RA on Dueling PS Plans and E-190's
10-22-2015 | 06:31 PM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,215
Likes: 658
From: ir.delta.com
Oops. I have to correct the math.
30,000,000 / 3,300,000,000 = 0.00909090909090909090909090909091 or .9%, pilots are 38% of payroll so .342%
Or
$30M is .3% of a $10B payroll
Then divide by 3 for the annual cost so .1% annually
So either way they will learn their lesson.
Lesson: violate the PWA it's cheaper than good faith.
Last edited by notEnuf; 10-22-2015 at 06:56 PM.
10-22-2015 | 08:41 PM
#92
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Let me see here, if I look on avherald.com and keyword search "Delta" I know I can find at least one incident of an engine failure.....
And I found a few 744 ones but let me keep looking... Ah here, a 764 on July 18th. Engine failure, divert to San Juan. Needed a new engine which according to the article was flown in on a Kalitta 747.
Now, using TA2015/C2012 logic, what are you willing to give up to get a new engine for a jet? I mean I know it's a common thing to replace a broken part with a new one to keep an asset operating, just like it's a common thing to replace old equipment, like airplanes, with newer ones. But in the case of aircraft acquisitions, you need to give up something. Because we know you want new airplanes. Otherwise, why would a 60 jet acquisition be in a TA? It's a sweetner, no?
No way is a 739 and early batch E190 order a concession, righ.... wait. Don't answer that. I might have just messed this whole thought up. Standby. I'm on the landline.
But don't worry, I know it's quiet hours but I'm still going to make a really long and loud PA at 0645 in the morning when I get this straight.
1.81++++++ doesn't do anything for you but it sounds good.
And I found a few 744 ones but let me keep looking... Ah here, a 764 on July 18th. Engine failure, divert to San Juan. Needed a new engine which according to the article was flown in on a Kalitta 747.
Now, using TA2015/C2012 logic, what are you willing to give up to get a new engine for a jet? I mean I know it's a common thing to replace a broken part with a new one to keep an asset operating, just like it's a common thing to replace old equipment, like airplanes, with newer ones. But in the case of aircraft acquisitions, you need to give up something. Because we know you want new airplanes. Otherwise, why would a 60 jet acquisition be in a TA? It's a sweetner, no?
No way is a 739 and early batch E190 order a concession, righ.... wait. Don't answer that. I might have just messed this whole thought up. Standby. I'm on the landline.
But don't worry, I know it's quiet hours but I'm still going to make a really long and loud PA at 0645 in the morning when I get this straight.1.81++++++ doesn't do anything for you but it sounds good.
10-22-2015 | 10:32 PM
#93
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
Section 1 D. 9. of the Delta PWA contains a ratio of Mainline domestic block hours to Delta Connection BH. When we merged, the ratio was about 0.9 ML / DCI. Today we fly almost twice that amount (1.7X) during our peak summer season.
The minimum compliance number for our ratio is triggered by 76 seat operations. Since the company has resumed placing these aircraft into operation the minimum compliance metric is expected to increase to 1.56.
The rejected agreement was expected to raise this minimum number to 1.81. Of course the company has to over-fly the minimum to remain compliant on the shoulder months.
Increasing the BH ratio from 1.56 to 1.81 protected about 400,000 block hours. A 717 flies about 3,300 block hours per year. If we assume the E195 to be used in a similar fashion as a 717, it equals about 121 aircraft's worth of block hours. Recall, the plan was for 50 E190's. So, the increasing ratio protected more than just what the E195 was expected to fly. The 757 and 737 fly more block hours than the 717. The result of all of this is that the increasing BH ratio drove about a 2 to 1 increase. Therefore, the new narrow-body fleet type protected itself and one more aircraft too.
I do not know if it was planned to work out that 40 737-900 would create the needed BH above what 50 E195 could fly, but the math worked out almost perfectly (which made me think it was not a coincidence). Still, the company could replace MD88's & 757's with 737 and 321. To some extent they probably will. The E190 is not a suitable MD88 replacement (JMHO). Glad to hear the "flex fleet" of 757's seems to be flexing up by reducing the reductions ... good news.
This is not a pro/con discussion. TA15 has been asked and answered. It is just an explanation of how a section of our PWA works and if future negotiations result in a similar ratio change, the explanation is offered to help people understand the mechanism.
The minimum compliance number for our ratio is triggered by 76 seat operations. Since the company has resumed placing these aircraft into operation the minimum compliance metric is expected to increase to 1.56.
The rejected agreement was expected to raise this minimum number to 1.81. Of course the company has to over-fly the minimum to remain compliant on the shoulder months.
Increasing the BH ratio from 1.56 to 1.81 protected about 400,000 block hours. A 717 flies about 3,300 block hours per year. If we assume the E195 to be used in a similar fashion as a 717, it equals about 121 aircraft's worth of block hours. Recall, the plan was for 50 E190's. So, the increasing ratio protected more than just what the E195 was expected to fly. The 757 and 737 fly more block hours than the 717. The result of all of this is that the increasing BH ratio drove about a 2 to 1 increase. Therefore, the new narrow-body fleet type protected itself and one more aircraft too.
I do not know if it was planned to work out that 40 737-900 would create the needed BH above what 50 E195 could fly, but the math worked out almost perfectly (which made me think it was not a coincidence). Still, the company could replace MD88's & 757's with 737 and 321. To some extent they probably will. The E190 is not a suitable MD88 replacement (JMHO). Glad to hear the "flex fleet" of 757's seems to be flexing up by reducing the reductions ... good news.
This is not a pro/con discussion. TA15 has been asked and answered. It is just an explanation of how a section of our PWA works and if future negotiations result in a similar ratio change, the explanation is offered to help people understand the mechanism.
10-29-2015 | 08:22 PM
#95
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: Work
Exactly. I had a long talk with the ATL Intl CP about sick leave. He said the company wants to match the rest of the industry, but HE SAID the rest of the industry "Incentivizes sick leave", as in, they bank it and/or pay out unused sick leave at the end of the year.
So any 'industry average' comparison to our 'use it or lose it' is apples to oranges. His words, not mine. I just agreed with him. He was frustrated because he's supposed to be the Sick Leave Police, when in fact, nobody was 'abusing' it, they were just using it.
It's a benefit in our contract, just like vacation.
Do you use all your vacation? Are you a Vacation Abuser?
So any 'industry average' comparison to our 'use it or lose it' is apples to oranges. His words, not mine. I just agreed with him. He was frustrated because he's supposed to be the Sick Leave Police, when in fact, nobody was 'abusing' it, they were just using it.
It's a benefit in our contract, just like vacation.
Do you use all your vacation? Are you a Vacation Abuser?
10-29-2015 | 09:53 PM
#96
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Let me see here, if I look on avherald.com and keyword search "Delta" I know I can find at least one incident of an engine failure.....
And I found a few 744 ones but let me keep looking... Ah here, a 764 on July 18th. Engine failure, divert to San Juan. Needed a new engine which according to the article was flown in on a Kalitta 747.
Now, using TA2015/C2012 logic, what are you willing to give up to get a new engine for a jet? I mean I know it's a common thing to replace a broken part with a new one to keep an asset operating, just like it's a common thing to replace old equipment, like airplanes, with newer ones. But in the case of aircraft acquisitions, you need to give up something. Because we know you want new airplanes. Otherwise, why would a 60 jet acquisition be in a TA? It's a sweetner, no?
No way is a 739 and early batch E190 order a concession, righ.... wait. Don't answer that. I might have just messed this whole thought up. Standby. I'm on the landline. But don't worry, I know it's quiet hours but I'm still going to make a really long and loud PA at 0645 in the morning when I get this straight.
1.81++++++ doesn't do anything for you but it sounds good.
And I found a few 744 ones but let me keep looking... Ah here, a 764 on July 18th. Engine failure, divert to San Juan. Needed a new engine which according to the article was flown in on a Kalitta 747.
Now, using TA2015/C2012 logic, what are you willing to give up to get a new engine for a jet? I mean I know it's a common thing to replace a broken part with a new one to keep an asset operating, just like it's a common thing to replace old equipment, like airplanes, with newer ones. But in the case of aircraft acquisitions, you need to give up something. Because we know you want new airplanes. Otherwise, why would a 60 jet acquisition be in a TA? It's a sweetner, no?
No way is a 739 and early batch E190 order a concession, righ.... wait. Don't answer that. I might have just messed this whole thought up. Standby. I'm on the landline.
But don't worry, I know it's quiet hours but I'm still going to make a really long and loud PA at 0645 in the morning when I get this straight.1.81++++++ doesn't do anything for you but it sounds good.
Why others cannot see that WE are just pilots, not Airplane Acquisition Managers, is beyond me!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
