Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)
-   -   Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

gloopy 09-13-2011 09:32 PM


Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1053925)
SKW gets the best rates possible for their purchases, and the payment becomes an operating expense for DAL, not a debt payment. Moving that debt off of DAL debt ledger is by far the biggest savings they get in terms of total debt service whether it is rationalized on our balance sheet or not. Less Debt on our ledger is good for DAL even if they are paying more in the form of cash flow payments for the operational expense of having the debt held outside of the corporation known as Delta Air Lines, Inc.

I still don't get how paying another airline above market value for our airplanes keeps it "debt free" when we could just lease directly from a leasing company anyway. How is the first not considered debt but the second one is? Either way we sign long term, pretty much iron clad agreements to pay but in the case of a SKYW lease laundering scheme we have to pay them a premium in addition to what we otherwise would have paid. Then years into it the lightbulb goes off and some analcyst makes up a new "real debt" metric and all that fake advantage is gone and we're stuck with paying more for our planes.

gloopy 09-13-2011 09:37 PM


Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1053924)
Read the comments today about the use of the DAL terminals in JFK. Then understand that the B6 terminal would be a domestic terminal where International Ops would be T-4

Sorry about the T-5 mix up. I get them all confused at times. I am referring to the two AMR terminals there and the fact that the B6 terminal is not convenient to use for a combined op. They could do it, but it would be more problematic for them than for us.

Tearing down T-3 was necessary because of the building materials and ease of access issues.

I guess I could see us doing a 4/5 tie up. That would actually make sense. But where would B6 go? The AA terminal is already full I thought and couldn't remotely come close to absorbing B6 ops, which AA seems to really want one way or another (merger, fragmentation, interline or code share).

Maybe we could give the ferener airline 2 and part of the 3 real estate and AA could link 8 up to 1?

Or maybe AA can kick UAL over half a terminal if 6 is rebuilt and take that?

Either way how many gates do we have now total, including RJ pads?

How many would we have in a 4/5 tie up?

How many will we have once T4 is done, T3 is gone and the longest bridge in the inner solar system is built to connect 2 to 4?

iFlyer 09-13-2011 11:38 PM


Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1053951)
I honestly still don't get the howblowzit or more commonly referred to on the 88 as the subject in the question "where's the paper work?"

I think it'd get a poor grade from an information architecture point of view. Nothing personal to anyone, it's just not that great.


FTB, it wasn't obvious to me until I tried on an Airbus - the information architecture was built solely for Boeing equipment. Works perfect in the Boeing, but helter-skelter for everyone else.


iF

acl65pilot 09-14-2011 03:26 AM


Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1054048)
I still don't get how paying another airline above market value for our airplanes keeps it "debt free" when we could just lease directly from a leasing company anyway. How is the first not considered debt but the second one is? Either way we sign long term, pretty much iron clad agreements to pay but in the case of a SKYW lease laundering scheme we have to pay them a premium in addition to what we otherwise would have paid. Then years into it the lightbulb goes off and some analcyst makes up a new "real debt" metric and all that fake advantage is gone and we're stuck with paying more for our planes.


Trust me, I agree, but the Harvard MBA does not. It now is a cash flow issue.

Look at some of the business moves DAL has made all in the name of getting debt off the books.

-Selling CPS for 20 million

-Selling Mesaba for another pitiful amount.

-Selling the OH headquarters for four million when the debt was 30 million.

These guys think that moving this stuff off the books is a good thing for the business. They say it saves them money in "debt service'" with the debt we still keep.

To add to this:
DAL has had and still has a debt issue. They want the network we see today, and as a result, they are striving to have third party operators help expand that network. DCI plays a huge role in this. We can go back to the first salvo on RJ's and see what it was a response to; Airlines like LUV and the desire to maintain market presence. DAL bought the RJ's then sold many of them to the third part operators. They kept the debt off of their balance sheet and kept the "market share." The error in the thinking was the floors these contracts had, the commitments that DAL had to maintain to these operators, and the fact that market share did not lead to the RASM offset that they wanted. In fact, everyone followed suit and market share was status quo with a higher CASM. The difference was that during that time, they could only cut so much off of these ridged CPA's. The accumulator became our low end flying.

Now move a head a decade, and realize that the benefits of outsourcing the debt are still very adventurous for DAL. DAL wants to get to a certain debt and debt service number which will give them a specific free cash flow number. By having these operators own the debt, and jets under a long term contract, it allows DAL's network to still have the scope and presence they desire without the hit to DAL's debt service and debt rating. It is an operational expense that the business can cash flow.

Why I think we may see something new and yet untried is, DAL get that scope is beyond a sore point for its pilots, but DAL may still want the benefits of an operator like SKW, who gets better rates, and has the cash to hold a lease and or note, own these aircraft. For this reason alone, I would not be surprised to see someone else own the jets under a 25+ year agreement that gives that operator a quarter of a point on the rate as their service fee for such a deal. DAL will operate them though the third party operator with DAL seniority listed pilots. Complicated yes, but the one way that they can get the benefits they have determined they "need" without starting an all out war with their pilots. It is always about the money, and DAL has become a bottom line drive corporation to a fault.

I believe that they also know that are approaching the limit on Alliances and as a result are doing as much as they can prior to section 6. The threat of widebody flying being flown off this list is very real, and effects the most senior pilots as well as the most junior. That is why scope and a effective solution is a deal that effects every pilot on this list.

Timbo 09-14-2011 04:42 AM

What was intersting was what Ed didn't say...

They don't need to order more -new- airplanes, if instead they plan to buy another airline, or some 'used' airplanes.

Oh, and what about all the capacity pull down talk?

I'm thinking we really don't want to see the next AE (or more likely, A MD).

Check Essential 09-14-2011 05:19 AM

IMG]/IMG]insert image

acl65pilot 09-14-2011 05:41 AM


Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1054102)
What was interesting was what Ed didn't say...

They don't need to order more -new- airplanes, if instead they plan to buy another airline, or some 'used' airplanes.

Oh, and what about all the capacity pull down talk?

I'm thinking we really don't want to see the next AE (or more likely, A MD).

I agree, the most important thing that is delivered is always in how something is said, or what was omitted.

The capacity discipline that they announced yesterday does not leave us overstaffed next summer. We will by all accounts be at the same staffing we were this summer. (Retirements etc will take away the over staffing that would have occurred) DAL also knows they have a major retirement issue to resolve, and the sooner that is dealt with the better.

There will be MD's on the next bid. Definitely on the DC-9 and maybe the CVG 73N to DTW.

tsquare 09-14-2011 05:47 AM


Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1053754)
No the B6 operation would move to T5/6 and the B6 terminal would be ours. It makes no sense to spit half of your op on one side of the airport and the other on the other side. B6's terminal is next to T-4 and therefore would make perfect sense for us and little sense for a merged B6/AMR.

You are assuming that the gubbamint didn't make us give up a ton out of JFK to *ahem* you-know-who....

tsquare 09-14-2011 05:50 AM


Originally Posted by dalad (Post 1053785)
What about winning NYC! Cutting 11destinations across the Atlantic! Retreat, retreat, retreat, CAL/UAL will eat our lunch. Let's see, EDI, LYS, KBP, CPT, EZE, TXL, SNN, MAN, BUD, ARN, CPH, and seasonal ZRH, AGP, VLC, PSA. Oh, and don't forget AMM and CAI, which are both understandable due to unrest in the Mid-East. I also forgot Bucharest.

Yup this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't get it.

acl65pilot 09-14-2011 06:05 AM


Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1054132)
You are assuming that the gubbamint didn't make us give up a ton out of JFK to *ahem* you-know-who....

That is why I do not see an acquisition as a good choice for DAL. My assumption would be that if DAL went after B6 we would be looking at having to auction off 100 slot pairs out of the NYC area. Maybe there would be a wink wink, nod, nod to all of it that could avoid this, but given our track record with the LGA deal, I would expect more of the same.

Wrt to the terminal, that would be a different animal.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:33 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands