Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
01-25-2012, 07:32 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Air France-KLM Expects Deep Loss
BY DAVID PEARSON -- WSJ
JANUARY 25, 2012
PARIS—Air France-KLM's financial situation is "extremely tight" after the company incurred a substantial operating loss in 2011 for the fourth consecutive year, the chief executive of Air France, one of the Franco-Dutch group's two airline divisions, said Wednesday.
Alexandre de Juniac told a French parliamentary commission that due to rising fuel costs, fierce competition from low-cost airlines and the lingering effects of the financial crisis, Air France-KLM's losses from operations last year will reach "several hundred million euros," but declined to be more explicit as the company's accounts are still being audited. Air France-KLM is 15.7%-owned by the French state.
BY DAVID PEARSON -- WSJ
JANUARY 25, 2012
PARIS—Air France-KLM's financial situation is "extremely tight" after the company incurred a substantial operating loss in 2011 for the fourth consecutive year, the chief executive of Air France, one of the Franco-Dutch group's two airline divisions, said Wednesday.
Alexandre de Juniac told a French parliamentary commission that due to rising fuel costs, fierce competition from low-cost airlines and the lingering effects of the financial crisis, Air France-KLM's losses from operations last year will reach "several hundred million euros," but declined to be more explicit as the company's accounts are still being audited. Air France-KLM is 15.7%-owned by the French state.
01-25-2012, 07:33 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Observations about today's numbers
A friend wrote to ask about our 8K filing and what it means for scope. His point was Delta reported 21% of it's revenues from "Contract Carrier Arrangements" totalling $6.4 Billion on expenses of roughly $5.5 Billion; meaning a little more than $900 million of our operating profit was the result of outsourced RJ flying.
If so, that challenges the notion that we're losing money on RJ flying and begs the question why our management sees this as somehow ancillary to our "real airline" flying.
Management will say their strategy of divesting flying is working. I'd ask our management, "How much more would we make if we were not paying extra shareholders, parasitic management, dispatch and maintenance organizations? How much more would we make if we kept our contractor's profits in house?" And, I want to ask them, "Just what is our core business ... yeah ... well then why do you outsource it to someone you deem operationally inferior?"
For ALPA, I would like to ask "How does it promote job security to outsource the most profitable component of our operation?"
This highlights the cost to "take it back" and suggests there really is a strong economic push to rationalize capacity between the 76 seat line and what is currently offered at mainline.
Management would be smart to bring this flying in house. It is core to our business. ALPA would be smart to DEMAND this flying be brought in house in the interest of job security.
But, I fear both will see the profits made by outsourced flying and say ... "good." The problem with that notion is that if what we have is "good" then more is "better." More is a 717, or C Series.
If so, that challenges the notion that we're losing money on RJ flying and begs the question why our management sees this as somehow ancillary to our "real airline" flying.
Management will say their strategy of divesting flying is working. I'd ask our management, "How much more would we make if we were not paying extra shareholders, parasitic management, dispatch and maintenance organizations? How much more would we make if we kept our contractor's profits in house?" And, I want to ask them, "Just what is our core business ... yeah ... well then why do you outsource it to someone you deem operationally inferior?"
For ALPA, I would like to ask "How does it promote job security to outsource the most profitable component of our operation?"
This highlights the cost to "take it back" and suggests there really is a strong economic push to rationalize capacity between the 76 seat line and what is currently offered at mainline.
Management would be smart to bring this flying in house. It is core to our business. ALPA would be smart to DEMAND this flying be brought in house in the interest of job security.
But, I fear both will see the profits made by outsourced flying and say ... "good." The problem with that notion is that if what we have is "good" then more is "better." More is a 717, or C Series.
01-25-2012, 07:34 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by Xray678
ES said no such thing.
01-25-2012, 07:35 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
As the policy manual states, it would be significant contractual change. I cannot see the reps not sending this to a vote. When talking theory with many of these guys, all have said, "Of course it will go to MEMRAT if it were to happen." Remember, it is still and "if"
Day Two of the MEC meeting is tomorrow in DC. The NMB was there today, and DAL's leaders are there tomorrow.
Day Two of the MEC meeting is tomorrow in DC. The NMB was there today, and DAL's leaders are there tomorrow.
This is a very significant post from you acl.
Carl
01-25-2012, 07:39 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
When is SWAPA going to be there to provide the facts/details of our industry's leading pilot contract? Are they on the agenda for tomorrow? 
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
Oh... and are the "DAL leaders" there to corroborate ALPA's EF&A analysis? Or is it the other way around? 
Carl
01-25-2012, 07:40 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,943
Originally Posted by gloopy
So WRT us, does this mean we will face more or less pressure to ship them some charity jobs program (i.e. more POS 380's to the US, etc).
DL needs to order some, or some 747-800s!
01-25-2012, 07:45 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
A friend wrote to ask about our 8K filing and what it means for scope. His point was Delta reported 21% of it's revenues from "Contract Carrier Arrangements" totalling $6.4 Billion on expenses of roughly $5.5 Billion; meaning a little more than $900 million of our operating profit was the result of outsourced RJ flying.
If so, that challenges the notion that we're losing money on RJ flying and begs the question why our management sees this as somehow ancillary to our "real airline" flying.
Management will say their strategy of divesting flying is working. I'd ask our management, "How much more would we make if we were not paying extra shareholders, parasitic management, dispatch and maintenance organizations? How much more would we make if we kept our contractor's profits in house?" And, I want to ask them, "Just what is our core business ... yeah ... well then why do you outsource it to someone you deem operationally inferior?"
For ALPA, I would like to ask "How does it promote job security to outsource the most profitable component of our operation?"
This highlights the cost to "take it back" and suggests there really is a strong economic push to rationalize capacity between the 76 seat line and what is currently offered at mainline.
Management would be smart to bring this flying in house. It is core to our business. ALPA would be smart to DEMAND this flying be brought in house in the interest of job security.
But, I fear both will see the profits made by outsourced flying and say ... "good." The problem with that notion is that if what we have is "good" then more is "better." More is a 717, or C Series.
If so, that challenges the notion that we're losing money on RJ flying and begs the question why our management sees this as somehow ancillary to our "real airline" flying.
Management will say their strategy of divesting flying is working. I'd ask our management, "How much more would we make if we were not paying extra shareholders, parasitic management, dispatch and maintenance organizations? How much more would we make if we kept our contractor's profits in house?" And, I want to ask them, "Just what is our core business ... yeah ... well then why do you outsource it to someone you deem operationally inferior?"
For ALPA, I would like to ask "How does it promote job security to outsource the most profitable component of our operation?"
This highlights the cost to "take it back" and suggests there really is a strong economic push to rationalize capacity between the 76 seat line and what is currently offered at mainline.
Management would be smart to bring this flying in house. It is core to our business. ALPA would be smart to DEMAND this flying be brought in house in the interest of job security.
But, I fear both will see the profits made by outsourced flying and say ... "good." The problem with that notion is that if what we have is "good" then more is "better." More is a 717, or C Series.
01-25-2012, 07:48 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Here's the 8K in case anyone questions the math.
EDGAR Pro
Contract Carrier arrangements brought in 21% of our revenues and delivered 47% of our profits. That pretty much explains why we've got DC9's and they've got E195's. That explains why our most prolific widebody is a type certified in 1978. How much more could mainline make if we would invest in a current generation fleet?
For almost my entire life, I've seen mainline managed in a fashion which most resembles a business liquidating it's core assets as they have been used up. We could use (and I do expect) a large airplane order this year.
EDGAR Pro
Contract Carrier arrangements brought in 21% of our revenues and delivered 47% of our profits. That pretty much explains why we've got DC9's and they've got E195's. That explains why our most prolific widebody is a type certified in 1978. How much more could mainline make if we would invest in a current generation fleet?
For almost my entire life, I've seen mainline managed in a fashion which most resembles a business liquidating it's core assets as they have been used up. We could use (and I do expect) a large airplane order this year.
01-25-2012, 08:11 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
On a much more positive note, what is the formula for figuring out how much we will be getting in profit sharing?
01-25-2012, 08:31 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,943
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Here's the 8K in case anyone questions the math.
EDGAR Pro
Contract Carrier arrangements brought in 21% of our revenues and delivered 47% of our profits. That pretty much explains why we've got DC9's and they've got E195's. That explains why our most prolific widebody is a type certified in 1978. How much more could mainline make if we would invest in a current generation fleet?
For almost my entire life, I've seen mainline managed in a fashion which most resembles a business liquidating it's core assets as they have been used up. We could use (and I do expect) a large airplane order this year.
EDGAR Pro
Contract Carrier arrangements brought in 21% of our revenues and delivered 47% of our profits. That pretty much explains why we've got DC9's and they've got E195's. That explains why our most prolific widebody is a type certified in 1978. How much more could mainline make if we would invest in a current generation fleet?
For almost my entire life, I've seen mainline managed in a fashion which most resembles a business liquidating it's core assets as they have been used up. We could use (and I do expect) a large airplane order this year.
But what exactly does it mean to say that a contract carrier brought in a certain percentage of revenue or profits?
What I mean is -- a family buys a ticket on Delta.com to go from their home in Charleston, SC to visit relatives in Eastern Europe, Bucharest to be exact. After Pinnacle and Air France get them from CHS to OTP, a revenue and profit can be tallied. But how is that contract carrier's revenue tallied up?
Let's say the family paid $5,000 and their itinerary was:
CHS-JFK Pinnacle
JFK-CDG Air France
CDG-OTP Air France
OTP-AMS KLM
AMS-ATL Delta
ATL-CHS Delta
With only one leg being on a 'contract carrier', three legs being on an international codeshare, and two legs being on actual Delta, how is that one leg on the contract carrier accounted for in terms of revenue and profit?
A percentage of the total $5,000 airfare somehow...in miles? In what?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
