The 76 seaters can grow in number regardless. They could get extra 76 seaters if the go over a certain number of mainline planes, which we are about 40 shy of now. Add 88 717s, then add 3 76 seaters for every plane over that limit. Now, it is true they would have to replace 70 seaters with those new 76 seaters, but then Delta would keep 50 seaters around that aren't profitable in high oil. Is that what you want? Keep the less efficient ones? There are 331 50 seaters still on the lease hook through 2015, and this TA brings that down to 125 50 seaters, and allows 102 70 seaters to cover some of those 50 seater routes, in hopes to make more profits on them.

But they have to park an equal number of 70 seaters. Why are you so sold on this thing?

That's exactly what I want. Let economics kill the DCI beast once and for all. Let the CRJ become the Edsel of tomorrow's business schools. Make mass outsourcing the folly that all future Delta CEOs wish to avoid repeating.

Amen. We do not want it to be profitable to outsource. If all you care about is profits then give them unlimited large fuel efficient RJs. Then watch domestic mainline shrink away.

They mess with your head, and suck your brains out at those roadshows! Don't you know that Delta will liquidate immediately if we vote no!!!

I suggest you look for professional help for your Stockholm Syndrom.
Stop running the airline. It is not your job. Hold the line and make this place better in every way you can!

The more I read from these yes voters the more I believe someone from "the ballless 16" hijacked their login info. Real pilots can't think like that! :)

Plus they won't get the 99.9Klbs non union DPJ jets that require DL pilot seniority resignation to fly if on furlough.

That we just won a major grievance over.

That are our planes and our pilot jobs, 100%, and do not belong to that non union group.

While "only" 5 planes, this is a BFD. If they want those planes, then they can hire 50 more DL pilots and staff them.

2000-2001 (Thru July) we hiring 60/month (720/year) into two classes a month (and that was with Flight Engineers taking 60 days to get through training) - we have a much lower training footprint now.

Gee, gloopy, I didn't know DL mainline pilots wanted to be corporate jet drivers. Who knew? Real ones, not DPJ guys, make DL 767 CA pay, btw.

FF

The point is those are OUR jobs. We own them, period. The company violated our scope, we grieved it and we won. Clear as day. If the company wants to play NetJets or whatever, they have to come to us and work out the terms. Its not a matter of wanting to be a corporate jet driver any more than us doing charters is because we want to be charter pilots. That is our flying and our jobs. Maybe if we stood up for ourselves instead of just giving it away we could leverage the pay and benefits for that work that you describe.

Riddle me this.....

Didn't oil just close at about 84 dollars a barrell? Who knows (no, really who knows) at what point does the price of oil have to go down to to make the 50 seater viable again? Could Delta's purchase of an oil refinery cause them to maybe look at 50 seaters differently for the future?

Denny

Denny,

Logic tells me "oil killed the 50 seater" is extremely simplistic. Many of the 50 seaters are simply getting older and the model they were used in no longer exists. Sector costs have increased as a result of all the crap we taxpayers have over built into airports from security to Taj Mahal structures like Brunswick where maybe 120 people walk through the terminal a day. These smaller airports got Federal money to build RJ palaces which simply are not self sustaining using local budgets. At the same time travelers began avoiding RJ connections, preferring to drive to the next larger airport and airlines got tired of competing head to head and decided to remove competitive capacity to raise revenues.

The 50 seat RJ is like my 300,000 mile airport truck. It isn't comfortable or fashionable. Do I really want to spend $1,000 fixing it up to drive another three years?

Management would prefer to buy newer, larger, airplanes to refleet DCI. The thing is half of those newer, larger airplanes are 717's flown by us. That's the deal.

If the deal doesn't happen the 50 seater is remains airworthy. Like my old airport truck they'll refresh the engine, put new brakes on it and run the damn thing until it breaks.

There are still markets where a CRJ200 fits and management is keeping some of them to fly those markets.

Fuel is only a part of the equation. If there is a sufficient revenue premium then the operation still works. Management would prefer to refleet. It is not the end of the World for any of us if they choose option B. In fact, if you like what you see now, that's probably "option B."

I'm a pretty simplistic guy!:)! Thanks for answering. As far as your last sentence goes, that's the point, I don't particularly like what I see.....But is the alternative any better? I don't know.

Denny

Check out FTB's latest chart. Guaranteed to be the talk of the town later today. Good best case / worst case and I hope he adds a column for status quo with a static fleet +88 717's and 3 to 1 trigger.

I think reality will be somewhere in between the best and worst case, with the wild card of some wide body refleeting once we get our debt in line.

That chart is a nice work of fiction. It assumes a huge block hour reduction to keep capacity flat, meaning that Delta would have to pull out of a substantial number of markets.

It's a spreadsheet designed to force a result. Also, he didn't use a proper "control group", our current PWA. Take a look at his numbers presuming that decrease under our current agreement. Where's the "worst case" there...and with his no vote that's what he's advocating.

Why is it that the most profitable airline for decades has the "strongest" scope with zero small jet given away??

Because they run an entirely different business structure. They are really NOT comparable. And their cost structure continues to rise. CASM continues to rise, while PRASM is dropping.

Ah yes, the dalpa "we are not swa" or "swa is not in our peer group" meme.

How are they not comparable? You keep spouting off to others in many threads to provide "proof" or "where are your facts." Well, prove it johnso.

Look at their route structure. Is it a hub and spoke system? Does SWA operate multiple fleet types? Do they fly around the world? Do they pay for their pilots type ratings?

I never said SWA pilots were not in our peer group. YOU put those words in my mouth. I said Southwest the airline and Delta the airline were not comparable.

What's the difference between them and the majors other than they don't have first class? Both transport people from point A to point B using the same method of transportation. Where they go may be different but they do the exact same thing. It's not greyhound vs the railroad. It's a passenger airline vs a passenger airline.

By the way they are very comparable if you both are competing for your customers out of the same customer pool.

It's a different business structure. That's a fact. They are different. Not sure about your last statement. If Delta wants to send someone from LAX-NYC, it'll be nonstop. On SWA, it'll be something like LAX-PHX-MDW-LGA.

So because the hub and spoke doesn't seem to be the most profitable way to run an airline then they can't be compared? Weak argument for bad management decisions.

1 airplane vs. multiple. Once again weak and that's up to management. Remember they have 2 right now and getting rid of one and you guys are adding another type rather than getting more of what you have.

International shouldn't be a factor because that should pay for itself. If it's a loosing product then once again bad management.

Type ratings I'll give you that as a cost savings but they still do the exact same thing as the majors just minus first class.

What's your argument when Delta or any other hub and spoke airline makes more money then SWA? Who is making the poor decisions then?

I see. So how do you intend to serve JFK-TLV or JFK-ACC with a 737? And Delta is taking deliveries of MD90's and B737's. Both types we already have.

So international should pay for itself, but domestic shouldn't? It's called route management. If it's profitable, you keep it. If not, bye-bye. It doesn't matter if it's domestic or not.

They really don't. The SWA operation is different on many levels. Also, Delta seems to be making money just fine. So your poor management argument isn't really holding water.

Then name a route where they both fly non stop and tell me what is the difference? They are both trying to pull from the same passenger pool.

Here's where your argument doesn't hold water on the LAX to NYC. Can they both get you from where you are to where you want to go? Yes. Go to delta and pull up that flight. I'll put money on it that it gives you more than just the direct option. I bet they have connecting options too. Just like southwest. You just picked a route that Southwest doesn't do direct and say it's different.

Was Continental different because they flew 3 aircraft compared to your 9?

Yup, Delta will give more options then the non stop. They'll also give options to get you Europe, Africa, and Asia. Does SWA do that? And yes, Continental is different then SWA because they fly multiple types of airplanes.

Funny, we're up to page 7 and no response from Slow. It seems every time a logical argument that actually might prove him wrong comes up he just ignores it.
Slow, I like the balance you bring (most of the time) especially when you bring ALL the fact's not just the ones that support your argument!

I NEVER said you said swa pilots were not in our peer group. I very clearly stated that was a dalpa meme. Your statement of them not being comparable to us is, however, very much alike to what they have been saying during these negotiations.

And what does multiple fleet type have to do with giving away rj's or not giving away rj's and being profitable (and furloughing, as in slowplays post)? Are you saying that having multiple fleet types somehow makes rj's profitable or a good idea? Seems to me that is a reason to NOT have rj's as we have different types to "fit the bill" ourselves.

And flying around the world imho is irrelevant. The rj's we have basically fly domestically. Just like sw does. We could be using a 737 (or smaller mainline) to bring people to those int'l flights, just like swa uses a 737 to bring in people to connect to their other domestic flights. They have been doing it with a profit. And our rj's DO NOT just feed mainline....

Paying for their type ratings??? Now that is reeeaaalllyy a stretch. What on earth does that have to do with the fact that they are the most profitable airline for quite some time and they have no rj's??? That is an irrelevant "comparable" in realtion to a rj vs non rj profitablity discussion.

The question I originally posed has to do with "comparable" in regards to rj's and profitablity. Not some red-herring comparable of training. Their pilots still go through the same company required training as ours.

Also remember: my original post had to do with slowplays assertion that tighter scope somehow equated into furloughs.

And minus the last 8 years, SWA pilot pay lagged just about everyone else. Even though the company was doing so well. So they as a pilot group really haven't contributed much, have they?

Southwest does thing differently. Do they serve cities like PIA, SGF, MTY, etc? No, they stay away from the small communities because they can't serve then without a hub and spoke system.

Europe, Africa and Asia are just different destinations?

No under your multiple types of airplanes theory Southwest is just like Continental because they currently have 2 airplanes in their fleet. You haven't gotten them yet have you?

Continental must be on a completely different playing field than Delta or American because they have an international base. Can't compare what those guys do.....

If you don't understand it by now, I can't help you. ;)

I completely agree with that. They are on top because others fell and if memory serves, their last contract only offered up 2% in raises which was less than historical when they lagged behind. Don't get me started on their pay for training and previously pay for interview. :)

Southwest, Delta, USAirways, United and American all do things that are different. Doesn't mean that they aren't all going for the same group of people when you compare them on head to head destinations. Not routes but destinations. I know people who will take connections because the direct is expensive or take the direct because the connection route costs too much. They still both do the same thing via the same mode of transportation.

It's like I'm taking crazy pills..... some people just don't get it. :D

Johnso,

It is easier to enjoy when Eric Stratton is on your ignore list. He's a troll.

I thought the answer to Trouble's point was common knowlege among DAL pilots. The early retirements were brought up during SLI in the merger in 2008. The vast majority of the nearly 2400 earlies from 2003-2005 would have been retired due to age 60 by December 12, 2007 when the age changed. The time frame we're talking about is when other airlines furloughed in 2008-2009.

Hey! We did it!!!! We agree on something!!! :D I too agree that SWA and Delta do similar things. But I also feel the business structure is different between the two. On that, we will likely have to agree to disagree.


Hey if this industry gets worse, you may become my dealer! I'm going to need some pills! :D

I was referring to the omission of SWA in your argument. Trouble responded to you with:

What have I said that is inaccurate or being a troll? I don't come on here to sing Kumbaya or to look at underboob. There are other websites for that. I come on here to have discussions but when my thoughts don't jive with others it seems to make me a troll. Interesting philosophy I guess though. Troll doubtful but definitely blunt. I do find it funny how not telling people who I work for seems to be a bigger issue than what I say.

Do you think they compete for the same customers? Domesticly at least?