box checked.

2.) Allow someone else to fly above mentioned aircraft while you watch your fleet and flying shrink. Done. Box checked again.


My giving spirit is exhausted. Bah humbug. I want Santa to re-fill my stocking with pay and scope.


New K AKA Ebenezer Scrooge

 

I've been wondering why on departure from DTW the controller always gives me a heading and then says "when able, direct Dunks." I think, don't they know I can go direct to Dunks right now? Don't they know I'm always able? Don't they know I fly the Fluff? Then I remember, ah, New K, he gets out his chainsaw. They don't know that I'm not New K....ahhh.

 

OK, so Bar has been wrong before, but his arguments always strike me as cogent, and usually worth a read. If he wonders how the company will pay for the renewal of the fleet, and therefore shows interest in the future of the business plan... good for him. I'm sure Bar may be overlooking some positive factors that would help bridge the gap he seems to be forecasting. It might actually be interesting to discuss those.

But instead of showing us how he might be incorrect, some have chosen to translate his words instead. He doesn't mean "I don't know how the company can pay for new airplanes": he actually is saying "I'm a gigantic [deleted] and I can't wait to willingly bend over and put RA's [deleted] in my [deleted]. I'll even [deleted] for him afterwards."

First, RTFP. Then, ATFP, if you can. But please don't TTFP.

 

Some might call that "constructive engagement".

Just don't forget to say thank you.