|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 2197506)
Your "upcoming" scope concessions are just throwing crap against the wall and hoping something sticks. It's not even worth addressing since you don't deal in reality.
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 2197563)
Interested on getting your take on 25 last year v 50 this year.
... and your take on a 4 to 1 increase in mainline flying relative to the flying those 25 70 to 76 seaters could have flown, last year, v/s the ratio this year. Like you, I want all Delta flying done by Delta pilots. If someone will trade me $4 for every $1 given, I would take that trade. If someone will give me 4 airplane's worth of flying for 1 airplane, that is a good trade that gets us closer to the goal.* To get to NO DCI we must transition through LESS DCI. * C2012's ratio was 1.125 to 1 * TA15 was 2 to 1 on jets, but 4 to 1 on the BHR The DCI 50 seat jets are going away on their own. We do not need concessions to buy their number down. But you knew that. |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 2197605)
The DCI 50 seat jets are going away on their own. We do not need concessions to buy their number down.
But you knew that. They conveniently ignore that if no more 76 seats jets are allowed, Delta mainline will actually increase more than if more are allowed. Allowing more 76 seats allows Delta Connection to stay more efficient and more outsourcing to occur than if you hold the current line on total 76 seat jets. More Delta Connection jets will be parked and more mainline jets will happen by holding the line on 76 seat jets, not increasing them. |
Originally Posted by 404yxl
(Post 2197521)
I didn't ask for the merits of DPA. I asked you to show us how he is mathematically wrong.
It's very telling that you continually ignore to answer that and then just bash DPA. I didn't even care to bring up DPA until you repeatedly turn it into a DPA bashfest instead of answering a legitimate claim. Jerry makes a valid point about the large number of outsourced jobs but beyond that we are trying to compare two vastly different cairlines with different networks. I am sure you can tweak the variables to come up with almost any number you want but fact is DAL has contacts that prevent quickly insourcing all Scope. This whole numbers argument is totally academic and very speculative. Scoop |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 2197731)
Jerry makes a valid point about the large number of outsourced jobs but beyond that we are trying to compare two vastly different cairlines with different networks.
I am sure you can tweak the variables to come up with almost any number you want but fact is DAL has contacts that prevent quickly insourcing all Scope. This whole numbers argument is totally academic and very speculative. Scoop |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 2197020)
In my opinion.
50 more 76 seat jets to DCI. $300 million per year. Why are we making concessions? Once again, I am going to ask you to show your math here. You seem delighted to toss out lots of very specific dollar amounts. Now prove them. Here is what I get... please show me where I am wrong. 50 X 76-seat jets = 25 X 152-seat jets in capacity, yes? So lets round up and use use 737N nums, OK? 25 X 737 Captains, with 7 crews/jet, at $225K each = $39,375,000 25 X 737 F/Os, with 7 crews/jet, at $155K each = $27,125,000 Total $66,500,000 So please explain how you got all the way to $300 million (!) when I get $66 million. And your last response to me, oh, it was TIC, will NOT suffice here. Are all of your "factual" numbers off by 450% error? Show your work on ALL of your numbers as the OP of this thread. You owe your dear readers nothing less. Or do you just like making $h1t up as you go along and hope nobody questions it ? . |
The RJ thing is correcting itself. I commute on them quite often, and every time it's the same story. They can't replace the pilots that are leaving. The guys the can hire can barely get through training. That flying is coming back to the mainline one way or another. I don't think we should waste much negotiating capital on RJs.
How long do you think it will be before we are whining on here about having to fly that stuff? Trick question, that's been happening since the 717's started showing up. Careful what you wish for. |
Originally Posted by nwaf16dude
(Post 2197949)
The RJ thing is correcting itself. . . .
. I completely agree. So the Company wants 50 more 76-seaters. Do you know why?? Because we have a bunch of cities that NETWORK thinks can mostly fill 5X 76-seaters per day rather than 2.5X Maddogs or 320s or 737s. The business traveller, who we count on to pay a premium, seems to value frequency and time-of-day choice. And there are some cities, like Flint, or Idaho Falls, that will NEVER fill 5X 737s. So if network wants 50 more, it doesn't bother me a whole lot. They feed our NETWORK, make us money and get me a fatter Valentine's Day happy check! :) 50 X 76-seaters is the same capacity as 25X maddogs. Or 320s. 0r 737s. (approx) Those 25 jets of capacity need 350 mainline pilots. (approx) We are hiring nearly that many pilots every 70 days. The "net" impact of an additional 50 76-seaters does not make me want to jump up and down and hold my breath if it's in the next TA. Now granted, I'm pretty high up in the food chain, but before Thanksgiving, we will have hired an additional 350 pilots since the beginning of this month, so I honestly don't get the pantie wadding that is occurring on this forum. (And NO, I'm not an ALPA apologist or a 4th floor cube-dweller either.) On another note, has anybody heard of any progress (or lack thereof) in the NMB assisted meetings this week? . |
Originally Posted by KnotSoFast
(Post 2197901)
.
Once again, I am going to ask you to show your math here. You seem delighted to toss out lots of very specific dollar amounts. Now prove them. Here is what I get... please show me where I am wrong. 50 X 76-seat jets = 25 X 152-seat jets in capacity, yes? So lets round up and use use 737N nums, OK? 25 X 737 Captains, with 7 crews/jet, at $225K each = $39,375,000 25 X 737 F/Os, with 7 crews/jet, at $155K each = $27,125,000 Total $66,500,000 So please explain how you got all the way to $300 million (!) when I get $66 million. And your last response to me, oh, it was TIC, will NOT suffice here. Are all of your "factual" numbers off by 450% error? Show your work on ALL of your numbers as the OP of this thread. You owe your dear readers nothing less. Or do you just like making $h1t up as you go along and hope nobody questions it ? . Millions to be saved by management not having to do heavy maintainance on the 50 seat jets. $250 million to $300 million. I err on the high side because management always low balls us. WRT JV scope brought instantly in compliance and converting to block hours. It is not only the lost widebody positions, but the waterfall those upgrades would cause. Getting this right is everything. We must have instant compensation for management being out of compliance. No waiting years. No grievance. Rock solid language. We could easily give up a Billion here over the next decade. The same meaningless language will crush our future. Well not us old farts. I'm fighting for you young pilots and our profession. Scope is everything in this deal. Speak up. |
Originally Posted by nwaf16dude
(Post 2197949)
The RJ thing is correcting itself. I commute on them quite often, and every time it's the same story. They can't replace the pilots that are leaving. The guys the can hire can barely get through training. That flying is coming back to the mainline one way or another. I don't think we should waste much negotiating capital on RJs.
How long do you think it will be before we are whining on here about having to fly that stuff? Trick question, that's been happening since the 717's started showing up. Careful what you wish for. You may be too important to fly small jets. That is how we got in this mess in the first place. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:04 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands