New flaw in TA scope
06-02-2012 | 12:20 PM
#252
06-02-2012 | 12:26 PM
#253
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
You understand that what management opened for wasn't a new airframe type. What they opened for was to change the seat count on their existing fleet to 80/82 seats (older CRJ-900 can only handle 80, newer ones 82).
There was never a proposal that includes the airframes that you suggest.
There was never a proposal that includes the airframes that you suggest.
What's the seat pitch on a 82 seat CR9? 24 inches?
That thing is too cramped as it is.
06-02-2012 | 12:41 PM
#254
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
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.
According to the tables to keep the 1.56 ratio intact you would be limited to 4.8 hours per year max on each airplane in a DCI 450/325 fleet with a single 739 at mainline flying it's normal block hours.
I think the drop in ASMs would be significant. Probably would have investors fuming. A 1-3% drop in ASMs however is probably praised.
I can post my math.
06-02-2012 | 12:46 PM
#255
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Another question, since were conceding on 76 seaters why didn't we get something big in return like a balance the mainline vs outsourced flying via block hours, ASMs and a minimum nb fleet count?
And say all 3 are required to be met or 76 seaters are parked until within compliance?
And say all 3 are required to be met or 76 seaters are parked until within compliance?
06-02-2012 | 01:10 PM
#256
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,410
Likes: 1
From: Cockpit speaker volume knob set to eleven.
Oh no, 40 minutes a day would be way too much.
According to the tables to keep the 1.56 ratio intact you would be limited to 4.8 hours per year max on each airplane in a DCI 450/325 fleet with a single 739 at mainline flying it's normal block hours.
I think the drop in ASMs would be significant. Probably would have investors fuming. A 1-3% drop in ASMs however is probably praised.
I can post my math.
According to the tables to keep the 1.56 ratio intact you would be limited to 4.8 hours per year max on each airplane in a DCI 450/325 fleet with a single 739 at mainline flying it's normal block hours.
I think the drop in ASMs would be significant. Probably would have investors fuming. A 1-3% drop in ASMs however is probably praised.
I can post my math.
(regardless of the number of mainline airframes that would require it) was spread evenly across the DCI fleet. I haven't seen anything that would prevent them from drawing down block hours from the 50 seaters, perhaps even parking more of them and upping the block hours on the 76 seaters.
06-02-2012 | 02:38 PM
#257
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
From: 737n/FO
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.
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.
You and FTB have the nail on the head with the flaw in the ration PROTECTION LANGUAGE. Everyone seems to think the ratios will require main line growth to keep up with DCI. Everyone (especially the MEC and LEC reps selling this TA) seems to forget that the ratios can be easily met by shrinking DCI with the retired 50s and the new 76 seaters. In addition, the 300 jobs lost are only an estimate of the new work rules and I believe the company will make much better use of the new work rules to prevent any new hiring and in fact will result in more displacement bids from higher paying A/C (everything at DAL main line) to lower paying A/C (717s) - this is another pay cut that no one is talking about.
06-02-2012 | 03:35 PM
#258
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Likes: 0
Is anyone actually buying that the 717 order will get cancelled if we vote down this TA?
Have a hard time believing this one
Have a hard time believing this one
06-02-2012 | 04:09 PM
#259
Banned
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
From: DAL
Maybe we'll see you on an ALPA ballot soon. You seem to have potential.
06-02-2012 | 04:12 PM
#260
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
Why don't you provide an example, since you've been unable to provide facts. Show me where I was "called out on it".
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
