DAL to reduce by 4-5% by 4th Qtr
09-16-2011, 05:41 PM
#51
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by gloopy
That's how I thought of it too, but tsquare brings up an interesting angle: how those ESK's are calculated. Is it 100% certain that any plane AF puts across the pond counts for total seats and cargo, regardless of the percentage allocated to the DL/SkyTeam partnership? IOW, can AF put a 380 CDG-ATL with 500 seats (keeping the numbers simple and assuming cargo per seat is about the same) and then saying "oh no monsieur, only 200 seats are sellable/codeable by DL the rest are purely AF" so all mother D has to do is slap one 76ER on the route and call it even Steven?
Does the terms of our JV lock in 100% of all ESK's total, in their metal, including all their affiliate companies (KLM, who knows maybe one day Britair?, etc) plus all of their code shares and JV's including those they haven't entered into yet?
Does the terms of our JV lock in 100% of all ESK's total, in their metal, including all their affiliate companies (KLM, who knows maybe one day Britair?, etc) plus all of their code shares and JV's including those they haven't entered into yet?
09-16-2011, 07:01 PM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by gloopy
That's how I thought of it too, but tsquare brings up an interesting angle: how those ESK's are calculated. Is it 100% certain that any plane AF puts across the pond counts for total seats and cargo, regardless of the percentage allocated to the DL/SkyTeam partnership? IOW, can AF put a 380 CDG-ATL with 500 seats (keeping the numbers simple and assuming cargo per seat is about the same) and then saying "oh no monsieur, only 200 seats are sellable/codeable by DL the rest are purely AF" so all mother D has to do is slap one 76ER on the route and call it even Steven?
Does the terms of our JV lock in 100% of all ESK's total, in their metal, including all their affiliate companies (KLM, who knows maybe one day Britair?, etc) plus all of their code shares and JV's including those they haven't entered into yet?
Does the terms of our JV lock in 100% of all ESK's total, in their metal, including all their affiliate companies (KLM, who knows maybe one day Britair?, etc) plus all of their code shares and JV's including those they haven't entered into yet?
Wouldn't it be awesome if we had a union committee to investigate all this stuff for us? I mean this is really some digging in the weeds as we try to imagine all the ways they could end-around our scope clause. Or, what if the union employed a law firm to dig into the legalese and think a step ahead of the company?
But for us to trust that union, they would have to find some way to convince us that keeping our flying is their top priority. And they just won't do that. However, if you can't sleep at night worrying about lithium batteries or lasers, rest assured that we are making big progress there. Plus, no one can shine a laser in your eye if you are at home sleeping while Alaska and Republic pilots fly your passengers and take your paycheck.
09-16-2011, 07:09 PM
#54
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
In the AF-KLM-DAL JV it is not just about seats, but ESK's (Equal Seat Kilometers) What that means is that cargo carrying capability as well as seats are taken in to account to come up with the ESK metric for each jet. Because of this one flight of a 380 equates to three flights of a 767ER. We fly about 2/3rds of the block time in the JV but only half of the ESK's.
I have tried to point out that since they cost more them flying larger metal with less block actually works better for the JV partners. (Not us but the airlines) As a result we will see more flying in smaller aircraft like the 767 and 330 here at DAL.
I have tried to point out that since they cost more them flying larger metal with less block actually works better for the JV partners. (Not us but the airlines) As a result we will see more flying in smaller aircraft like the 767 and 330 here at DAL.
09-16-2011, 08:48 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: Knuckle-dragging line pilot
Posts: 943
Originally Posted by tsquare
Is this in the similar vein that all the 50 seat RJ flying is going away? Yet everywhere I look I see nothing but RJs.. and Air France liveried 777s and 747s and 3-freaking-80s? This is the scope section that is reportedly good for us? If that is it, I would hate to see where we would be without it.
ASA picked up United flying in IAD to substitute for flying pulled by Delta, and now they're losing 8 70-seaters to GoJet.
Mesaba is losing the Saabs.
A friend who reads the SEC filings and such said Skywest is planning to lose 170-ish airplanes from its fleet between 2011-2014, spread between Brasilias, CRJ-200s and EMB-145s.
So there's that.
09-17-2011, 01:40 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
A B scale is doing the same work on the same jet for different rates, not what you describe gloopy.
On a strict definition standpoint, we can split hairs all day but the meat and potatos of a B scale are the point here. If we have a separate scale for half our 757's to fly as "Delta Lite" while the rest are regular scale, that's a B scale. Of course. But wouldn't it also be a B scale if we bought 200 large A-321's, which we don't otherwise operate (or a different type, it really doesn't matter) and put all of them at "Delta Lite" if that scale was significantly less than comparable gauge? Clearly the intent as well as the result would be the same, so I think that would be an acceptable use of the definition. C scale? Whatever.
When UAL kept work rules for their widebodies and stripped narrowbody pilots to pure fly to the FAR's, that was nothing short of a B scale in intent and result, despite the obselete by the book definition.
When applied to an entire segment of the airline, while it may not "technically" be a B scale, the dramaticly lower disparity in pay, work rules and benefits that our flying commands when we allow management to shop it to the lowest RFP provider is sickening and in many ways far worse than the true definition of a B scale.
I would argue that we bring that flying back and make the scale for pay and bennifits in line with everything else. However for the sake of arguement if that was not workable, either financially or (more likely) politically, then bringing that flying back on a lower tier system (less than linear mainline pay, worse work rules, lower B fund, higher health care premiums, etc) would be disgusting...but less disgusting than looking the other way while we outsource it for that exact same purpose. Doing so isn't a B scale, I agree...its something far more sinister and dammaging to the profession.
It just amazes me that some can take the moral high ground by saying we should never have a B scale for smaller jet flying, but those same people say its acceptable to outsource it instead. B scales suck, outsourcing is worse. Bringing the flying back on a "B scale" (or whatever you want to call it) is preferable to continuing to outsource half our block hours and pilot jobs. We have to bring that flying back first before we can ever truly and sustainably restore our profession for the long term. If we can do that without a B scale, great. Lets do it. Lets strike over it if necessary. But if we have to account for the distructive cost structure that we signed off on, if a B scale does that its far better than status quo.
09-17-2011, 02:17 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by FlyZ
^^^^
Wouldn't it be awesome if we had a union committee to investigate all this stuff for us? I mean this is really some digging in the weeds as we try to imagine all the ways they could end-around our scope clause. Or, what if the union employed a law firm to dig into the legalese and think a step ahead of the company?
But for us to trust that union, they would have to find some way to convince us that keeping our flying is their top priority. And they just won't do that. However, if you can't sleep at night worrying about lithium batteries or lasers, rest assured that we are making big progress there. Plus, no one can shine a laser in your eye if you are at home sleeping while Alaska and Republic pilots fly your passengers and take your paycheck.
Wouldn't it be awesome if we had a union committee to investigate all this stuff for us? I mean this is really some digging in the weeds as we try to imagine all the ways they could end-around our scope clause. Or, what if the union employed a law firm to dig into the legalese and think a step ahead of the company?
But for us to trust that union, they would have to find some way to convince us that keeping our flying is their top priority. And they just won't do that. However, if you can't sleep at night worrying about lithium batteries or lasers, rest assured that we are making big progress there. Plus, no one can shine a laser in your eye if you are at home sleeping while Alaska and Republic pilots fly your passengers and take your paycheck.
Interpretation of the legalese generally comes from the term sheets and negotiators notes. Most of the time those items make it clear what the intent of both sides were with regard to issues that appear gray in print.
09-17-2011, 04:04 AM
#58
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by gloopy
I was referring to the popular opinion that B scales are bad (I agree) so we should avoid them at all costs, including outsourcing (I disagree). I'm against a B scale, but more against outsourcing because that has all the disadvantages of a B scale plus it loses the jobs.
On a strict definition standpoint, we can split hairs all day but the meat and potatos of a B scale are the point here. If we have a separate scale for half our 757's to fly as "Delta Lite" while the rest are regular scale, that's a B scale. Of course. But wouldn't it also be a B scale if we bought 200 large A-321's, which we don't otherwise operate (or a different type, it really doesn't matter) and put all of them at "Delta Lite" if that scale was significantly less than comparable gauge? Clearly the intent as well as the result would be the same, so I think that would be an acceptable use of the definition. C scale? Whatever.
When UAL kept work rules for their widebodies and stripped narrowbody pilots to pure fly to the FAR's, that was nothing short of a B scale in intent and result, despite the obselete by the book definition.
When applied to an entire segment of the airline, while it may not "technically" be a B scale, the dramaticly lower disparity in pay, work rules and benefits that our flying commands when we allow management to shop it to the lowest RFP provider is sickening and in many ways far worse than the true definition of a B scale.
I would argue that we bring that flying back and make the scale for pay and bennifits in line with everything else. However for the sake of arguement if that was not workable, either financially or (more likely) politically, then bringing that flying back on a lower tier system (less than linear mainline pay, worse work rules, lower B fund, higher health care premiums, etc) would be disgusting...but less disgusting than looking the other way while we outsource it for that exact same purpose. Doing so isn't a B scale, I agree...its something far more sinister and dammaging to the profession.
It just amazes me that some can take the moral high ground by saying we should never have a B scale for smaller jet flying, but those same people say its acceptable to outsource it instead. B scales suck, outsourcing is worse. Bringing the flying back on a "B scale" (or whatever you want to call it) is preferable to continuing to outsource half our block hours and pilot jobs. We have to bring that flying back first before we can ever truly and sustainably restore our profession for the long term. If we can do that without a B scale, great. Lets do it. Lets strike over it if necessary. But if we have to account for the distructive cost structure that we signed off on, if a B scale does that its far better than status quo.
On a strict definition standpoint, we can split hairs all day but the meat and potatos of a B scale are the point here. If we have a separate scale for half our 757's to fly as "Delta Lite" while the rest are regular scale, that's a B scale. Of course. But wouldn't it also be a B scale if we bought 200 large A-321's, which we don't otherwise operate (or a different type, it really doesn't matter) and put all of them at "Delta Lite" if that scale was significantly less than comparable gauge? Clearly the intent as well as the result would be the same, so I think that would be an acceptable use of the definition. C scale? Whatever.
When UAL kept work rules for their widebodies and stripped narrowbody pilots to pure fly to the FAR's, that was nothing short of a B scale in intent and result, despite the obselete by the book definition.
When applied to an entire segment of the airline, while it may not "technically" be a B scale, the dramaticly lower disparity in pay, work rules and benefits that our flying commands when we allow management to shop it to the lowest RFP provider is sickening and in many ways far worse than the true definition of a B scale.
I would argue that we bring that flying back and make the scale for pay and bennifits in line with everything else. However for the sake of arguement if that was not workable, either financially or (more likely) politically, then bringing that flying back on a lower tier system (less than linear mainline pay, worse work rules, lower B fund, higher health care premiums, etc) would be disgusting...but less disgusting than looking the other way while we outsource it for that exact same purpose. Doing so isn't a B scale, I agree...its something far more sinister and dammaging to the profession.
It just amazes me that some can take the moral high ground by saying we should never have a B scale for smaller jet flying, but those same people say its acceptable to outsource it instead. B scales suck, outsourcing is worse. Bringing the flying back on a "B scale" (or whatever you want to call it) is preferable to continuing to outsource half our block hours and pilot jobs. We have to bring that flying back first before we can ever truly and sustainably restore our profession for the long term. If we can do that without a B scale, great. Lets do it. Lets strike over it if necessary. But if we have to account for the distructive cost structure that we signed off on, if a B scale does that its far better than status quo.
I am 100% with you that all flying should be performed by DAL pilots. Probably more than you realize. The simple reality is our best thinking got us to a point here over 50% of the block hrs flown under the DAL livery are not flown by DAL pilots, and that is domestic. If you look at our global route network it gets worse.
We are a few opportunities coming at us that can change the course of events yet to unfold. We need to do out of the box type thinking to solve these problems. The scenario I posted above is one such way. In reality we as a pilot group first need to choose scope and its restoration as a goal. That is the "if" we are going to do it, and as soon as that is decided, we can work on the "how." We have always scenarioized to the moon and back but the reality is question one was never effectively answered by the rank and file nor the Reps, nor the Admin.
Also for a pilot of clarification, I do not think that a 321 or 757, or a 737-200 should be flown by a subsidiarity for less pay but by the same seniority listed pilots. Sunshine, and Air Canada Jazz flying 757's are two examples of that.
09-17-2011, 04:22 AM
#59
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by captainv
Well, Comair had 176 aircraft at its peak, by late next year it'll be 44.
ASA picked up United flying in IAD to substitute for flying pulled by Delta, and now they're losing 8 70-seaters to GoJet.
Mesaba is losing the Saabs.
A friend who reads the SEC filings and such said Skywest is planning to lose 170-ish airplanes from its fleet between 2011-2014, spread between Brasilias, CRJ-200s and EMB-145s.
So there's that.
ASA picked up United flying in IAD to substitute for flying pulled by Delta, and now they're losing 8 70-seaters to GoJet.
Mesaba is losing the Saabs.
A friend who reads the SEC filings and such said Skywest is planning to lose 170-ish airplanes from its fleet between 2011-2014, spread between Brasilias, CRJ-200s and EMB-145s.
So there's that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
