Another great example of a weak scope clause.

When I flew for Atlas, 5 of China Air's 8 freighters, all painted in China colors, were owned and flown by Atlas. Not many people may know this, but back in '97 NWA came very, very close to selling its freight operation to Atlas. Atlas was going to get all eight NWA freighters on a 10 year contract. Only NWA ALPA stopped it.

Airlines will exploit weak scope clauses, even up to the most senior seats. It's all about scope, baby. SCOPE. SCOPE. SCOPE.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../4/2031468.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../0/2032008.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../7/2032724.jpg

Just wait till they start selling tickets on Skyteam *operated by GoJet dba Delta dba Skyteam. Your scope is weaker than you think.

I actually asked someone to post any details about this a few months ago. If it's the same one you are talking about, it was ATL-NRT which stopped in PDX because of the rest bunk. I'll try and find it again.

Actually those B747-8F'S are flying at GSS "GLOBAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS"
Atlas Air owns 49% and BA owns 51%.
Atlas owns the 3 -8 GSS are flying.

Global Supply Systems - commercial aircraft operations

As far as the NWA freight operation, Atlas has its ops at the former NWA building and ramp.

Happy Holidays :D

So I counted, I figured you were right I just wanted to know how bad we were behind.

So I found some interesting numbers, some don't show us far behind except in the super premium WB point of view, but overall we will one day be behind.

We have according to wiki a NB fleet of 565 airplanes and a WB/ER fleet of 144 aircraft for a total of 709.
In seat count (fleet x smallest seating capacity for type because of incomplete data) they have 84,501 seats in their NBs and 38,807 in their WBs for a total of 123,308 seats or 175 per aircraft and 248 per WB/ER aircraft.
Our order book is for 100 739s, 9 MD90s, 2 763ER and 18 787s. We want to add 129 aircraft. Anyways, the end result is we could one day have a fleet of 838 airplanes while they have 876. They'd have a WB fleet of 265 aircraft and we'd have 164 (if we don't retire anything and they retire the 744/762/763 as planned). It's about a 10% difference in total seat inventory in their favor.

So it's not as big as it seems because of the large 763 fleet at DAL to offset the massive 777 fleet of 74 jets vs our 18!!

Add in 744s and they CURRENTLY have a fleet of super premium widebodies that totals 97 to our 33. But again, just in today's terms we offer nearly the same seat inventory and WB fleet because of our 58 763s and 32 A330s.

They will blow us out of the water one day though, it won't be so much in seat inventory as it is fleet size and they will of course retire some jets.

So do we bet on 767-300s or Super Premium Widebodies?

Or let's say this more correctly, do we bet on 767-300s flown by us and outsourcing for the big heavy metal?

I have the answer and I believe it's 100% correct. My answer? Is to ask Gloopy for his thoughts, add in George, and there ya go.

Here you go.

April 15, 1999
Page One Feature
Tired Delta Crew Diverts Flight,
Blames Cramped New Berths
By MARTHA BRANNIGAN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


Just how tired were Delta Air Lines Capt. Roscoe McMillan and his crew last Wednesday when he diverted his Atlanta-to-Tokyo flight to Portland, Ore., and called it a day?

Too tired, in his judgment, based on more than 30 years as a Delta pilot, to continue safely with the 14-hour journey to Narita International Airport, according to what the captain told Delta officials. The problem: Two of the other pilots couldn't sleep in the aircraft's controversial new berths, and based on earlier experience, Capt. McMillan figured he couldn't either.

"The captain felt the crew had not had satisfactory rest," says Bill Berry, a Delta spokesman.

An Uncommon Reason

Delta management, however, isn't so sure. Mr. Berry says this is the first time a pilot has diverted a flight because of the new beds, which Delta began installing in December on its long-haul McDonnell Douglas MD-11s. And while flights are sometimes cut short when bad weather or other delays eat up the pilots' legal flying time, Mr. Berry says he is unaware of any diversions caused when a captain pronounced himself or his crew too tired to finish the job.

But Capt. McMillan, who has a perfect flying record and a reputation for being outspoken, has been campaigning against the bunks from the start. In a recent posting on the pilots' union's private Web site, he wrote of the new setup: "I think it stinks."

He isn't a lone crusader. Delta pilots who fly the planes, backed by their union, hate the new type of bunk, which they have dubbed "the coffin." This replaces "the condo," -- pilot parlance for the more comfortable and spacious precursor. Since the switch, union officials say they have received a litany of complaints from MD-11 pilots that the new bunks impair their on-board rest. No other U.S. passenger carrier uses the newer type.

Delta adopted the new berths as part of a redesign of its international service, scrapping First Class and reconfiguring its long-range jets with an upgraded Business Elite class. Among other things, the new bunks allow for more seats, which Delta says will translate into $40 million in additional revenue from the five altered planes over the next five years.

Whatever the beds' benefits, the Air Line Pilots Association has filed a grievance against Delta over them and has lodged a complaint with the Federal Aviation Administration that they don't meet federal guidelines. (The FAA hasn't yet ruled on the complaint.)

Delta says that the beds don't pose a safety problem and that it has offered to make substantial changes to address pilots' concerns. Meanwhile, Delta is itself investigating the incident on Flight 55. If the airline determines that it was a union stunt rather than a safety decision, Capt. McMillan, who is 59 years old and is scheduled to retire in 11 months, could be dismissed.

A CEO Out of Sorts

Leo F. Mullin, Delta's chief executive officer, is furious and has registered his displeasure with the union chief. After all, 110 passengers on Flight 55 were inconvenienced for several hours, as were passengers on Flight 51, Portland to Tokyo, which was held up to accommodate the Atlanta passengers.

There's no doubt that the FAA considers tired pilots a safety hazard. Pilots aren't allowed to fly more than eight hours without rest. Sleeping quarters are required on all flights of 12 hours or more, and such flights use double crews so two pilots can fly the plane while two rest.

That was the setup on Flight 55 out of Atlanta on April 7. The crew included Capt. McMillan and his first officer, Randy Young, plus a relief crew, Capt. Bob Pfister and his first officer, Steve Petroski. The jet left the gate at 10:47 a.m. All four men worked the cockpit until the plane reached cruising altitude. Around noon, the two relief pilots slipped back to Business Class to eat and then catch some shut-eye.

Before they could turn in, though, the off-duty pilots had to engage in a process that many pilots complain is humiliating and time consuming: assembling their berths. Located in view of the front passenger cabin, just behind the left front door of the cockpit, the double compartment pulls out like a telescope from a space that once housed a lavatory. Once fully extended and locked in place, the bunks block the left front door of the aircraft -- a concern to some pilots.

The upper bunk stretches 6 feet 11 inches, while the bottom is 6 feet 5 inches. Both are roughly 30 inches wide and are fitted with slim leather mattresses and pillows. Before they can insert themselves into their bunks, the pilots must hang 2-inch-thick noise-deadening drapes that attach to the ceiling and wrap around the unit. The whole process takes as long as 20 minutes.

"It's like the Three Stooges putting up a doll house," says Delta Capt. Bud Musser, chairman of the international safety committee for the pilots' union. "It's free entertainment for Business Class passengers."

Certainly, it's a far cry from the days of "the condo," a comparatively expansive two-bed rectangular unit in the center of the Business Class cabin, 5 feet 1 1/2 inches wide, 6 feet 8 inches long and 6 feet 11 inches high. No assembly required. And pilots could stand inside and put on their pajamas before reclining on comfortable bunks. A light, unavailable in the new bunks, told them when the lavatory was occupied.

On Flight 55, the pilots changed into their sleepwear in the cockpit, stepped into the Business Class cabin, and tucked themselves in. Toilets in the lavatory a few feet away flushed. Bells and alarms from the cockpit throbbed through the less-than-soundproof curtains. A buzzer sounded each time a cockpit door opened. The beverage carts clanged and bumped one end of the unit. After about 2 1/2 hours, the pilots returned to the cockpit and told Capt. McMillan they hadn't gotten any sleep.

Language Barriers

Capt. McMillan, who is a little over 6 feet tall and of medium build and who had flown this route before, was skeptical he would do any better when his break came. By this time, the aircraft was over northern Canada and headed over the North Pole. Capt. McMillan asked whether the crew thought they would be at the top of their game in 10 more hours, when they would be dealing with Russian and Japanese air-traffic controllers whose English isn't always perfect.

That's when Capt. McMillan called a Delta dispatcher to say the crew was too tired to complete the trip and was planning to divert. At first, the puzzled dispatcher misunderstood. Speaking in sky code, he asked the captain if he was being hijacked. Capt. McMillan reiterated that the crew was fatigued.

Capt. McMillan and the dispatcher decided that the plane should land in Portland, where Delta could put the passengers on another flight to Tokyo. Over the loudspeakers, Capt. McMillan broke the news to the 110 passengers, who had completed the first of their journey's three scheduled food-and-beverage services. Because of the "configuration" of the airplane that day, he told them, they were unable to continue to Tokyo.

The plane landed in Portland at 3:26 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, seven hours and 39 minutes after leaving Atlanta. The passengers were directed to Flight 51, held over from its scheduled 1:05 departure. The crew spent the night in a Portland hotel and returned to Atlanta on Thursday.

On Friday, Capt. McMillan and the rest of the crew were summoned to explain the matter to several members of Delta management, including two chief pilots and Capt. Michael J. Quiello, system manager of international operations for Delta.

A 'Premeditated' Act?

After the pilots, who took along a couple of union representatives, told their story, the managers questioned whether Capt. McMillan had "premeditated" his move. That notion could derive from his previous complaints about the beds on the pilots' union's Web site. Of the reverse Narita-to-Atlanta flight, he has written: "This trip snatches the diurnal cycles of the best of us through a knot hole. You are tired anyway, but if you can't sleep on board, then fatigue will paralyze you."

And recounting a colleague's experience on that route, he wrote: "Had I been in charge, had the leg been longer than 12 hours, had weather and possible delays been involved, and had there been a crew member who could not sleep as there obviously was this day, then I would have stopped in Portland or some other place short of the destination."

The union is standing by Capt. McMillan. "He made his decision based on the safety of the flight and the belief that the crew members were not adequately rested," says Karen McGuffey, a union spokeswoman.

Even Delta's Capt. Quiello, who is part of the team scrutinizing the incident, acknowledges that the decision in such situations is ultimately the pilot's. "We trust our captains implicitly," he says, "until we have reason not to."


---------------------------------------------
URL for this Article:
http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/r...2774505832.djm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1107953)

DAL has always been a follower with "innovations." On the surface, this may seem smart, you save money by not buying into a scheme that doesnt make you money. However, DAL goes a step futher, by buying from the lowest bidder. In flight entertainment - lowest bidder - problems with the system for years; Lie flat seats - late to the game and mod lines continue to be full; Cockpit tablet; Every airline has gone with Apple, DAL seems intent to again go with a different one - one that isn't yet faa approved - Save a penny, but in the end it costs them more.:(

---

Scambo:

I agree. Add in ra's MD-11 decision in '88-'89...trying to go cheap, and paying LOTS more, in total. Would have been nice to have 747-400s at fDAL back then... :rolleyes:

(Wasatch beat me to it. )

The ultimate example: 787.

I've been thinking about our stagnation and outsourcing quite a bit, and I think I have a reason:

$10B.

$10B appears to be the magic number over on the 4th floor. DAL's desperate to get below $10B in debt and is focused on saving every dime it can to make that happen. Once we hit $10B, our bond rating goes up, *everything* gets cheaper, and the airline is in position to make some serious money.

I hope that translates into organic growth and jobs. For now, I'm just going to wait and see. I'll be interested to learn whether or not I'm right.