|
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1036640)
From 2007-2011, Delta decreased seats out of LAX, PDX, and SEA by 4.9%.
From 2007-2011, Alaska decreased seats out of LAX, PDX, and SEA by 12.3%. From 2007-2011, Delta increased International seats out of LAX, PDX and SEA by 46.9%. Delta more than doubled the size of the SEA pilot base. Delta did not furlough during this time. Alaska furloughed about 10% of their list. The last Alaska furloughee is scheduled to be recalled January 31, 2012. As far as Hawaii flying, most passengers Delta carried to Hawaii from SEA and PDX were connecting from Alaska. As soon as Alaska got an airplane with the capability to go to Hawaii (737), that connection was dead. Jet fuel over $3 per gallon in a low yield leisure market doesn't help. All this data was presented at the last C16 and C44 meeting. I think your post is an interesting statistical analysis that really has no bearing on the concerns of DAL losing flying. Show me how many flights have increased, and I will buy into it, but until then.. naaah. Sorry |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1036664)
This is interesting. The perspective thrust of your post is from the number of seats. While any increase is good, I think it might be a bit (overzealous?) to declare a victory because of an increase in international seats alone.....
I think your post is an interesting statistical analysis that really has no bearing on the concerns of DAL losing flying. Show me how many flights have increased, and I will buy into it, but until then.. naaah. Sorry It's interesting that you didn't comment on the doubling of the size of the SEA pilot base!:) |
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1036652)
We have a very intelligent and diligent Codeshare Committee that is watching the company very closely.
In a different post Sailingfun described how one of the reasons we can't fight the RAH scope issue is we didn't fight the issue previously when American Eagle was violating the scope clause. My question is: If our codeshare committee is both intelligent and dilligent, why didn't they enforce the contract back then? It seems to me ALPA dropped the ball big time then and the ALPA apologists are saying "trust us" (again). For me (and I suspect many Delta pilots) ALPA has screwed the pooch too many times. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1036664)
This is interesting. The perspective thrust of your post is from the number of seats. While any increase is good, I think it might be a bit (overzealous?) to declare a victory because of an increase in international seats alone. What has happened to the number of SORTIES over that same period? One of the reasons that LGBP gets shot down is because of the tin foil hat theory that management would only buy big airplanes because the pilot costs would be the same regardless of the airplane flown (precisely the idea..) and that that would then require fewer airplanes, and correspondingly fewer pilots. So to extrapolate; while you say that the number of seats has increased, and since LAX-SYD cannot be flown on a M88, how many sorties have been lost in gaining those seats?
I think your post is an interesting statistical analysis that really has no bearing on the concerns of DAL losing flying. Show me how many flights have increased, and I will buy into it, but until then.. naaah. Sorry We don't fly seats, we fly airplanes. We can fly 1900s or 747s on domestic trips, both only require 2 pilots and 2 jobs. So yes flying can increase 2100% but 0 job growth. Percentage increases that don't extrapolate the effect of the merger nor show actual numbers do little to prove any point. Is 2007 the baseline and is that PMDAL only and 2011 includes both? It'd be interesting to see hard numbers on |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1036625)
George;
What do you (reasonably) expect your union to do about this? -Departures -Seatmiles/kilometers -Block Hours -Production Balance etc. We have some guys with great ideas for the wide-body international stuff. I wish we could convince them that their ideas are just as important and relevant for the domestic stuff. Cheers George |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1036639)
When we code share all the 4 engine stuff away one day soon that will be a collector's item.
What our code share partner is taking delivery of: http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../3/1965387.jpg What we are taking delivery of (also by virtue of further outsourcing): http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../4/1965478.jpg |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1036692)
It's just data, T. No victory declared, no opinion imparted except for the viability of Hawaii flying without AS passengers.
It's interesting that you didn't comment on the doubling of the size of the SEA pilot base!:) When we start talking about Section 6, I could get excited about a doubling.. that's for sure. (And I am not talking about RJs...) |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1036621)
FYI, the highest amount of DPA cards per base comes from ATL, not DTW.
Also, WHY did DALPA bring TA's to the table that have been extremely detrimental to the careers of DAL pilots, like one that doesn't have DAL pilots flying 50 seat & higher jets? |
[QUOTE=Wasatch Phantom;1036693]Shiz,
In a different post Sailingfun described how one of the reasons we can't fight the RAH scope issue is we didn't fight the issue previously when American Eagle was violating the scope clause. My question is: If our codeshare committee is both intelligent and dilligent, why didn't they enforce the contract back then? The answer is simple. A review of negotiators notes and term sheets showed that the intent was the companies interpretation. You can't enforce something you don't have in the contract. You can't wish it so. You have to have to effect a contractual change. |
For anyone that has not received a call from the chief pilot while sick, these calls are not pleasant. They are very derogatory and intimidating in tone. It is pretty obvious that the goal of these calls is to reduce sick calls. They need to stop.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:56 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands