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

Delta deal could become model for scope

Search
Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Delta deal could become model for scope

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-12-2012, 02:48 PM
  #61  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: west coast wannabe
Posts: 815
Default

Originally Posted by forgot to bid View Post
Wouldn't sunset clauses been zero cost?
Negotiation on the surface appears to be two sides fighting for material gains for their perspective side. But deeper from the surface, it shows the card that each side is showing, or not showing to the other player. DALPA wants to play along, get on mgmt's good graces, and extract whatever we can, as long as the company's healthy. Remember "Trust, but verify"? From mgmt's perspective, they want to totally "reset" the value of a DL airline pilot, one TA at a time. If they know they can throw a dog bone of this size and we'll bite on it, do you think they'll offer a steak to us next time?

Sorry to get on a tangent, but to answer your question. I would say the company would rather give up their 787 slots, than sunsetting their prized E175/CRJ900. It's the value of a threat, and also a good distraction to extract more from us when it comes down to Section 6.

The RJ predicament is much more than generating revenue for mgmt, it's about spreading fear, promote division among pilot group.
rvr350 is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 02:59 PM
  #62  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Default

Originally Posted by scambo1 View Post
Blah blah blah.

SWA has the model for scope.
Sorry, but SWA scope is BS argument. It's pretty dang easy to "hold the line" when management NEVER tries to move it. SWA pilots haven't done squat in this regard.
johnso29 is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 04:52 PM
  #63  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: A big one that looks like a little one
Posts: 633
Default

Originally Posted by johnso29

Sorry, but SWA scope is BS argument. It's pretty dang easy to "hold the line" when management NEVER tries to move it. SWA pilots haven't done squat in this regard.
Skywest pilots won't sacrifice puppies for Herb and Colleen to fly a CRJ painted like a bowling shoe.
SailorJerry is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 06:29 PM
  #64  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Rolf's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 656
Default

Iceland air, ATA, Westjet (thank you, IT department), Volaris and briefly Skywest thru AT. SWA has tested the water. Scope was the big issue during our last sec 6 because of what the legacies taught us. Certain lessons stick, like scope or peeing on an electric fence.
I haven't read your ta scope, so don't take this as a commentary on its merit.
Rolf is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 06:58 PM
  #65  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Boomer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,511
Default

Originally Posted by DLpilot View Post
155 are on lease through 2019
111 through 2020
In other words:

With the TA, 450 RJs in 2015 (325 are large RJs)

Without the TA, 410 RJs in 2019 (255 are large RJs)

Without the TA, 366 RJs in 2020 (255 are large RJs)

As far as RJs, it looks like the TA is great for a little while then starts to suck worse than what you already have.
Boomer is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 08:36 PM
  #66  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Default

Originally Posted by Rolf View Post
Iceland air, ATA, Westjet (thank you, IT department), Volaris and briefly Skywest thru AT. SWA has tested the water. Scope was the big issue during our last sec 6 because of what the legacies taught us. Certain lessons stick, like scope or peeing on an electric fence.
I haven't read your ta scope, so don't take this as a commentary on its merit.
Did SWA fly to Iceland, Hawaii, Canada, or Mexico when these Codeshares were implemented? Did they have aircraft capable of going to Iceland or Hawaii? Did any of these Codeshares end because SWA pilots demanded it? The Skywest RJs were operated on a pro rata(at risk/no guaranteed profit) contract, so I that's not a test of scope IMO because it was likely a loss for Skywest.

My point being, SWA pilots have never faced the same pressure as Legacy pilots. Please don't take this as an insult, but it's a fact.
johnso29 is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 09:47 PM
  #67  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: A big one that looks like a little one
Posts: 633
Default

Originally Posted by Boomer

In other words:

With the TA, 450 RJs in 2015 (325 are large RJs)

Without the TA, 410 RJs in 2019 (255 are large RJs)

Without the TA, 366 RJs in 2020 (255 are large RJs)

As far as RJs, it looks like the TA is great for a little while then starts to suck worse than what you already have.
The reality is that once they've made the investment in the CRJ-200s they could sign short term deals on them because they'll need the seat capacity. Why would you invest 1.5 billion in new motors and then park your 1.5 billion dollar asset?
SailorJerry is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 09:49 PM
  #68  
Da Hudge
 
80ktsClamp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Default

Originally Posted by SailorJerry View Post
The reality is that once they've made the investment in the CRJ-200s they could sign short term deals on them because they'll need the seat capacity. Why would you invest 1.5 billion in new motors and then park your 1.5 billion dollar asset?
Why would you invest 1.5 billion in obsolete airplanes?

80ktsClamp is offline  
Old 06-13-2012, 01:44 AM
  #69  
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
Very doubtful we will fly them in the front seats.
^^^^ probably has something to do with the fact you're wanting to outsource even more of them in order to hopefully upgrade to the 717.
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 06-13-2012, 01:46 AM
  #70  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Originally Posted by rvr350 View Post
Negotiation on the surface appears to be two sides fighting for material gains for their perspective side. But deeper from the surface, it shows the card that each side is showing, or not showing to the other player. DALPA wants to play along, get on mgmt's good graces, and extract whatever we can, as long as the company's healthy. Remember "Trust, but verify"? From mgmt's perspective, they want to totally "reset" the value of a DL airline pilot, one TA at a time. If they know they can throw a dog bone of this size and we'll bite on it, do you think they'll offer a steak to us next time?

Sorry to get on a tangent, but to answer your question. I would say the company would rather give up their 787 slots, than sunsetting their prized E175/CRJ900. It's the value of a threat, and also a good distraction to extract more from us when it comes down to Section 6.

The RJ predicament is much more than generating revenue for mgmt, it's about spreading fear, promote division among pilot group.
Amen.

The financial benefits of whipsawing are such that we'd never see those planes even if our costs were lower than the aggregate costs of the lowest low ball bidder.
forgot to bid 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



Your Privacy Choices