sailingfun

Not to mention the tremendous increase in international flying since the joint venture started. We would be crushed as a standalone airline in the international arena.

NuGuy

Heyas,

As I have stated all along, getting rid of the 50 seaters is fine, but:

1) Does nothing to replace mainline jobs

2) Provides talking point FUD, which distracts from the real problem

3) The real problem being 70-76 seaters, which have the range and lift to replace 100-125 seat aircraft. The entire DC-9 fleet was outsourced with them, probably along with some of the bottom 125 seat market to the tune of hundreds, and possibly thousands of mainline jobs (plus advancements).

The Alaska and JV problems are separate, but related. But here's the thing: Our sub 100 seat lift got outsourced because, ostensibly, the outsourced lift was cheaper.

DAL provided lift is cheaper than Alaska. DAL provided lift is also cheaper than many of the JV participants. Using the reasoning that what's good for the goose should also be good for the gander, why is DAL metal not repacing the "more expensive" lift under the DAL code?

We're getting it from both sides...

Nu

acl65pilot

To me the answer is simple economics. DAL cannot afford to take on the debt, and or the banks will not allow them to. That is the reason for the effort to cut our debt in almost half in five years. DAL knows it needs feed for the jets they do have (Asia WB flying) but cannot afford to buy the jets to feed it, ala ALK code share.

In reality it is the same everywhere. Once they get down a billion or two more in debt it is my opinion that the ability to buy jets now changes, and we may see some show up, but until then, DAL wants to keep their network intact even if they have less control of it. That is why we see so many code shares, marketing agreements, and alliance partners being added. It also shows that pilot costs are really negligible in the scheme of things.

gloopy

Even the larger RJ's? If so, will our management "constructively engage" us to help fix this problem? Or will they continue to be extremely hostile signing cut throat bottom feeders into more long term contracts like they have been doing for the last year or so? If its the latter, will our union leadership call them out on it, or continue to pretend everything's fine?

And isn't the bulk of the SKYW ball and chain also coming to an end in the next couple years? Did we sell them the ATL gates or just rent them a portion of the ATL flying for that 10 year(ish) time frame that's about to end?

gloopy

That's exactly what I'm saying. We have to get it back first, and if a non linear pay and benefits system is the only way to do it then that's what has to be done. There is no moral high ground for anyone to take by acting like doing so would be bad for the profession or unfair to the pilot group when the alternative for not doing so is continued outsourcing which is far, far worse.

80ktsClamp

Can I get a bag tag that says gloopy speaks for me?

tsquare

What was all that we were hearing about.... uh.. sy...ner...gies?

I feel so synergized.

Scoop

Yep,

During the merger roadshow I distinctly remember being told that the combined pax load of DAL and NW would enable us to reach a tipping point in markets like BOS and LAX that had no dominant airline.

I guess they forgot to mention it would be Alaska that benefited from this (in LAX at least).

So a question to all - In what market did the post-merger DAL hit a tipping point and become the dominant carrier???

I remember some bean counter saying that if we get xx percentage of seats we could control the market and raise prices - I guess this could be happening - but I certainly don't see us dominating any previously up for grabs markets.

Scoop

qball

I think after the 75% reduction...we've got CVG locked up.

Boomer

CVG is locked up, but the DAL percentage has dropped substantially (whether you count all Delta flights or just the mainline ones).