FTB,

Good spread sheet.

So you worst case assumes that the 1.25 mainline jet to new 76 seat jet acquisition language in 1 46 f is entirely used for fleet replacement to draw down existing aircraft, while also drawing down to 125 50 seaters ... could happen I guess. Your assumptions imply you hate the MD88 more than I do.

What does the model look like if the 717's and 739's are used to trigger the 3 to 1 language?Good analysis.

 

You option (B) is the one one that the ratios are based on as I understand it. 1.59-1 is the top end and we are planned (slowplay's number) to be at 1.76-1. That adds a min of 600-700 jobs with a top end of 1100. As I said in the other thread, those jobs are the initial accumulator until section 1 language is triggered and DCI is even forced to park 50's or 76 seat jets(their choice)

All "known" fleet replacement plans are part of the ratios, but as I understand it, the 717 IS NOT. The ratios get to the top end compliance with DCI 50's being parked.

George and you have proven how the same block hr plan will get us to 1.59-1 with no mainline block hr growth. The compliance will come quicker due to the tables and contract checkpoints that force 717's to be delivered to get more 76 seat jets,but the end result is not 1.59-1, but 1.76 to one when everything is considered; 717, 50's parked, 76 seat aircraft added, 767's,757's,m88's,dc9's, and 320 retirements.

My math showed a mainline fleet count of about 770 or as you show 647 domestic jets. The math works and gets us to about where we were at SOC, abet on lower paying jets. Again the planned ratio puts us well above 1.59-1(1.76-1) meaning that if the economy goes south not of the triggers to pulldown DCI, nor the non compliance language(my concern) apply, until mainline domestic shrinks by 17 basis points from 1.76-1 to 1.59-1. The new hires brought in below us are the first accumulator. Then depending on what the trigger was(euro zone debt crisis which caused the economy; apply w/ the non compliance language?) DCI can or cannot be shrunk in relation to our capacity restriction.

 

Ironically, Delta could adjust all the capacity it wanted if they'd just fly 100% of their branded operations in house. Too much to ask, i know. Outsourcing is okay.

"Just the tip, i promise!"

 

Well, the numbers can be anything. If I just put in the 3:1 trigger to option D we'd need 20 mainline airplanes to have 0% ASM growth.

To keep things fair, I need a -1% ASM YOY growth. I can do that, but I can also do that cutting out 120 CRJ-200s since we know those are uneconomical. That'd give you DCI 479/255 instead of 450/325. It's all about the ASSumption and given the TA doesn't require growth, you can go a lot of ways. I tend to believe DCI 450/325 will not be shrunken though so to get a 1% or 2% decline in YOY ASMs I had to take something out, the 88. I guess I could take out 319s too?

Anyways, I'll post it for you in a bit but 3:1 ratio is a 14 aircraft mainline gain and 150ish pilots, and I kept 50 MD88s of the 117... for old times sake. Gave me a -1% YOY ASM change.

 

They had te ratios at the roadshow yesterday. We are currently 1-1:19. As a percentage of flying we are currently at 54% and under the TA we would have a min of 61, and under the company business plan (which we all know can change on a dime) at 64%. So, the narrow body fleet would reclaim 7 percent minimum of the block hours flown.


I loved the DPA guy who was upset they did away with trip parking.

 

Well I don't think that really matters. It's still negotiations. I'm pretty sure you can't just call bs on them. Once they put it put there, it has to be negotiated down.

 

I had a statistics professor say that the purpose of statistics was "How to lie using numbers." FTB which ATL roadshow are you going to attend? I think we should show this chart and say "What about this?" and watch the fun. I'll bring the Jalapeño popcorn.

 

You are changing numbers to fit your theory. Your option c shows a reduction of over 400000 block hours in the delta domestic system. That is nearly a 15-20% reduction from current levels. I will concede that there will likely be a decrease in total block hours that accompanies an up gauging process like this, but I doubt it will be of that magnitude. Even with this ridiculously biased assumption, however, you show mainline jobs as stagnant under the TA. Now consider what the mainline jobs picture would look like if delta had a 15-20% reduction in domestic block hours WITHOUT the protections included in the current TA. I don't think even the most optimistic of us would believe it would lead to no reduction in mainline jobs. The company can add or subtract total block hours with or without this TA, the difference is that with theTA we are guaranteed a larger share of whatever flying Delta does.

I'm sure you made a great grade in Excel 101, but you probably need to retake statistical analysis.

 

It's not a 20% reduction. A 20% reduction would be 2.8M block hours. I put it at a 13% reduction in block hours but ASMs only drop 6%.

But as the numbers show, best case pro TA scenario of pure 717 growth + 7 MD90s - 17 DC-9s and you've got a total fleet with DCI 450/325 that is 6% smaller than it is today. Now take that significant 4% drop and say the company decides to park MD88s via the 717/CR9 tag team. Because at some point, there will be no MD88s in this fleet. And in doing so they eat maybe another 0.6% more YOY drop in ASMs over the best case pro TA scenario 4% drop.
And fwiw, I gave the best case and tried to develop the worst case and let people see the estimated difference. No harm in that right? You can focus on the growth only side if you want, I don't trust it.

Now given what we've seen since 2008 when we had a 767 mainline fleet drop to 720, a domestic fleet drop by 6%, and a reduction in pilots on the seniority list, etc, do you think they'd grow or shrink?

 

Ok, so I will create my own non reality based worst case scenario as well. The company buys all of the 717s required to max out the purchase of additional 76 seaters. Then since they are so determined to get rid of jets w no replacements (as you assumed w the 88s), they park the ENTIRE mainline fleet except 1 737-900. They still have 450 outsourced rjs at dci though. They decide to continue the capacity discipline rage and go all the way down to only flying one block hour per day. What are they doing w all those rjs? Flying them a combined 40 minutes a day. Those bastards sure would show us with their sneaky pump and dump.