I agree about the scope and all growth on our seniority list. I'm all for that, and the hiring it would represent. That should be a top priority. I'm just pointing out that forcing a particular inneficiency into the system that would result in hiring to cover the same amount of flying is costly and that we pay that cost.

As others have pointed out, when things start to go the other way and the concession store might be opened, one of the very first things that goes are those previously negotiated inefficiencies. Although just before they do, the cost they carry are usually used to justify deeper cuts elsewhere than anyone can justify as reasonable even in bankrputcy, let alone outside it.

If we get the 76 and/or 70 seaters back and that results in us having to hire, I'm all for that. That flying should not be outsourced. If we have to hire for retirements, that's a very good thing. If the new reserve rules do indeed require more pilots, great (although I have my suspiscions about that and think that most "mainlines" will see little to no hiring as a result becaus emost plusses are built into most work rules already and there are some juicy negatives in some expensive catgories that can be gutted, but that's another issue).

If/when we get a significant pay raise and much needed work rule improvements, like better rigs for lineholders and better reserve rules all around however, I don't think that will necessarilly drive the need to hire just for those things alone. Running lean is OK to the point where pilots aren't getting abused against their will. But there is nothing wrong with the pilot group as a whole being productive. In fact, if we want the other things we clearly say we want (pay, work rules, scope, retirement, etc) then high productivity is a must because without it, everything else we want becomes that much more expensive.

And speaking of things driving the need to hire, if we give away scope...or even allow today's completely unacceptable level of outsourcing to continue, that will prevent far more hiring than we will be able to get by work rules in the first place. Scope relief (additional and even existing) is our number one "threat" while productivity, if done right, can be one of our greatest assets come contract time.

And no I'm not talking about sleeping in airplanes or abusing crews. SWA's productivity is off the charts for domestic narrow body flying and they seem to have a pretty good QOL and they don't sleep on airplanes or complainn about being abused. High productivity doesn't have to mean Mesa style crew abuse. Although outsourcing which we give permission for is the foundation for that kind of abuse in the first place, but I digress.

Maybe we are referring to different conversations. Sorry if that is the case. I have a good friend at another "legacy" who constantly preaches that the number one goal is to force more hiring by any means necessary because "hiring is good" and all that. I guess I started off framing the debate around that context.

Before we think we can emulate SWA, or Jet Blue ... there are some pretty big structural differences between the way SWA can staff trips and the way Delta can. For starters, SWA has one type of jet in one airline. Delta has seven types in one airline and another 10 other code share partners doing Delta domestic flying.

SWA has more choices to maximize efficiency.

I'm not disagreeing with you, and you're not the only one to have said it, but do you have the data to back that up? I always hear about the productivity gap, and I'd like to know how big it is.

I wonder how much of their better productivity is the result of a single aircraft type, and the lower training costs and other efficiencies that occur as a result.

We operate numerous aircraft types, which tends to decrease our efficiency. Should we be penalized for that?

But on the other hand, how does the multiple aircraft types ENHANCE efficiency for different routes?

BHM-MCI is better on a 737-300/700 than on a MD-88.
ATL-LGA is more efficient on a 757 than a 737-300/700.
JFK-LHR is MUCH better on a 767-400 than on a 737-300/700.
OAK-MSP is probably about even on an A319/320 versus a 737-300/700.

The key is the sweet spot.

I think CAL had it right in fleet setup:
737 family114-178 seat options
757-767 family 182-260 seat ranges with long haul
777-200 type 280 seat config. w/ultra long haul
Lots of crew and maintenance interoperability, and still many passenger load options.

That's ok with me as long as all the other rates follow the upward trend. 777/747A 500/hr something to shoot for.:D

You're right, from the standpoint of network efficiency. We can match the plane to the route allowing Delta to manage yield better.

What I'm referring to is the inefficiency that multiple aircraft types have on our productivity. For the sake of argument, let's say the average Southwest pilot blocks 900 hours per year, and the average Delta guy blocks 600 hours (I have no idea what the actual numbers are).

Delta has a large number of guys in training for a new airplane at any given time. How much does that bring down the average? Delta needs to have a larger contingent on reserve at any given time, because we have more categories of pilots. These pilots, especially in small categories, may not fly very much. How does that affect our average?

The nature of our operation permits less productivity than Southwest pilots, but it also allows for greater profits than the Southwest model. If the company raises the productivity issue when we benchmark SWA rates in 2012, I hope DALPA raises the BS flag.

Not sure the reason behind this video, but it has a groovy soundtrack. I felt like I was perusing jeans at the GAP.

I believe this was the try out video for the current in-flight safety video.

Question for guys with an iPad. I was checking them out but was not able to view screw schedules and trip info using safari. Is there another browser that works?

A three day trip at SWA credits about what our four days do. Yes, that is a generic statement. My best friend is at swa, we talk a lot