Please splain me why +50 RJ76s is a fiasco
09-13-2016, 08:31 PM
#1
Sick of whiners
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: 767 VEOP
Posts: 507
Please splain me why +50 RJ76s is a fiasco
I mostly lurk and have never started a thread, so bear with me while I try to collect my thoughts and questions on this topic.
• Delta buys the planes they want. They never ask us for our input, correct?
• Network determines city-pairs, frequency and aircraft gauge. Again, without pilot input, yes?
• If a route is passenger saturated, most every day, most every flight, they will eventually upgauge, correct?
• Our lowest seat-mile cost WB is the A330-300. Our lowest seat-mile cost NB is the 757-300.
• RJ50s are probably most expensive on a seat-mile cost basis.
• RJ70/76 are likely more cost efficient than RJ50s
• The RJ50s are likely going away. And rapidly due to high costs. Pretty solid agreement there, yes?
• Our connection carriers have something like 125 X RJ50s. (could not find exact number)
• Our connection carriers have something like 225 X RJ70/76s. (again, I could not find exact number)
Please correct any of the above for errors.
Now, given that background, the Company wants relief to add +50 RJ76s.
-> So, if everybody agrees that the conx carriers will be grounding the 125 RJ50s, that is a seat lift LOSS of 6,250 seats.
-> The company wants to allow conx carriers + fifty RJ76s, with a lift GAIN of only 3,800 seats.
Huh? Are we abandoning dozens of RJ-only cities with this “proposed” RJ gauge change that will result in the loss of thousands of seats each day?
Clearly not, in my opinion. I surmise that cities which are 50-seat destinations now, will upgauge to 76 seats and then "76-only" cities will upgauge to 717, 319, CS100 etc, on up the food chain. I have seen this happen a lot on my fleet, the 767ER. Lots of destinations (Nice, Rome etc) are no longer on the ER, they are on bigger metal, now that increased traffic supports it.
So now the REAL questions I have—
Why all the pantie wadding over the Company wanting to add fifty more 76 seaters? We are hiring something like 150 pilots EACH month. And absent a catastrophic industry-wide event, pilot hiring here is likely to continue for a long, long time. All new-hires finish training with a mainline F/O seat to go to, yes?
Yet this seems to be such an absolute deal breaker for so many on this forum.
Can somebody explain the evil, ruinous and cataclysmic event that would occur at DL if the connx carriers got 50 more RJ76s as they parked 150 RJ50s ?????
And to use this as a primary vehicle to kill a potential TA ? I just don't get it. Help me out.
.
• Delta buys the planes they want. They never ask us for our input, correct?
• Network determines city-pairs, frequency and aircraft gauge. Again, without pilot input, yes?
• If a route is passenger saturated, most every day, most every flight, they will eventually upgauge, correct?
• Our lowest seat-mile cost WB is the A330-300. Our lowest seat-mile cost NB is the 757-300.
• RJ50s are probably most expensive on a seat-mile cost basis.
• RJ70/76 are likely more cost efficient than RJ50s
• The RJ50s are likely going away. And rapidly due to high costs. Pretty solid agreement there, yes?
• Our connection carriers have something like 125 X RJ50s. (could not find exact number)
• Our connection carriers have something like 225 X RJ70/76s. (again, I could not find exact number)
Please correct any of the above for errors.
Now, given that background, the Company wants relief to add +50 RJ76s.
-> So, if everybody agrees that the conx carriers will be grounding the 125 RJ50s, that is a seat lift LOSS of 6,250 seats.
-> The company wants to allow conx carriers + fifty RJ76s, with a lift GAIN of only 3,800 seats.
Huh? Are we abandoning dozens of RJ-only cities with this “proposed” RJ gauge change that will result in the loss of thousands of seats each day?
Clearly not, in my opinion. I surmise that cities which are 50-seat destinations now, will upgauge to 76 seats and then "76-only" cities will upgauge to 717, 319, CS100 etc, on up the food chain. I have seen this happen a lot on my fleet, the 767ER. Lots of destinations (Nice, Rome etc) are no longer on the ER, they are on bigger metal, now that increased traffic supports it.
So now the REAL questions I have—
Why all the pantie wadding over the Company wanting to add fifty more 76 seaters? We are hiring something like 150 pilots EACH month. And absent a catastrophic industry-wide event, pilot hiring here is likely to continue for a long, long time. All new-hires finish training with a mainline F/O seat to go to, yes?
Yet this seems to be such an absolute deal breaker for so many on this forum.
Can somebody explain the evil, ruinous and cataclysmic event that would occur at DL if the connx carriers got 50 more RJ76s as they parked 150 RJ50s ?????
And to use this as a primary vehicle to kill a potential TA ? I just don't get it. Help me out.
.
Last edited by KnotSoFast; 09-13-2016 at 08:46 PM.
09-13-2016, 08:49 PM
#2
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 988
Originally Posted by KnotSoFast
Can somebody explain the evil, ruinous and cataclysmic event that would occur at DL if the connx carriers got 50 more RJ76s as they parked 150 RJ50s ?????
It's pretty simple actually as summed up in these two excellent posts...
Originally Posted by 404yxl
Mainline block hour ratios went up and DCI's footprint went down solely due to the ATP law breaking the back on low wage outsourced pilot jobs.
If C2012 didn't pass, Mainline block hour ratios would have actually gone UP more and DCI's footprint would have been LESS, since DCI would have to staff smaller planes with the same number of pilots it has now.
Delta management played you in 2012 and I applaud them on their negotiation tactics. They foresaw they could only staff DCI with a little over 4000 pilots and made a play to make more of their outsourced jets 76-seaters and won. The good thing is the pilot group is waking up that outsourcing more large RJ's actually shrinks mainline more than it could have been.
If C2012 didn't pass, Mainline block hour ratios would have actually gone UP more and DCI's footprint would have been LESS, since DCI would have to staff smaller planes with the same number of pilots it has now.
Delta management played you in 2012 and I applaud them on their negotiation tactics. They foresaw they could only staff DCI with a little over 4000 pilots and made a play to make more of their outsourced jets 76-seaters and won. The good thing is the pilot group is waking up that outsourcing more large RJ's actually shrinks mainline more than it could have been.
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
Claiming C2012 as the reason for increased mainline flying and decreased DCI footprints is an intentional misinterpretation of the facts. The reason for the decrease in DCI footprint is the lack of qualified candidates willing to work for poverty wages as pilots leave in droves for mainline jobs. Secondly the purchase of 717s, entirely independent of C2012 increased mainline block hours at the expense of DCI.
Our line in the sand with respect to 76 seat aircraft needs to be dug down to bedrock, filled with concrete and serve as the foundation for an absolute refusal to allow any more outsourcing. Same with JV scope.
Our line in the sand with respect to 76 seat aircraft needs to be dug down to bedrock, filled with concrete and serve as the foundation for an absolute refusal to allow any more outsourcing. Same with JV scope.
09-13-2016, 08:53 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Posts: 278
Pull the string on the sweater...
Then you pull some more...
And more...
And more...
And more...
Then you no longer have a sweater. You have a ball of yarn.
Google search the term "Precedent."
That is the issue
Then you pull some more...
And more...
And more...
And more...
Then you no longer have a sweater. You have a ball of yarn.
Google search the term "Precedent."
That is the issue
09-13-2016, 08:58 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,024
Outsourcing new larger jets revives and supports the regional airline model when it is certain to fail and return all Delta brand flying back to main line. There is nothing stopping Delta from operating 76 seat jets. This is about life support for the DCI carriers only.
In 2013 RA said they had the RJs they needed going forward. Revenue management will put the airplanes available where they make the most sense. The pieces are not as important as where you put them. They will manage that fleet and use it regardless of having 50 more or not.
In 2013 RA said they had the RJs they needed going forward. Revenue management will put the airplanes available where they make the most sense. The pieces are not as important as where you put them. They will manage that fleet and use it regardless of having 50 more or not.
Last edited by notEnuf; 09-13-2016 at 09:08 PM.
09-14-2016, 02:57 AM
#5
Bus driver
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 830
Originally Posted by KnotSoFast
I mostly lurk and have never started a thread, so bear with me while I try to collect my thoughts and questions on this topic.
• Delta buys the planes they want. They never ask us for our input, correct?
• Network determines city-pairs, frequency and aircraft gauge. Again, without pilot input, yes?
• If a route is passenger saturated, most every day, most every flight, they will eventually upgauge, correct?
• Our lowest seat-mile cost WB is the A330-300. Our lowest seat-mile cost NB is the 757-300.
• RJ50s are probably most expensive on a seat-mile cost basis.
• RJ70/76 are likely more cost efficient than RJ50s
• The RJ50s are likely going away. And rapidly due to high costs. Pretty solid agreement there, yes?
• Our connection carriers have something like 125 X RJ50s. (could not find exact number)
• Our connection carriers have something like 225 X RJ70/76s. (again, I could not find exact number)
Please correct any of the above for errors.
Now, given that background, the Company wants relief to add +50 RJ76s.
-> So, if everybody agrees that the conx carriers will be grounding the 125 RJ50s, that is a seat lift LOSS of 6,250 seats.
-> The company wants to allow conx carriers + fifty RJ76s, with a lift GAIN of only 3,800 seats.
Huh? Are we abandoning dozens of RJ-only cities with this “proposed” RJ gauge change that will result in the loss of thousands of seats each day?
Clearly not, in my opinion. I surmise that cities which are 50-seat destinations now, will upgauge to 76 seats and then "76-only" cities will upgauge to 717, 319, CS100 etc, on up the food chain. I have seen this happen a lot on my fleet, the 767ER. Lots of destinations (Nice, Rome etc) are no longer on the ER, they are on bigger metal, now that increased traffic supports it.
So now the REAL questions I have—
Why all the pantie wadding over the Company wanting to add fifty more 76 seaters? We are hiring something like 150 pilots EACH month. And absent a catastrophic industry-wide event, pilot hiring here is likely to continue for a long, long time. All new-hires finish training with a mainline F/O seat to go to, yes?
Yet this seems to be such an absolute deal breaker for so many on this forum.
Can somebody explain the evil, ruinous and cataclysmic event that would occur at DL if the connx carriers got 50 more RJ76s as they parked 150 RJ50s ?????
And to use this as a primary vehicle to kill a potential TA ? I just don't get it. Help me out.
.
• Delta buys the planes they want. They never ask us for our input, correct?
• Network determines city-pairs, frequency and aircraft gauge. Again, without pilot input, yes?
• If a route is passenger saturated, most every day, most every flight, they will eventually upgauge, correct?
• Our lowest seat-mile cost WB is the A330-300. Our lowest seat-mile cost NB is the 757-300.
• RJ50s are probably most expensive on a seat-mile cost basis.
• RJ70/76 are likely more cost efficient than RJ50s
• The RJ50s are likely going away. And rapidly due to high costs. Pretty solid agreement there, yes?
• Our connection carriers have something like 125 X RJ50s. (could not find exact number)
• Our connection carriers have something like 225 X RJ70/76s. (again, I could not find exact number)
Please correct any of the above for errors.
Now, given that background, the Company wants relief to add +50 RJ76s.
-> So, if everybody agrees that the conx carriers will be grounding the 125 RJ50s, that is a seat lift LOSS of 6,250 seats.
-> The company wants to allow conx carriers + fifty RJ76s, with a lift GAIN of only 3,800 seats.
Huh? Are we abandoning dozens of RJ-only cities with this “proposed” RJ gauge change that will result in the loss of thousands of seats each day?
Clearly not, in my opinion. I surmise that cities which are 50-seat destinations now, will upgauge to 76 seats and then "76-only" cities will upgauge to 717, 319, CS100 etc, on up the food chain. I have seen this happen a lot on my fleet, the 767ER. Lots of destinations (Nice, Rome etc) are no longer on the ER, they are on bigger metal, now that increased traffic supports it.
So now the REAL questions I have—
Why all the pantie wadding over the Company wanting to add fifty more 76 seaters? We are hiring something like 150 pilots EACH month. And absent a catastrophic industry-wide event, pilot hiring here is likely to continue for a long, long time. All new-hires finish training with a mainline F/O seat to go to, yes?
Yet this seems to be such an absolute deal breaker for so many on this forum.
Can somebody explain the evil, ruinous and cataclysmic event that would occur at DL if the connx carriers got 50 more RJ76s as they parked 150 RJ50s ?????
And to use this as a primary vehicle to kill a potential TA ? I just don't get it. Help me out.
.
09-14-2016, 03:06 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
Originally Posted by Tanker1497
Just think what Delta's Pilot list would look like know if scope was valued here like it is at SWA. Not another jet not flown by mainline pilots
09-14-2016, 03:11 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
DCI is fading as long as the 1500 hr rule remains in effect. When that is gone, as it is most surely will be, DCI will be vibrant again. And you and your like will have just handed them 50 shiny new highly efficient jets to fly. How many fewer C series and airbuses will we need then?
My question for you mr OP, is do you know what the definition of a UNION is?
My question for you mr OP, is do you know what the definition of a UNION is?
09-14-2016, 04:08 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
To answer the OP's question, it depends on whether you come at this from a ideological or pragmatic perspective.
From an ideological viewpoint, any flying that doesn't benefit ONLY the Delta pilot is bad. It doesn't matter if the benefit to the Delta pilot is smaller, as long as no one else gets a benefit.
From a pragmatic perspective, we have been allowing more and more RJ's as part of deals that benefited us overall. Some of the deals have been worse, some better. Some increase the size and capabilities of RJ's, some only the numbers, and some do both. C2K, That Contract Which is Most Fervently Revered on the Internet, was probably a bad deal (more money, but bigger RJ's). C2012 was probably a good deal, because of the ratios locked in more mainline flying.
If a contract increases mainline, decreases DCI, and doesn't increase the size of allowable aircraft at DCI, and locks in that ratio, it's undeniably good. Total pie grows, and our proprtion of that total pie grows. It's good for Delta pilots, DCI pilots, and for Delta.
As a former regional guy, it's hard to believe I'm considering it this way, but I've seen good contracts WRT RJ flying, and I've seen bad. This doesn't look bad.
From an ideological viewpoint, any flying that doesn't benefit ONLY the Delta pilot is bad. It doesn't matter if the benefit to the Delta pilot is smaller, as long as no one else gets a benefit.
From a pragmatic perspective, we have been allowing more and more RJ's as part of deals that benefited us overall. Some of the deals have been worse, some better. Some increase the size and capabilities of RJ's, some only the numbers, and some do both. C2K, That Contract Which is Most Fervently Revered on the Internet, was probably a bad deal (more money, but bigger RJ's). C2012 was probably a good deal, because of the ratios locked in more mainline flying.
If a contract increases mainline, decreases DCI, and doesn't increase the size of allowable aircraft at DCI, and locks in that ratio, it's undeniably good. Total pie grows, and our proprtion of that total pie grows. It's good for Delta pilots, DCI pilots, and for Delta.
As a former regional guy, it's hard to believe I'm considering it this way, but I've seen good contracts WRT RJ flying, and I've seen bad. This doesn't look bad.
Last edited by Sink r8; 09-14-2016 at 04:39 AM.
09-14-2016, 04:29 AM
#9
Bus driver
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 830
Originally Posted by JamesBond
5000 fewer pilots and very little international?
09-14-2016, 04:52 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Clear Right
Posts: 269
Originally Posted by JamesBond
5000 fewer pilots and very little international?
HAHA Awesome !!
