Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
02-03-2011 | 09:45 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Likes: 0
I brought up that point with RD (JV guy) and he said that since AS doesn't have widebodies, the SLI wouldn't be impacted by that.
My take on the subject is: everybody on the DAL NB fleet will be impacted by AS growing if the DAL NB count remains mostly flat...
Cheers
George
My take on the subject is: everybody on the DAL NB fleet will be impacted by AS growing if the DAL NB count remains mostly flat...
Cheers
George
02-03-2011 | 09:45 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
02-03-2011 | 09:47 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
From my interactions I've gotten the impression that "everything is under control, nothing to see here, move along"
The sad thing is that until you recognize a flaw, it's pretty darn hard to fix it...
Our Section 1 isn't all bad, in fact the AF JV scope language is tight, reviewed annually and subject to remedies if the balance of flying goes more than 3% in favor of one group.
Why that model wasn't used for RJ or AS scope is a mystery, maybe the negotiators saw only the upside for the intl. and looked past the corresponding impact on domestic...
Cheers
George
The sad thing is that until you recognize a flaw, it's pretty darn hard to fix it...
Our Section 1 isn't all bad, in fact the AF JV scope language is tight, reviewed annually and subject to remedies if the balance of flying goes more than 3% in favor of one group.
Why that model wasn't used for RJ or AS scope is a mystery, maybe the negotiators saw only the upside for the intl. and looked past the corresponding impact on domestic...
Cheers
George
Some legacy agreements suck more, and some less. You like the AF JV better? I had never looked at it that way before, but it's a good thing AF bought KLM, or we would have a legacy KLM agreement to comply with also.
02-03-2011 | 09:53 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
Yup.
02-03-2011 | 09:59 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,724
Likes: 0
From: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
acls more accurate number
Let's see, 69 out on furlough...
15 737s on order...
how soon will we have to merge that the 69 remaining are a factor?
Cheers
George
15 737s on order...
how soon will we have to merge that the 69 remaining are a factor?
Cheers
George
Last edited by georgetg; 02-03-2011 at 10:21 AM. Reason: Thanks ACL for the furlough number...
02-03-2011 | 09:59 AM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
02-03-2011 | 10:02 AM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
OK, I'm listening to the webcast. Here are the cuts I'm hearing Ed talk about:
1) The remaining DC-9's, all -50's (about 35), to be retired in 12-28 months,
2) The remaining Saab 340's (26), retired this year,
3) 60 CRJ 50-seaters to be retired in 12-18 months.
Ed doesn't talk about MD-90's right away. He says (technically correct) that we have "no order book". I think he's saying no orders with the manufacturers. Capacity for the full year is being looked at, probably will end up being at the low end of the previously announced range: up 1%. Q1 will be up 3%, vs. previously announced up 5%.
It's really hard to tell how our overall capacity will be affected by listening to the webcast, which I guess is the point.
You get some idea on replacaments/additions (other than through the RFP, which will be addressed much later in the year) from the Q&A: replacements will be the ERJ-170's just announced (8), and a "handful" of 70-76 seat airplanes, for a total of 10-20, and (20) MD-90's from the used market.
Based on the webcast, I guess that takes capacity down by 15 mainline airframes, down 40 RJ's (60 leave, 20 come in), and down 26 Saabs in the next 12-18-months.
There is no timeframe given for aircraft coming in, or if 20 MD's is all there is, and no mention of some airframes we've been told were coming out of the desert previously. This is also short of the 49 MD-90's previously mentioned (Bastian mentions 20, and we already have 19, so he's only mentioning 39).
Depending on how positive you want to be, and depending on how many of these mystical MD-90's you want to count, and the 2 ER's and several 757's coming out of the desert, it all varies between a slight positve, to as much as minus fifteen airframes. That's all I could figure out.
1) The remaining DC-9's, all -50's (about 35), to be retired in 12-28 months,
2) The remaining Saab 340's (26), retired this year,
3) 60 CRJ 50-seaters to be retired in 12-18 months.
Ed doesn't talk about MD-90's right away. He says (technically correct) that we have "no order book". I think he's saying no orders with the manufacturers. Capacity for the full year is being looked at, probably will end up being at the low end of the previously announced range: up 1%. Q1 will be up 3%, vs. previously announced up 5%.
It's really hard to tell how our overall capacity will be affected by listening to the webcast, which I guess is the point.
You get some idea on replacaments/additions (other than through the RFP, which will be addressed much later in the year) from the Q&A: replacements will be the ERJ-170's just announced (8), and a "handful" of 70-76 seat airplanes, for a total of 10-20, and (20) MD-90's from the used market.
Based on the webcast, I guess that takes capacity down by 15 mainline airframes, down 40 RJ's (60 leave, 20 come in), and down 26 Saabs in the next 12-18-months.
There is no timeframe given for aircraft coming in, or if 20 MD's is all there is, and no mention of some airframes we've been told were coming out of the desert previously. This is also short of the 49 MD-90's previously mentioned (Bastian mentions 20, and we already have 19, so he's only mentioning 39).
Depending on how positive you want to be, and depending on how many of these mystical MD-90's you want to count, and the 2 ER's and several 757's coming out of the desert, it all varies between a slight positve, to as much as minus fifteen airframes. That's all I could figure out.
Last edited by acl65pilot; 02-03-2011 at 11:16 AM.
02-03-2011 | 10:03 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,724
Likes: 0
From: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Maybe because the AS agreement is a legacy from the merger, and we couldn't unilaterally amend it without Alaska's approval?
Some legacy agreements suck more, and some less. You like the AF JV better? I had never looked at it that way before, but it's a good thing AF bought KLM, or we would have a legacy KLM agreement to comply with also.
Some legacy agreements suck more, and some less. You like the AF JV better? I had never looked at it that way before, but it's a good thing AF bought KLM, or we would have a legacy KLM agreement to comply with also.
ASMs are shared 50%-50%
The balance reviewed annually
Remedies (cuts) if the balance goes below 47%
Show me where our DCI scope has anything close to this level of annual review and capacity control...
To me its a matter of motivation of the negotiators.
What affects your own back yard, you might watch more closely...
Cheers
George
02-03-2011 | 10:20 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Delta's still acquiring < 70 seaters under contract. Reference Republic's 70 seat flying announcement.
IMHO we will see a 100 seat platform configured with whatever seating configuration is allowed. The change can be made overnight with a log entry. The C Series and MRJ are lighter than the airplanes they replace, giving management more flexibility around archaic, poorly considered, scope language.
Don't completely count out the CRJ1000 either.
IMHO we will see a 100 seat platform configured with whatever seating configuration is allowed. The change can be made overnight with a log entry. The C Series and MRJ are lighter than the airplanes they replace, giving management more flexibility around archaic, poorly considered, scope language.
Don't completely count out the CRJ1000 either.
Our scope limit of 255 aircraft with 51-76 seats is about full.
I predict that the company will take delivery of at least 30 MD-90s currently under contract and possibly more to replace the 35 DC-9s and any 88s or 302s they might park.
The company also announced at this conference call that they will be parking 60 CRJs and 26 Saabs in the next 18 months, and I very much doubt they'll replace them with more 50 seaters. They've only got room for 20 additional 70-seat jets to replace the 86 regional aircraft they announced they are parking.
02-03-2011 | 10:23 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
Lets see:
ASMs are shared 50%-50%
The balance reviewed annually
Remedies (cuts) if the balance goes below 47%
Show me where our DCI scope has anything close to this level of annual review and capacity control...
To me its a matter of motivation of the negotiators.
What affects your own back yard, you might watch more closely...
Cheers
George
ASMs are shared 50%-50%
The balance reviewed annually
Remedies (cuts) if the balance goes below 47%
Show me where our DCI scope has anything close to this level of annual review and capacity control...
To me its a matter of motivation of the negotiators.
What affects your own back yard, you might watch more closely...
Cheers
George
You're asking why the AS agreement isn't as good as the AF JV, and I'm saying that we couldn't unilaterally change the agreement when we merged. We inherited it. The DCI agreement, likewise, involve third parties, and capacity agreements (that are allowed under our contract) have been made.
IOW, I'm not making comparisons, I'm talking about the value of branding the horse before it's out of the barn. We still can do better in the next contract, assuming we're properly focused and disciplined, so I agree with your last paragraph. But it's still much more difficult when third parties are involved. They now have rights as well as obligations.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
