|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1204019)
If there was POS96 and C2K, I guess TA 2012 can be CN12 for Cost Neutral 2012?
Or something else more catchy, and don't use POS, that's already been used. Carl |
So with DCI 600/255 going to 450/325...
In exchange for doing that we'll allow the lusted over fleet of jumbo RJs to jump from 43% of the outsourced fleet to 72%. That means if every single 50-seater is unprofitable and every jumbo RJ is, then we just made the DCI fleet nearly 70% more profitable inexchange for parking 150 regional jets, all of them unwanted due to cost. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1204211)
So with DCI 600/255 going to 450/325...
That means if every single 50-seater is unprofitable and every jumbo RJ is, then we just made the DCI fleet nearly 70% more profitable inexchange for parking 150 regional jets, all of them unwanted due to cost. Your base premise is wrong. But as part of that DCI transition you're so fond of we're transferring block hours from DCI to Delta mainline, which is good for the Delta pilots. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1204220)
Your base premise is wrong. But as part of that transitionDCI transition you're so fond of we're transferring block hours from DCI to Delta mainline, which is good for the Delta pilots.
So, which is it? Pure growth and over a thousand pilots or capacity discipline and no pilots? Go back to July 2011: Delta's results "fell short of Wall Street profit estimates as fuel costs grew at a higher rate than revenue, and its shares fell to a new year low." The response: Delta Air Lines will further reduce capacity this year… the company plans to "retire 140 aircraft by the end of 2012, including the entire DC-9 fleet and Saab turboprop fleet as well as sixty 50-seat regional jets. Half of the aircraft will exit the fleet this year, resulting in an estimated $250 million in maintenance savings." And then the key part: "We will resize the airline to new flying levels and reduce the size of our fleet, staff, and facilities," CEO Richard Anderson is quoted as saying on a conference call. Anderson says such moves are necessary as the carrier adapts to "a permanent high-fuel-price environment." "We're very focused on being certain that the flying we do produces positive cash flow -- it's that simple," Anderson is quoted as saying by The Wall Street Journal. The Journal adds that Anderson made a point to say that Delta is more concerned about profitability than winning market share. So next time we miss earnings estimates, are we going to grow or cut? . |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1204220)
Every single 50-seater is not unprofitable. Management wants to retain 125 of them because those particular aircraft are very profitable. The rest vary from mediocre to marginal to unprofitable.
So when did Delta become a 501(c)(3) so that we could donate so much to their cause of outsourcing us? |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1204241)
So, 100% of DCI 450/325 will be profitable now? Whereas right now that is not the case.
So when did Delta become a 501(c)(3) so that we could donate so much to their cause of outsourcing us? Of course we can take your failed anti-drug strategy (just say no) and do what has been so successful for APA, UAL/CAL, PCL, ASA/XJT, etc. Yup, we can do that. How'd SWA get where they are? And SWA, UPS or FedEx, whose companies have had sustained profitability and no bankruptcy ever reached the payrates that we achieved 8 years ago? |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1204263)
If donating to their cause requires management to upsize mainline compared to DCI, raise our salaries by $420 million in the last year, shrink DCI by 25% in airframes and 16% in seats, enhances international scope and JV protections, raises vacation by 8%, raises reserve guarantee by an average 8%, etc. then I'm all for that IRS code.
Of course we can take your failed anti-drug strategy (just say no) and do what has been so successful for APA, UAL/CAL, PCL, ASA/XJT, etc. Yup, we can do that. How'd SWA get where they are? And SWA, UPS or FedEx, whose companies have had sustained profitability and no bankruptcy ever reached the payrates that we achieved 8 years ago? Slow; You're right! It was a failed anti-drug strategy because the DALPA sales team said "just say yes." |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1204263)
If donating to their cause requires management to upsize mainline compared to DCI, raise our salaries by $420 million in the last year, shrink DCI by 25% in airframes and 16% in seats, enhances international scope and JV protections, raises vacation by 8%, raises reserve guarantee by an average 8%, etc. then I'm all for that IRS code.
Of course we can take your failed anti-drug strategy (just say no) and do what has been so successful for APA, UAL/CAL, PCL, ASA/XJT, etc. Yup, we can do that. How'd SWA get where they are? And SWA, UPS or FedEx, whose companies have had sustained profitability and no bankruptcy ever reached the payrates that we achieved 8 years ago? |
Originally Posted by DAL73n
(Post 1203511)
ACL
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. Based on the ratios we may get to 770 total mainline jets with what is seen. In reality we are probably going to see 40 growth jets, maybe until more happens. That "more" will not happen until Dal gets their debt down and that is what many reps apparently saw as leverage. This rj real does it and if this TA is voted down they still have a target debt level they need to get to. Not sure one new 777 in cost a year for the life of this agreement is worth walking away if the TA gets turned down. I know it wouldn't be for me. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1204263)
If donating to their cause requires management to upsize mainline compared to DCI, raise our salaries by $420 million in the last year, shrink DCI by 25% in airframes and 16% in seats, enhances international scope and JV protections, raises vacation by 8%, raises reserve guarantee by an average 8%, etc. then I'm all for that IRS code.
Of course we can take your failed anti-drug strategy (just say no) and do what has been so successful for APA, UAL/CAL, PCL, ASA/XJT, etc.
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1204263)
Yup, we can do that.
How'd SWA get where they are? And SWA, UPS or FedEx, whose companies have had sustained profitability and no bankruptcy ever reached the payrates that we achieved 8 years ago? No whipsaw. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:07 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands