Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Delta deal could become model for scope >

Delta deal could become model for scope

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Delta deal could become model for scope

Old 06-08-2012, 10:23 PM
  #11  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Default

Originally Posted by DLpilot View Post
If your goal is more profits so you can get profit sharing and widebodies then why put hull limits? The large RJs are profitable. Do you support raising the limit on large RJs just to make more profits?
What's wrong with profits? Some people on here don't want our corporation to be profitable? I think certain routes have perfect sized planes on them. The 76 seat cat is out of the bag. It would be more than tough to recapture all of them, but we also know that the 50 seaters aren't doing well either, which means a profit drain. If the route is going to have an RJ on it, why not have one that makes ALL OF US money? Cedar Rapids to Detroit probably can't sustain a 717. A 50 seater might not be able to do the trick, but a 70 seat CR7 may. That is what I mean. Many on here think all of the 325 "large" RJs will take over every mainline destination. I think at least 102 of them will fill in for current 50 seat routes, to help them make MORE money. Any of the current 76 seater routes that are doing great may get a 717 on it, which will make us MORE MONEY. That helps you and me too. And the great thing is? 200 money losing 50 seaters will drift away.
Bill Lumberg is offline  
Old 06-09-2012, 04:46 AM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Default

Originally Posted by DLpilot View Post
If your goal is more profits so you can get profit sharing and widebodies then why put hull limits? The large RJs are profitable. Do you support raising the limit on large RJs just to make more profits?
Exactly. It is absolutely amazing to see hourly wage earners who think they are management. Is it any wonder how we have gotten to the point where a major airline union thinks a "limit" of 325 76 seat transcon-capable airliners is "good scope?" If every pilot group cheated on our pilot services cartel even when not under the duress of bankruptcy the profession would be even worse off.
Flytolive is offline  
Old 06-09-2012, 06:55 AM
  #13  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg View Post
What's wrong with profits? Some people on here don't want our corporation to be profitable? I think certain routes have perfect sized planes on them. The 76 seat cat is out of the bag. It would be more than tough to recapture all of them, but we also know that the 50 seaters aren't doing well either, which means a profit drain. If the route is going to have an RJ on it, why not have one that makes ALL OF US money? Cedar Rapids to Detroit probably can't sustain a 717. A 50 seater might not be able to do the trick, but a 70 seat CR7 may. That is what I mean. Many on here think all of the 325 "large" RJs will take over every mainline destination. I think at least 102 of them will fill in for current 50 seat routes, to help them make MORE money. Any of the current 76 seater routes that are doing great may get a 717 on it, which will make us MORE MONEY. That helps you and me too. And the great thing is? 200 money losing 50 seaters will drift away.
Bill, DLpilot had a great question- do you support raising the limit on large RJs just to make more profits?

Also Bill, you do realize that DCI pilots could fly a MD-88 for a lot less than I do? Do you support having them fly bigger jets like an MD-88 so that the airline can be more profitable?
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 06-09-2012, 10:52 AM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
shiznit's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Default

I've changed how I'm seeing this small jet scope section.

DALPA has succeeded in cutting the company short on 76 seat jets by 30, but letting them keep 70 CR7's.

In order to keep the 70 jets that seat 65, DAL is parking 200 50's 5-8 years early and ensuring that DCI doesn't get to operate more than 39% of the total domestic block.

Add up all the other gains in codeshare and JV scope, I still like it.
shiznit is offline  
Old 06-09-2012, 10:59 AM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Jack Bauer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Default

Originally Posted by shiznit View Post

Add up all the other gains in codeshare and JV scope, I still like it.
And nobody is surprised.....



Jack Bauer is offline  
Old 06-09-2012, 02:28 PM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 273
Default

Originally Posted by Flytolive View Post
Is it any wonder how we have gotten to the point where a major airline union thinks a "limit" of 325 76 seat transcon-capable airliners is "good scope?"
1D4 At least 85% of all category A and C operations each month will be under 900 statute miles.
bigbusdriver is offline  
Old 06-09-2012, 02:35 PM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 273
Default

Originally Posted by shiznit View Post
I've changed how I'm seeing this small jet scope section.

DALPA has succeeded in cutting the company short on 76 seat jets by 30, but letting them keep 70 CR7's.

In order to keep the 70 jets that seat 65, DAL is parking 200 50's 5-8 years early and ensuring that DCI doesn't get to operate more than 39% of the total domestic block.

Add up all the other gains in codeshare and JV scope, I still like it.
It's always been about extra 70's (less 76's) and you can't add seats to them because they won't fit! 85% limited to 900 miles and no more than 6% between hubs, no more props and block hours ratios to boot.
bigbusdriver is offline  
Old 06-09-2012, 03:19 PM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Jay5150's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: 330 FO
Posts: 584
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg View Post
What's wrong with profits? Some people on here don't want our corporation to be profitable? I think certain routes have perfect sized planes on them. The 76 seat cat is out of the bag. It would be more than tough to recapture all of them, but we also know that the 50 seaters aren't doing well either, which means a profit drain. If the route is going to have an RJ on it, why not have one that makes ALL OF US money? Cedar Rapids to Detroit probably can't sustain a 717. A 50 seater might not be able to do the trick, but a 70 seat CR7 may. That is what I mean. Many on here think all of the 325 "large" RJs will take over every mainline destination. I think at least 102 of them will fill in for current 50 seat routes, to help them make MORE money. Any of the current 76 seater routes that are doing great may get a 717 on it, which will make us MORE MONEY. That helps you and me too. And the great thing is? 200 money losing 50 seaters will drift away.
Bill, DLpilot had a great question- do you support raising the limit on large RJs just to make more profits?

Also Bill, you do realize that DCI pilots could fly a MD-88 for a lot less than I do? Do you support having them fly bigger jets like an MD-88 so that the airline can be more profitable?
It won't matter. Some people just believe that "this is it." There won't be any more hulls of this type -or- any higher seat limits allowed -or- any higher weight limits allowed.

But,

There always is. We are about to give more ground, all the while people will really believe that we gained. Then, in 3 years, management will want to once again, move that line. "just this once, just a little bit because we've got a real problem." And ya know what, we'll probably do it again.

One of these days, our outsourced labor is going to be flying something within 10 or so seats of our smallest plane, then what? It ain't gonna be pretty when they announce what they're going to park.
Jay5150 is offline  
Old 06-09-2012, 03:26 PM
  #19  
Can't abide NAI
 
Bucking Bar's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,989
Default

Originally Posted by forgot to bid View Post
Also Bill, you do realize that DCI pilots could fly a MD-88 for a lot less than I do?
75 or 767, sure. 737, ok, at least the panel looks like an RJ's. Airbus, easy peazy ... but an MD88? I don't know how we fly the thing.

Mostly it seems to involve trickery, knowing what the airplane is going to do, instead of what it is supposed to do. Working with systems that fail worse than The Adventures of Pluto Nash failed at the box office. Flying a wing & flight control system that gives up faster than a Spanish Prime Minister at an economics conference. Celine Dion's love life makes more sense than the MD88 and she was screwing around with some really old stuff.

MD88 pilots routinely summon the skills embodied by German Flight Test pilots on their fourth cup of coffee at 9am. The Mercury Astronauts have nothing on our MD88 airmen. Chuck Yeager would have told Douglas to take the pointy end and shove that POS up old man Douglas's neither regions.

You Sir are simply being humble. Naked island girls should lay palm fronds at your feet as you walk the terminal. The entire crew of the Enterprise applauds your effort:


Last edited by Bucking Bar; 06-09-2012 at 03:43 PM.
Bucking Bar is offline  
Old 06-09-2012, 03:49 PM
  #20  
Can't abide NAI
 
Bucking Bar's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,989
Default

Just found a MD88 pilot's year book photo:

Bucking Bar is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Ferd149
Mergers and Acquisitions
117
11-08-2023 07:41 AM
Rogue24
Major
104
06-15-2012 04:49 AM
wannabepilot
Flight Schools and Training
34
07-07-2008 12:15 PM
fireman0174
Major
0
05-19-2006 05:11 AM
captain_drew
Major
0
04-14-2006 11:25 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices