gloopy

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.

dragon

Wasn't there an article not too long ago saying that the cost of pilots per plane ticket is less than the cost of the Starbucks they stop at on the way to the gate?

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.

CVG767A

Sailing, thanks for your reply a few pages back--

It's good to hear that the equipment changes are merely seasonal.

volav8r1

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

tsquare

No.. and we don't want it to either.. unless you want even fewer jobs....

Scoop

Sailing,

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.


Scoop

sailingfun

Wow, Did you even really read my post? I clearly stated I felt the E170/175 should be mainline. Here is a repost of parts since you did not read all of the first post.

""I believe its with the EMB170/175 and they should be at the mainline.""

""I think a excellent start would be for Delta to bring the E170/175 into the mainline. Some of that flying would be dropped in the transition as no longer cost viable but the net result I think would be a significant gain in mainline jobs. Not 1 for 1 as the jets come over but still a large gain.
This takes pressure off other airlines to allow outsourcing larger jets especially the CAL/UAL deal and a possible future contract at AMR if the NMB ever allows them back into mediation. ""

Bucking Bar

One change was the assumptions which were made on the cost of under wing support. Delta consolidated and absorbed thousands of rampers and gate agents who then became Delta employees. The cost differential between mainline and regional disappeared. Another change was the restructuring of DCI agreements. To the best of my knowledge, we have never even requested copies of those Contracts. According to both management and ALPA, merger synergies account for billions. A whole lot changed in our network. It just wasn't a question anyone wanted the answer to.I am not assuming anything. I want to see the numbers. Our MEC should have at least got the numbers and considered the economics before holding the Compass vote (just one recent example)Absolutely true. But, we have been guilty of running our evaluations with the mainline cost remaining static instead of looking for ways to make it work here at Delta. That is a political bias.

The problem with a pure economic approach to scope is that the numbers are constantly variable. If purely economic, then our views on who we represent and who is a Delta pilot changes hourly. At some point we have to lock down our data range.

I argue that there are long term imperatives which require we find a way to make this flying work at Delta without killing our feed and without having it cost pilots on larger equipment anything. Unless we change our political bias to one which protects Delta jobs and promotes ALPA we are facing long term irrelevance. Bill Swelbar in his blog reports that Lee Moak agrees. That is great if true. I remain skeptical until I read direct quotes from my ALPA leadership.Well stated. I agree, and Compass would have made the perfect start. But, we would have had to do it at their status quo while closing the scope exception which allowed Compass to exist off list. We could have led the industry in showing how to recapture flying.

But, at the end of the day, we mostly need a change in our internal politics. We need leadership that understands every Delta job is important and that we gain every time a new Delta pilots that we represent is hired. We need to approach our economic evaluations with a "unity" bias.

Thanks for your your post.

johnso29

It seems the 50 seaters are slowly dying from an economic standpoint. It's obvious that several Regional CEO's are recognizing this, as we can see them scrambling for consolidation and larger RJs.

So, how do we recapture 76 seat flying? The EMB175 is easier to tackle then the CRJ900. There are far less EMB175's in the system, but the CRJ900's are plentiful. Just look at Pinnacle, Mesaba, ASA, & Skywest.

So how do we take them back?

iaflyer

Call me crazy, but maybe the first step would be our leadership saying that Scope is important.

Did you read the Council 20 Update this morning? For those outside the DTW council, here's what was said:

---
Some pilots have expressed concern with Captain O’Malley for failing to address scope in his letter. Scope was previously addressed by the MEC in resolution 09-144; a Council 20 submitted resolution. The resolution was unanimously approved by the MEC. The resolution states:

Agenda Item 09-144 Mainline Flying Restoration – submitted by Council 20

Maker: Hay Second: McDonald Passed: Unanimous.

BE IT RESOLVED the Delta Master Executive Council affirms its commitment to enforcing and improving all sections of the Pilot Working Agreement, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Delta Master Executive Council affirms Section 1 of the Pilot Working Agreement is an integral part of a comprehensive strategy to protect the careers of all Delta pilots.

The DAL MEC has committed to protecting and improving scope. The Negotiating Committee takes direction from the elected representatives; who take it from you, the line pilot. Please participate in the process as the MEC Chairman has requested. At the November MEC meeting, the MEC directed the Scheduling Committee to create a rotation questionnaire, e.g. preferences on rotation length, mixing international and domestic in a rotation, flight time per day, etc. We hope to have the questionnaire available for your participation soon.

--

I personally would like a stronger statement, than a "eh, we said it last year"