|
Originally Posted by capncrunch
(Post 589565)
About as long as your civil liberties under the previous administration. I keed, I keed...
|
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 589661)
Pleez...what civil liberties did you lose? Unless you were working for Al Qaeda, I'm guessing zero.
|
What's up with this?
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 589309)
RA and EB are meeting with the MEC today. Unusual that they would be going together.
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 589131)
If you could send 2 76 seaters for the cost of 1 100 seat DC9, then you would because thats an extra 52 seats for the same price plus you could offer flights 2 or 3 hours apart. If its 2 50-seat CRJ200s for the cost of 1 100-seat DC9 then whats the point? Their goal isn't to keep either the CRJ200 or DC9, otherwise we'd still have 732s. Their goal is to get cheaper airplanes operating in mass.
Now, the problem is if 2 76 seaters = 1 150 seater (i.e. MD88). If that happens or if it is happening, then we've got a problem because all things being equal I think the company would rather offer frequency and the pricing advantages therein rather than run a single jet. Thus the whole reason for ensuring scope is not relaxed by our pilot group and/or our union and we secure 76 seaters on our side of the fence. Or, the company will in its financial interest continue to pursue scope relaxation while at the same time moving towards the elimination of the 9 followed shortly thereafter with the MD88 and they could potentially get both. Just look at the cost for a 1.5 hour flight: CRJ-900 461 GPH x1.5 = 691.5 $1,949 BH x1.5 = $2923.5 Fuel for 2 departures = 1383 GAL Cost of 2 departures = $5847 for 152 seats DC9-50 869 GPH x1.5 = 1303.5 $3,019 x1.5 = $4528.5 MD88 883 x1.5 = 1324.5 $3,662 x1.5 = $5493 The cost of running the RJ is only $350 (apx) more than an MD88 and you get 10 extra seats and of course frequency. The 51+ seat jets must be flown by the majors if we want to ever make sizable increases in compensation. The regionals will never be able to command similar compensation to the majors due to the fact that they must compete with each other for the flying they get and are on short term contracts with their major partners. This allows management at regionals to keep compensation low playing on fear that their flying will be transferred if cost rise to high (and they are correct). This has had a direct impact on major airline compensation because mainline costs were so out of line with compensation and benefit level of the regionals. Delta management has replaced mainline in numerous cities over the last 8 years and has done so with a lower cost product which has put compensation on a downward spiral. It took a 50% pay cut (as well as a lot of restructuring) to get an MD88 to be cost competitive with a CRJ. Ironically the 50% reduction in compensation as well as the lost of other benefits is what is helping us during this current down turn. Since we are at a similar cost to the RJs there has actually been bleeding at the regional level the time around but this has been at a high price to our quality of life. The only way to increase what we are paid to fly an MD88 (or any aircraft) is if we are negotiating the rates for the 69+ seat jets, whether we fly them or not, thereby raising the cost of our replacement jets eliminating the downward pull. The other option is to trade more scope so that management can outsource more flying in order to change the breakeven cost. This is the current DALPA MO. Lee Moak is correct that the RJ is good for mainline. In reality they are a good tool for management to make money off of cheap, controllable labor and in return Moak can get an extra 5% +/- for the pilots of Delta Air Lines. The problem is that this destroys the future of all professional pilots (over time, just look back 8 years) and has a negative effect immediately on the bottom 30 – 40 percent of the pilot group. The line in the sand needs to become a wall and should be built at the 51 seat mark. |
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 589315)
I don't believe the costs of the 777 being higher than that of the 747. Even Boeing's website says the 747 is more expensive to operate. Which is in line with DAL management touting the end of the 747 in a couple of years.
The NW 747s seat 403 pax vs 268 for the DL 777ER. Delta serves a lot of markets where a 268 pax jet is much more useful than a 403 pax jet. Just because the ASM cost are lower doesn’t mean that you would make more revenue with the 403 pax jet. If you are only getting demand to 275 pax than you need to wholesale a lot of seats on the 747 just to try and break even. On the other had the 777 would be oversold and you could increase your ticket cost. The telling numbers are the block hour cost, a $3000 /hour difference. So, again unless you are filling it up with non discounted tickets the 777 would be a revenue winner and for most of the markets we serve it is the correct size aircraft. My bet is this is why Delta chose the 777. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 589378)
CHEATER!
If we ever got to post 3,700,000,000,000, it's going to be a bunch of pilots going... "DID YOU HEAR that they want to replace the Mercury to Venus shuttle with Boeing shuttles?!? Who in their right mind ever buys a Boeing product? If you want a high quality efficient large shuttle you purchase a Cessna Shuttle, not a Boeing. Of course nothing is as good as that Eclipse Shuttle, man those people know what they're doing. And oh yeah, any word on the next AE and whats our furlough status now that we're not doing Mars direct to Saturns 4th moon Prometheus. I can't believe we're not continuing service, thats such a money maker." Carl |
here's a pix of our new seats coming to an ER this year:
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9739/thomsoncozy1.jpg http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/4624/thomsoncozy2.jpg feels more spacious, but can pack in more in economy so we can add more lieflat beds in business... Cheers George |
Originally Posted by Philly
(Post 589884)
Looks like everyone is ignoring the gorilla in the room so I'll ask...****? Any clues?
I second this, does anyone know? |
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 589982)
feels more spacious, but can pack in more in economy so we can add more lieflat beds in business... Cheers George |
Originally Posted by vprMatrix
(Post 589888)
This is what has happened and continues to happen...:mad:
The cost of running the RJ is only $350 (apx) more than an MD88 and you get 10 extra seats and of course frequency. ... Lee Moak is correct that the RJ is good for mainline. In reality they are a good tool for management to make money off of cheap, controllable labor and in return Moak can get an extra 5% +/- for the pilots of Delta Air Lines. The problem is that this destroys the future of all professional pilots (over time, just look back 8 years) and has a negative effect immediately on the bottom 30 – 40 percent of the pilot group. The line in the sand needs to become a wall and should be built at the 51 seat mark. The CRJ900s and E175s are the perfect replacement for BOTH the DC9 and MD88. So my bet is you'll see these aircraft retired just like the 732 and 727s before them and replaced by nothing and the new small jets in the fleet will be the A320 and 73N series. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:37 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands