Delta Air Lines 2Q15 Earnings Call
07-15-2015, 02:44 PM
#101
FlySmarterNotHarder
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: fifi flyer
Posts: 553
Originally Posted by BobZ
Sooo couldnt it then be said the new aircraft order ta was rejected with the expectation of a better deal? 
I still have no idea what in the deal with Boeing made it contingent on our vote. Maybe there was nothing. We just have Richards public assertion that it is so. Maybe it was just in his mind. Sort of a personal conviction. Who knows? It certainly was not part of any negotiation with ALPA.
How smart was it to place an aircraft purchase order anyway based on a metric you have no direct control over like a union vote? Boeing must be desperate to unload these things. If so, I'll bet they're not going anywhere anytime soon. It sure made RA look like a putz to cancel aircraft orders after loudly proclaiming he needed them.
The whole thing is just murky, seedy, seamy, skeevy, improper, and generally malodorous. It reeks of a lack of integrity on both sides of the table. Or maybe I just don't understand what's going on or understand the people doing it.
Last edited by UGBSM; 07-15-2015 at 03:20 PM.
07-15-2015, 03:39 PM
#102
Inventory survival kit ..
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: Seeking no jacket required rotations
Posts: 1,069
Originally Posted by UGBSM
The whole thing is just murky, seedy, seamy, skeevy, improper, and generally malodorous. It reeks of a lack of integrity on both sides of the table. Or maybe I just don't understand what's going on or understand the people doing it.
07-15-2015, 03:54 PM
#103
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by UGBSM
The whole thing is just murky, seedy, seamy, skeevy, improper, and generally malodorous. It reeks of a lack of integrity on both sides of the table. .
And flat-out dishonest.
I have a proposal for ALPA's new mission statement:
"Watch Out For Your Corn Hole, Bud."
07-15-2015, 04:14 PM
#104
La Familia Delta
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B-717 FO / C-17 AC
Posts: 2,467
2 things:
1) why would anyone want these planes on property if we have to spread ourselves even more thin to staff them?
2) why would anyone believe that we even need these planes in order for us to pass a TA? They're going to announce they're going to get the 190 once we ratify TA2, but who cares either way? We have a contract to protect. This 190 thing can wait. Network wants 100 of these on property. they can wait 6 months after they hire enough pilots.
1) why would anyone want these planes on property if we have to spread ourselves even more thin to staff them?
2) why would anyone believe that we even need these planes in order for us to pass a TA? They're going to announce they're going to get the 190 once we ratify TA2, but who cares either way? We have a contract to protect. This 190 thing can wait. Network wants 100 of these on property. they can wait 6 months after they hire enough pilots.
07-15-2015, 05:29 PM
#105
Mother’s finest
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 73NB
Posts: 295
Originally Posted by ghilis101
2 things:
1) why would anyone want these planes on property if we have to spread ourselves even more thin to staff them?
2) why would anyone believe that we even need these planes in order for us to pass a TA? They're going to announce they're going to get the 190 once we ratify TA2, but who cares either way? We have a contract to protect. This 190 thing can wait. Network wants 100 of these on property. they can wait 6 months after they hire enough pilots.
1) why would anyone want these planes on property if we have to spread ourselves even more thin to staff them?
2) why would anyone believe that we even need these planes in order for us to pass a TA? They're going to announce they're going to get the 190 once we ratify TA2, but who cares either way? We have a contract to protect. This 190 thing can wait. Network wants 100 of these on property. they can wait 6 months after they hire enough pilots.
As for the "who cares?" argument... I certainly care about whether or not the company acquires more airframes. I guess whether I want to fly them or not, I want more flying at mainline and more pilots behind me. Maybe being stuck on the bottom for 6 years waiting for hiring instead of being a new hire straight into a line gives us different perspectives. I'm not losing sleep over it, but "who cares?" is kind of a ridiculous perspective on this.
For the life of me I cant figure out why any of the parties allowed the contingency into the purchase agreement and TA this time around, but it's clearly there. It's a very clear, real consequence of our vote. If you are really planning to run for an LEC seat, you really need to at least honestly acknowledge that there are pros and cons to both sides of every deal we are likely to make. Pretending like the downsides of the course we choose don't exist isn't going to get us very far.
07-15-2015, 05:55 PM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Originally Posted by SawF16
You do realize that you are quite likely only on the property right now because of the 717 agreement in C2012, right? The one that was structured very similarly to TA15? None of us has a clue whether the 190s are showing up or not. I'm personally of the opinion they aren't, but I don't go bleating it as fact like you have been with your opinions.
As for the "who cares?" argument... I certainly care about whether or not the company acquires more airframes. I guess whether I want to fly them or not, I want more flying at mainline and more pilots behind me. Maybe being stuck on the bottom for 6 years waiting for hiring instead of being a new hire straight into a line gives us different perspectives. I'm not losing sleep over it, but "who cares?" is kind of a ridiculous perspective on this.
For the life of me I cant figure out why any of the parties allowed the contingency into the purchase agreement and TA this time around, but it's clearly there. It's a very clear, real consequence of our vote. If you are really planning to run for an LEC seat, you really need to at least honestly acknowledge that there are pros and cons to both sides of every deal we are likely to make. Pretending like the downsides of the course we choose don't exist isn't going to get us very far.
As for the "who cares?" argument... I certainly care about whether or not the company acquires more airframes. I guess whether I want to fly them or not, I want more flying at mainline and more pilots behind me. Maybe being stuck on the bottom for 6 years waiting for hiring instead of being a new hire straight into a line gives us different perspectives. I'm not losing sleep over it, but "who cares?" is kind of a ridiculous perspective on this.
For the life of me I cant figure out why any of the parties allowed the contingency into the purchase agreement and TA this time around, but it's clearly there. It's a very clear, real consequence of our vote. If you are really planning to run for an LEC seat, you really need to at least honestly acknowledge that there are pros and cons to both sides of every deal we are likely to make. Pretending like the downsides of the course we choose don't exist isn't going to get us very far.
Has the company ever said that the 737, or the E190 orders were growth aircraft?
07-15-2015, 05:57 PM
#107
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,034
Originally Posted by SawF16
You do realize that you are quite likely only on the property right now because of the 717 agreement in C2012, right? The one that was structured very similarly to TA15? None of us has a clue whether the 190s are showing up or not. I'm personally of the opinion they aren't, but I don't go bleating it as fact like you have been with your opinions.
As for the "who cares?" argument... I certainly care about whether or not the company acquires more airframes. I guess whether I want to fly them or not, I want more flying at mainline and more pilots behind me. Maybe being stuck on the bottom for 6 years waiting for hiring instead of being a new hire straight into a line gives us different perspectives. I'm not losing sleep over it, but "who cares?" is kind of a ridiculous perspective on this.
For the life of me I cant figure out why any of the parties allowed the contingency into the purchase agreement and TA this time around, but it's clearly there. It's a very clear, real consequence of our vote. If you are really planning to run for an LEC seat, you really need to at least honestly acknowledge that there are pros and cons to both sides of every deal we are likely to make. Pretending like the downsides of the course we choose don't exist isn't going to get us very far.
As for the "who cares?" argument... I certainly care about whether or not the company acquires more airframes. I guess whether I want to fly them or not, I want more flying at mainline and more pilots behind me. Maybe being stuck on the bottom for 6 years waiting for hiring instead of being a new hire straight into a line gives us different perspectives. I'm not losing sleep over it, but "who cares?" is kind of a ridiculous perspective on this.
For the life of me I cant figure out why any of the parties allowed the contingency into the purchase agreement and TA this time around, but it's clearly there. It's a very clear, real consequence of our vote. If you are really planning to run for an LEC seat, you really need to at least honestly acknowledge that there are pros and cons to both sides of every deal we are likely to make. Pretending like the downsides of the course we choose don't exist isn't going to get us very far.
2015 will be a highly profitable year because of fuel and capacity discipline. This will show up in your profit sharing without you reporting for a single trip. Profit sharing is the great equalizer, if they outsource to become more profitable you get more of a share. Try converting that to rates, rates ,rates.
Delta profit soars, buoyed by lower fuel costs - MarketWatch
07-15-2015, 06:10 PM
#109
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by SawF16
You do realize that you are quite likely only on the property right now because of the 717 agreement in C2012, right? The one that was structured very similarly to TA15? None of us has a clue whether the 190s are showing up or not. I'm personally of the opinion they aren't, but I don't go bleating it as fact like you have been with your opinions.
Originally Posted by SawF16
For the life of me I cant figure out why any of the parties allowed the contingency into the purchase agreement and TA this time around, but it's clearly there.
Originally Posted by SawF16
It's a very clear, real consequence of our vote.
Originally Posted by SawF16
If you are really planning to run for an LEC seat, you really need to at least honestly acknowledge that there are pros and cons to both sides of every deal we are likely to make.
Originally Posted by SawF16
Pretending like the downsides of the course we choose don't exist isn't going to get us very far.
Carl
07-15-2015, 07:03 PM
#110
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by SawF16
You do realize that you are quite likely only on the property right now because of the 717 agreement in C2012, right? The one that was structured very similarly to TA15? None of us has a clue whether the 190s are showing up or not. I'm personally of the opinion they aren't, but I don't go bleating it as fact like you have been with your opinions.
As for the "who cares?" argument... I certainly care about whether or not the company acquires more airframes. I guess whether I want to fly them or not, I want more flying at mainline and more pilots behind me. Maybe being stuck on the bottom for 6 years waiting for hiring instead of being a new hire straight into a line gives us different perspectives. I'm not losing sleep over it, but "who cares?" is kind of a ridiculous perspective on this.
For the life of me I cant figure out why any of the parties allowed the contingency into the purchase agreement and TA this time around, but it's clearly there. It's a very clear, real consequence of our vote. If you are really planning to run for an LEC seat, you really need to at least honestly acknowledge that there are pros and cons to both sides of every deal we are likely to make. Pretending like the downsides of the course we choose don't exist isn't going to get us very far.
As for the "who cares?" argument... I certainly care about whether or not the company acquires more airframes. I guess whether I want to fly them or not, I want more flying at mainline and more pilots behind me. Maybe being stuck on the bottom for 6 years waiting for hiring instead of being a new hire straight into a line gives us different perspectives. I'm not losing sleep over it, but "who cares?" is kind of a ridiculous perspective on this.
For the life of me I cant figure out why any of the parties allowed the contingency into the purchase agreement and TA this time around, but it's clearly there. It's a very clear, real consequence of our vote. If you are really planning to run for an LEC seat, you really need to at least honestly acknowledge that there are pros and cons to both sides of every deal we are likely to make. Pretending like the downsides of the course we choose don't exist isn't going to get us very far.
"You do realize that you are quite likely only on the property right now because of the 717 agreement in C2012, right?"
That's pure BS. They were coming either way, you were suckered back then and you're willing to be suckered again.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
