|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 925462)
I have a lot of respect for ALPA's EF&A department WRT many things, but they are not infallible either. While I bet they have some very accurate cost numbers on some static things, I believe those numbers do not nearly take into consideration the multitude of unintended consequences. Sure they can show how outsourcing to DCI carrier #8 compares to DCi carriers #1 though 7 and how they all compare to mainline. However I do not believe that ALPA's EF&A department, and certainlly not the company's esteemed and accredited geniuses come anywhere close to calculating the full ramifications and unintended consequences of their outsourcing schemes.
When DCI #3 cancells a flight because they don't have a flight attendant even though DCI carriers #4, 6 and 8 do, does that make EF&A's initial analysys? I doubt it. When DCI #2 needs a tire but doesn't have one, but DCI #4 right next door has spares but its a different type of aircraft, does EF&A calculate that? You mentioned the lost customer issue which is valid, but the unintended cost creep of numbers that may look solid under EF&A's microscope, but based on a low ball bid that even a cut throat underbidder can't honor because they bid below costs to get the work and then the operation gets trashed, suddenly the numbers move. Many DCI carriers go through the binge and purge cycle of crisis hiring only to furlough only to recall only to have no idea how to plan and there is a cost to that and I don't think ALPA's EF&A has a clue because no one does until it happens. DCI litigation and injunctions were never in the initial cost out either, but they are very much real. And what about the cost when a megalomanic in charge of a large portion of DCI doesn't get his way one day and pulls an IndyAir with a Billion dollars in the bank? Even if its not successful, how much revenue will it bleed us before its put down? EF&A numbers have been proven comically invalid on all those glorious 50 seaters that the business travel supposedly was in love with and overnight became massive liabilities but the company had long term binding agreements with ACMI carriers to fly them. Can someone do simple math like mainline would cost X$ to fly the EMB170 and RAH will cost Y$ to fly it. The deal is inked, the bonuses fly, and all the sudden we are subsidizing a competitor who best case is only a nominal negative pressure on yields in certain markets, and worst case a lot more than that some day. Ditto for all the outsourcing schemes we're in bed with. I bet Boeing's EF&A geniuses got pats on the back from all their white papers about how glorious their cost saving outsourcing for the 787 was going to be. Real numbers, real dollars! Whoops. Sorry but I will never be convinced that an airline that outsources half its flights is correct in doing so. I think its a pee poor business practice and the company and ALPA need to both come up with a better formula to predict its disasterous costs and inintended consequences. Not just operationally either. Watch as outsourcing present and future negatively effects our section 6 dynamics in the not too distant future. Even if we get a "big raise" it may be less than what we would have gotten had we not outsourced, and/or we may be asked or even severely pressured to outsource more to get a sizeable fraction of the restoration we are owed, which will, of course, create even more negative pressure years down the road. And I very much doubt ALPA's EF&A takes that fully into account. They haven't so far, that's for sure. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 925505)
Speaking of the 9, let's talk about the 9. Guys flying it want to share some insight and thoughts about the bird in case there is an ATL base? A friend and I were talking about it today and it'd be nice to hear some thoughts of the transition back to non-FMS, trip QOL and other pertinent line pilot stuff. Thinking about it, maybe on this AE maybe on the next. Since you've flown the 88 (and I also flew it for a really long time), here is the downside from my perspective. Delta has done a really poor job of standardizing the DC-9 operation with Delta's way of doing things... especially in terms of standardizing it with the MD-88. Because the two airplanes are almost identical in many ways, it would have been really easy to standardize things like preflight flow patterns and certain procedures. They have not done this. If you have been flying the 88 and are going to the 9 (or vice versa), you will have to "unlearn" quite a few things and learn a completely different way of doing some things. I think going back to steam gauges really comes down to a personal decision. I flew the 9 at TWA and the only FMS aircraft I've ever flown is the 88. While I love having the map and all the automation, I never really let my mindset get away from basic instrument flying when I was on the 88. It was very easy for me to go back to the DC-9 (except for the "different" way of doing some things). If it's been a long time since you've flown basic "six pack" steam gauges and you are really used to all the automation on something like the 88, it might be very painful to go back to that. I had a friend of mine who went through the transition from 88 Captain to DC-9 Captain last year. He went back to the 88 as soon as he could. During his DC-9 training, I remember one text message he sent me. It said something to the effect of "make it stop... I hate this airplane!" Again, I like the airplane and am enjoying flying it. Your mileage may vary. The trips are very similar to 88 trips. A lot of hub and spoke, mostly out of ATL. It seems like the turn times are a little shorter on a lot of the legs on the -9. But I haven't looked at the 88 trips lately. Maybe they have shorter turn times now too? Anyway, the short turn times can be frustrating at times because we tend to change airplanes every time we come through a hub (usually ATL). Now... here's the worst part, IMO. The heat in the summer! Holy cow... I've never sweated so much in an airplane in my life! (It does serve as a pretty good weight loss program, though. ;)) Most of the stations will not hook up conditioned air. Most of the gates in ATL don't even have hoses that will reach the air hookup on the tail. The APU is much weaker than the APU on the 88. You can generally only run one pack off the APU... or two packs if you use the AIR COND COLDER switch. The air flow is minimal (even with both engines AND the APU)... and on a hot day, there is just no way to keep the cabin from getting warm or even hot. I'm really big on fuel savings, efficiency, single-engine taxi, etc. But I found that, during the summer, I had to taxi with both engines and the APU to keep the cabin from getting unbearably hot... and even sometimes that wasn't enough! |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 925629)
He is asking for your input to form that list.
|
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
(Post 925622)
OBTW, I have yet to see a response to my letter to our union leadership regarding our MEC Chair's omission of Scope from his list of priorities.
Carl |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 925603)
There is a point where you price yourself out of the market and lose the feed. The net result could actually be a loss of mainline jobs not a gain.
And I don't buy into your Al Gorean predictions of a tipping point that "too expensive" E175's would choke off feed and decimate mainline jobs. Is that theoretically possible if those planes paid a massive, earth shattering salary and compensation package? Sure, I guess. But we all know that was never even on the table. It's worth it to us to bring those jobs in house even at less than DC9 rates, although if you look at the profitability of the company you'd be hard pressed to say that it was 100% necessary to save the integrity of the entire airline industry in the first place. Would we lose massive amounts of feed if we flew the E175 for, say, 10-15% less than JB's E190 rates? I seriously doubt it would add that much to the bottom line and I don't think you can make the case that it would either. Even full DC9 pay parity wouldn't even come close to breaking the bank, but odds are it would be flown for less than that anyway because that's just how things are arranged right now like it or not, so the costs would be significantly lower in the first place. We do not need nearly this much outsourcing. It is not goods for us. It does not provide for nor secure mainline jobs. We could do it profitably for significantly more than market RJ rates because we're still not talking that much in actual dollars when spread across the operation, but in the extremely unlikely event that current RJ rates are the only way these planes are going to get off the ground and therefore the only way we can get feed and stay in business, then as a last resort we could insource them at market rates if that was truly the only way. But I do not believe it is. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 925671)
There's a point where anyone will price themselves out of the market. If techers all got paid 14 million per year, we would close all schools. If cops made 6 figures every month, we wouldn't have any. Its been proven that the E190 can be flown with industry average rates and semi-competitive benefits all around. The E170/175 isn't that much smaller so don't tell me (us) that outsourcing hundreds of these jets is the only way to provide for our inflated mainline salaries cause I'm not buying it.
And I don't buy into your Al Gorean predictions of a tipping point that "too expensive" E175's would choke off feed and decimate mainline jobs. Is that theoretically possible if those planes paid a massive, earth shattering salary and compensation package? Sure, I guess. But we all know that was never even on the table. It's worth it to us to bring those jobs in house even at less than DC9 rates, although if you look at the profitability of the company you'd be hard pressed to say that it was 100% necessary to save the integrity of the entire airline industry in the first place. Would we lose massive amounts of feed if we flew the E175 for, say, 10-15% less than JB's E190 rates? I seriously doubt it would add that much to the bottom line and I don't think you can make the case that it would either. Even full DC9 pay parity wouldn't even come close to breaking the bank, but odds are it would be flown for less than that anyway because that's just how things are arranged right now like it or not, so the costs would be significantly lower in the first place. We do not need nearly this much outsourcing. It is not goods for us. It does not provide for nor secure mainline jobs. We could do it profitably for significantly more than market RJ rates because we're still not talking that much in actual dollars when spread across the operation, but in the extremely unlikely event that current RJ rates are the only way these planes are going to get off the ground and therefore the only way we can get feed and stay in business, then as a last resort we could insource them at market rates if that was truly the only way. But I do not believe it is. If that's the case the whole argument falls apart that we can't afford to have those planes on our list with our rates. I think we can't afford not to. The real problem here may be the DALPA apologists are transitioning from the old regime to the new one and haven't gotten a new talking points sheet yet. |
Sailing, thanks for your reply a few pages back--
It's good to hear that the equipment changes are merely seasonal. |
Can any of you computer guru's help?!
I am trying to get the LMS content to work on my laptop. I am using Internet Explorer 8 with Windows Vista. When I click on the content in LMS I get a pop-up that says I need Authorware 7. Well, Authorware 7 is not compatible with Windows Vista according to the Adobe site. Tried downloading Flash Players, tried running the LMS on Firefox, etc... Called IT yesterday and their response was: "You're just going to have to play around with it". (Second call to them in 2 weeks, with no help. My QCQ Completion Code wouldn't work and I was told to redo my QCQ on another computer. . . . Seriously?!) Anyone have a suggestion? I'm not exactly computer saavy. Thanks |
Originally Posted by boog123
(Post 925466)
Does the pilot to pilot swap board allow p/u at other bases? ie can a NYC 7er guy pick up a trip from an ATL 7er guy?
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 925603)
The first is that the numbers used during the 1113 hearing were expected costs post bankruptcy. I don't believe the merger reduced the mainline costs so not a big change there. The second issue is that you make the assumption that if the mainline took over all the outsourced flying that it would remain the same. That is a very bad assumption. There is a point where you price yourself out of the market and lose the feed. The net result could actually be a loss of mainline jobs not a gain. The very difficult question is how do you determine what the network could effectively fly if the mainline took over all the flying. Would you gain 1000 RJ jet jobs but lose 1000 mainline jobs with less feed because you could no longer compete in many feed markets. I don't necessarily disagree with the main point of your post - that we can price ourselves out of the market but I think it is far more complicated, and not only complicated but also dynamic, in that the numbers are constantly changing. I don't think DAL Pilots will ever fly 50 seaters. 70 seaters - doubtful, but the 76 and up market could probably be flown profitably by DAL Pilots. When you say we would price ourselves out the market what numbers would you use for Pilot costs. In the past RJ Captains have been at the 3 and 4 year pay scale - this was a superb bargain for management and a temporary result of explosive DCI growth. And DAL pilots had huge legacy costs (pay-rates/retirements etc.) As the DCI lists start to stagnant these cost will rapidly increase and as far as pilot pay rates could approach mainline pay-rates. We can assume that these positions would be junior seats at mainline, and very junior when our list finally starts to move (assuming some guy does not win the age 65 discrimination lawsuit in two years). Fuel costs are a wash, as are most subcontracted costs. When you see DAL personnel handling DCI flights you realize that a lot of these costs are identical. So yes there is a cost to bring these flights to mainline but what about the built in profits at DCI? Could this make up for any potential cost differences? It seems to me if outsourcing where truly viable it would be at risk flying? And finally the million dollar question - If DCI is so cost effective, where are all the stand alone at risk carriers? You would think that domestic flying would be dominated by independent RJ operating Juggernauts such as Independence Air and Express Jet. There is no doubt a "Sweet Spot" in our system where DCI use is a win-win for Pilots and management and possibly even our passengers. I would venture its something like a 50 or 70 seater feeding a hub from some small outstation. I seriously doubt its flying a 76 seater from DFW-JFK or JFK-ORD. And the most cost efficient solution may not even be a RJ but a prop. Funny how management will operate a non-economical RJ vice a more efficient Turboprop because customers like jets better, but this logic does not carry over to mainline, which passengers also seem to prefer vice DCI. :confused: Scoop |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:13 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands