Hey DELTA, if you want more 70 seaters...
05-31-2012 | 07:40 PM
#41
Banned
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
Not sure 76 seaters will grow - A No vote may stop this. True, the three for one would allow more 76 seaters but when you consider 70 seaters will have to parked (255 CAP on 70 +76 seaters) the large RJs will not really grow with a NO vote.
If we sold Scope what did we get for it? Scope is too complicated to accurately describe in a bumper sticker. Bad decisions go back decades and the final straw was in BK - I wouldn't really call that selling it.
ALPA and DALPA both have made many poor Scope descions - this is very obvious in hindsight. but I am not sure it was obvious back when they were making the decisions. 70 Seat Scope at DAL actually goes back to 1986. Before the RJ, Scope strictly limited seats and made no distinction between jets and Props. Along came the RJ and we have been playing catch up ever since.
PM me your E-mail address and I will send you a 5 page history of Scope at DAL written a few years ago be a C-44 guy.
Scoop
If we sold Scope what did we get for it? Scope is too complicated to accurately describe in a bumper sticker. Bad decisions go back decades and the final straw was in BK - I wouldn't really call that selling it.
ALPA and DALPA both have made many poor Scope descions - this is very obvious in hindsight. but I am not sure it was obvious back when they were making the decisions. 70 Seat Scope at DAL actually goes back to 1986. Before the RJ, Scope strictly limited seats and made no distinction between jets and Props. Along came the RJ and we have been playing catch up ever since.
PM me your E-mail address and I will send you a 5 page history of Scope at DAL written a few years ago be a C-44 guy.
Scoop
05-31-2012 | 08:47 PM
#42
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
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.
05-31-2012 | 08:53 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
From: B737 CA
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.
06-01-2012 | 05:30 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
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.
06-01-2012 | 08:39 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
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.
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!
06-01-2012 | 10:36 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,833
Likes: 172
From: window seat
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.
06-01-2012 | 03:54 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
From: 737n/FO
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.
06-01-2012 | 05:46 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 5,244
Likes: 2
From: Baja Vermont
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
FF
06-01-2012 | 06:07 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,833
Likes: 172
From: window seat
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
