Why DAL's proposed ratio is inequitable
#161
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
Ferd,
I completely understand it ain't easy. And I know you're not ComAir. I am trying to understand the reasoning and "fairness" issue from the other side.
As I understand the ratio method, the bottom guys on each list will be the bottom guys on the merged list. If you're in the bottom one percent at NWA you'll be in the bottom one percent of the merged list, regardless of when you were hired.
I don't believe any integration method can account for all the possible variables and be "fair" to everyone. Coming within one half of one percent seems pretty close to me.
One point I was trying to illustrate in my earlier post is that while NWA has aircraft that are larger than DAL's biggest, They also have aircraft that are smaller than DAL's smallest.
If NWA's pilots think that their 747-400 guys should hold the lions share of the most senior positions (because they have the biggest aircraft), doesn't it then follow that they should hold the lion's share of the most junior positions because they have the smallest aircraft as well?
Personally, I don't believe for a second that the merged company will continue to operate hubs in CVG and MEM. I'm really not sure about the DC-9 situation.
I think DAL would dearly like to have a 100 seat jet. As it is now, our regional partners can operate a "limited" number of 70 and 76 seat jets (and an unlimited number of 50 seaters) and then we jump up to mainline DAL where the smallest is 142 seats.
That leaves a big hole in terms of serving certain size markets. I (again, personal opinion) don't believe for a second that it's cheaper (on a fully allocated cost basis) to operate two 76 seat jets, or three 50 seat jets than it is to operate a single 737-800 or MD-90.
This may be the reason to continue operating NWA's DC-9 fleet, because it gives DAL the opportunity to better match aircraft size with a given market.
Unfortunately DAL's history of past mergers is one in which they acquire assets, route, employees, etc and then don't maximize the opportunities that they sought. For example, when I was hired (in 1990) DAL was the largest carrier at LAX (by virtue of buying Western Airlines) Now, we're maybe the sixth largest. We squandered the opportunities that Western provided so that we could add more even flights out of Atlanta.
I sincerely hope that DAL's new management team has lost the Atlanta-centric mentality that has permeated here.
I completely understand it ain't easy. And I know you're not ComAir. I am trying to understand the reasoning and "fairness" issue from the other side.
As I understand the ratio method, the bottom guys on each list will be the bottom guys on the merged list. If you're in the bottom one percent at NWA you'll be in the bottom one percent of the merged list, regardless of when you were hired.
I don't believe any integration method can account for all the possible variables and be "fair" to everyone. Coming within one half of one percent seems pretty close to me.
One point I was trying to illustrate in my earlier post is that while NWA has aircraft that are larger than DAL's biggest, They also have aircraft that are smaller than DAL's smallest.
If NWA's pilots think that their 747-400 guys should hold the lions share of the most senior positions (because they have the biggest aircraft), doesn't it then follow that they should hold the lion's share of the most junior positions because they have the smallest aircraft as well?
Personally, I don't believe for a second that the merged company will continue to operate hubs in CVG and MEM. I'm really not sure about the DC-9 situation.
I think DAL would dearly like to have a 100 seat jet. As it is now, our regional partners can operate a "limited" number of 70 and 76 seat jets (and an unlimited number of 50 seaters) and then we jump up to mainline DAL where the smallest is 142 seats.
That leaves a big hole in terms of serving certain size markets. I (again, personal opinion) don't believe for a second that it's cheaper (on a fully allocated cost basis) to operate two 76 seat jets, or three 50 seat jets than it is to operate a single 737-800 or MD-90.
This may be the reason to continue operating NWA's DC-9 fleet, because it gives DAL the opportunity to better match aircraft size with a given market.
Unfortunately DAL's history of past mergers is one in which they acquire assets, route, employees, etc and then don't maximize the opportunities that they sought. For example, when I was hired (in 1990) DAL was the largest carrier at LAX (by virtue of buying Western Airlines) Now, we're maybe the sixth largest. We squandered the opportunities that Western provided so that we could add more even flights out of Atlanta.
I sincerely hope that DAL's new management team has lost the Atlanta-centric mentality that has permeated here.
#162
Seems logical to me Wasatch... BTW, what's goin' on in Heber these days? I used to live there when I was SLC based... a million years ago. I'll bet I wouldn't recognize the place.
Golf Wasatch.. best in the world... (and I live in Florida)
Golf Wasatch.. best in the world... (and I live in Florida)
#163
Ferd,
I completely understand it ain't easy. And I know you're not ComAir. I am trying to understand the reasoning and "fairness" issue from the other side.
As I understand the ratio method, the bottom guys on each list will be the bottom guys on the merged list. If you're in the bottom one percent at NWA you'll be in the bottom one percent of the merged list, regardless of when you were hired.
I don't believe any integration method can account for all the possible variables and be "fair" to everyone. Coming within one half of one percent seems pretty close to me.
One point I was trying to illustrate in my earlier post is that while NWA has aircraft that are larger than DAL's biggest, They also have aircraft that are smaller than DAL's smallest.
If NWA's pilots think that their 747-400 guys should hold the lions share of the most senior positions (because they have the biggest aircraft), doesn't it then follow that they should hold the lion's share of the most junior positions because they have the smallest aircraft as well?
Personally, I don't believe for a second that the merged company will continue to operate hubs in CVG and MEM. I'm really not sure about the DC-9 situation.
I think DAL would dearly like to have a 100 seat jet. As it is now, our regional partners can operate a "limited" number of 70 and 76 seat jets (and an unlimited number of 50 seaters) and then we jump up to mainline DAL where the smallest is 142 seats.
That leaves a big hole in terms of serving certain size markets. I (again, personal opinion) don't believe for a second that it's cheaper (on a fully allocated cost basis) to operate two 76 seat jets, or three 50 seat jets than it is to operate a single 737-800 or MD-90.
This may be the reason to continue operating NWA's DC-9 fleet, because it gives DAL the opportunity to better match aircraft size with a given market.
Unfortunately DAL's history of past mergers is one in which they acquire assets, route, employees, etc and then don't maximize the opportunities that they sought. For example, when I was hired (in 1990) DAL was the largest carrier at LAX (by virtue of buying Western Airlines) Now, we're maybe the sixth largest. We squandered the opportunities that Western provided so that we could add more even flights out of Atlanta.
I sincerely hope that DAL's new management team has lost the Atlanta-centric mentality that has permeated here.
I completely understand it ain't easy. And I know you're not ComAir. I am trying to understand the reasoning and "fairness" issue from the other side.
As I understand the ratio method, the bottom guys on each list will be the bottom guys on the merged list. If you're in the bottom one percent at NWA you'll be in the bottom one percent of the merged list, regardless of when you were hired.
I don't believe any integration method can account for all the possible variables and be "fair" to everyone. Coming within one half of one percent seems pretty close to me.
One point I was trying to illustrate in my earlier post is that while NWA has aircraft that are larger than DAL's biggest, They also have aircraft that are smaller than DAL's smallest.
If NWA's pilots think that their 747-400 guys should hold the lions share of the most senior positions (because they have the biggest aircraft), doesn't it then follow that they should hold the lion's share of the most junior positions because they have the smallest aircraft as well?
Personally, I don't believe for a second that the merged company will continue to operate hubs in CVG and MEM. I'm really not sure about the DC-9 situation.
I think DAL would dearly like to have a 100 seat jet. As it is now, our regional partners can operate a "limited" number of 70 and 76 seat jets (and an unlimited number of 50 seaters) and then we jump up to mainline DAL where the smallest is 142 seats.
That leaves a big hole in terms of serving certain size markets. I (again, personal opinion) don't believe for a second that it's cheaper (on a fully allocated cost basis) to operate two 76 seat jets, or three 50 seat jets than it is to operate a single 737-800 or MD-90.
This may be the reason to continue operating NWA's DC-9 fleet, because it gives DAL the opportunity to better match aircraft size with a given market.
Unfortunately DAL's history of past mergers is one in which they acquire assets, route, employees, etc and then don't maximize the opportunities that they sought. For example, when I was hired (in 1990) DAL was the largest carrier at LAX (by virtue of buying Western Airlines) Now, we're maybe the sixth largest. We squandered the opportunities that Western provided so that we could add more even flights out of Atlanta.
I sincerely hope that DAL's new management team has lost the Atlanta-centric mentality that has permeated here.
#165
I sincerely hope that DAL's new management team has lost the Atlanta-centric mentality that has permeated here.[/quote]
I think that may be the case. Anderson understands the Orient, the worlds fastest growing economies.
Anyway, sorry I got tired towards the bottom. More to follow?
Nice talking to you,
Ferd
I think that may be the case. Anderson understands the Orient, the worlds fastest growing economies.
Anyway, sorry I got tired towards the bottom. More to follow?
Nice talking to you,
Ferd
Last edited by Ferd149; 04-22-2008 at 08:33 PM.
#169
With Hauenstein in charge of Network Planning they have dropped the ATL centric attitude. I credit him with the international expansion, making us the largest int'l carrier in NYC, wanting to expand LAX, etc. The guy's a genius and if there is any executive that is worth their pay and more its him. That said, if there is anyone who can figure out a way to take advantage of any aircraft at NWA it will be him. Time will tell how well this goes. I know that if oil stays near $150/barrel JetA then it won't be long to see where this fight goes.
Oil keeps heading up, $119something today. Jet Blue says they are going to sell 18 jets and AirTran is trying to find money the old fashioned way, sell really wierd looking bonds or something.
Hold onto your socks girls, it's going to be a bumpy landing.
Ferd
#170