Article on Carbon Trading evaluates NWA's fleet

[~~~^~~~]

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10415004/1/airlines-fretting-over-new-fuel-laws.html

Says the RJ's are 50% more efficient than DC9's. :erm:

 

[IXLR8]

But ya have to run two flights on Rj's to one with the 9...apples oranges?

 

[The Prussian]

How about carbon dating those DC-9's?

 

[embpic1]

How about carbon dating those DC-9's?

Now thats funny right there! :laugh:

 

[RedRum]

How about carbon dating those DC-9's?

Laugh all you want at the age of the DC-9. The aircraft is paid for and it's dispatch reliability is not as bad as you would think.

When a light goes off on your electric airplane, the show stops, when it goes off in a DC-9, you pull and reset and life is good for the most part.

Newer is not always better. In light of recent fuel prices the DC-9 is not a bad thing. What do you think the TOTAL costs is to run 2 50-seat RJs with lease payments from ATL-MSP instead of a single DC9?

 

[clippyrip]

But ya have to run two flights on Rj's to one with the 9...apples oranges?

And there is no lease payment on the DC9....final nail in the coffin for the RJ.

 

[General Lee]

And there is no lease payment on the DC9....final nail in the coffin for the RJ.

The key thing here is that you can't just park a plane if it is leased. But, you can if you own it. Parking a leased RJ still means lease payments. You can move out of a leased apartment too, but you still have to pay for it.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[RedRum]

The key thing here is that you can't just park a plane if it is leased. But, you can if you own it. Parking a leased RJ still means lease payments. You can move out of a leased apartment too, but you still have to pay for it.

Bye Bye--General Lee

Completely agree with you.

I just hope that the combined management at the new Delta will find a way to renegotiate their agreements with regional partners. Fee for departure has drained both of our bank accounts for long enough. It has just taken time to come to fruition. The recent spike in the price of oil has only accentuated the inherent inefficiencies of a fee for departure program.

If management can find a reason to park them they will. Didn't DAL announce a few weeks back that they cancelled some flying by Mesa Airlines due to on-time performance issues? I see this and other reasons being used in the future to eliminate inefficient flying.

 

[General Lee]

Completely agree with you.

I just hope that the combined management at the new Delta will find a way to renegotiate their agreements with regional partners. Fee for departure has drained both of our bank accounts for long enough. It has just taken time to come to fruition. The recent spike in the price of oil has only accentuated the inherent inefficiencies of a fee for departure program.

If management can find a reason to park them they will. Didn't DAL announce a few weeks back that they cancelled some flying by Mesa Airlines due to on-time performance issues? I see this and other reasons being used in the future to eliminate inefficient flying.

I agree. I hope we could figure out how to do that with other RJ operators, but some have some tight contracts. We all know that 50 seat RJs cannot make money for us with high oil. I think dumping 70 or so is a good start.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[MJ42]

I agree. I hope we could figure out how to do that with other RJ operators, but some have some tight contracts. We all know that 50 seat RJs cannot make money for us with high oil. I think dumping 70 or so is a good start.

Bye Bye--General Lee

Isn't the Freedom deal going to dump 36? If so that's a good start. Can Delta find other ways to dump RJ's they don't lease or have in "tight contracts"?

 

[dustrpilot]

Completely agree with you.

I just hope that the combined management at the new Delta will find a way to renegotiate their agreements with regional partners. Fee for departure has drained both of our bank accounts for long enough. It has just taken time to come to fruition. The recent spike in the price of oil has only accentuated the inherent inefficiencies of a fee for departure program.
quote]

But, but, what would happen to our precious, CEO bonus programs at the regionals? (sarcasm)

 

[clippyrip]

The key thing here is that you can't just park a plane if it is leased. But, you can if you own it. Parking a leased RJ still means lease payments. You can move out of a leased apartment too, but you still have to pay for it.

Bye Bye--General Lee

Sure you do......when it is cheaper to fly the DC9 than to park two RJs. Which is the whole point, it is cheaper and the reason the coffin is closing on the RJ.

Oh, by the way here is a quote from you earlier....

As far as the DC9s go, well, our future management keeps saying they will use some on current RJ routes. We can only hope that is true. Fingers crossed!

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

I don't follow the logic.

You must be homeless. (In Detroit would be cold)

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[clippyrip]

You must be homeless. (In Detroit would be cold)

Bye Bye--General Lee

Read the above. I'll find more of your flip flop statements if you would like.

 

[General Lee]

Read the above. I'll find more of your flip flop statements if you would like.

Thanks for editing your original post. Anyway, I think it would be great to use DC9s instead of RJs. I always have, since it would save mainline jobs. When someone on here said it would be easier to park RJs, I disagreed, since it might be harder to park something that has a LONG TERM lease. If you own a plane outright, you can park it and not have to pay lease payments. Get it? That is what I was saying, not that I would rather park DC9s. No, I would rather keep DC9s flying. It might be EASIER to park DC9s though, since they are owned and can sit in the desert without costing extra money. But again, I do NOT want that to happen.

And please, show me some more of my flip flop statements. I would love to refute them. Overall, I would like this merger to work, and not lose one mainline pilot. I would like the SLI to be fair, and I would like us to become a power house airline in the World. I also would like to win the lottery (hey, I was hired at Delta, right?!), and to own FI, so I could have my own category called "Ask the General." Fingers crossed!


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Smarta$$]

Let me understand you guys logic. You (collective majority) vote away scope and create RJ jobs. Now you want to park them all and have potentially thousands of family providers out of work. What a bunch of aholes. All to protect your most junior pilots, many of whom were just hired and knew they were taking a risk making a job change in this economic enviroment.

Then you want your companies to pay RJ leases while AC sit in the dessert, just to preserve mainline jobs. That would cost more. You are effectively adding a lease to the 9, because you are operating a dc9 and still having to pay the lease on the RJ. Its funny, while those junior mainline new hires were still at their respective regional airline (flying ac that you all voted away), they sure were not advocating parking there current job! Just now that they have moved on, those jobs are expendable.

I don't want any job losses anywhere. But your managements and your mainline pilot groups made your bed voting away your scope and signing long term contracts with Fee For Departure carriers. Now you have to lie in that bed.

I still haven't seen any hard figures on whether a dc9 is more efficient than two rjs. Just a bunch of armchair QBs guessing or hoping.

 

[ultrarunner]

..I just hope that the combined management at the new Delta will find a way to renegotiate their agreements with regional partners. ...

Uhh....wouldn't you have done that in BK????

Did I just miss something here?

 

[Superpilot92]

Let me understand you guys logic. You (collective majority) vote away scope and create RJ jobs. Now you want to park them all and have potentially thousands of family providers out of work. I guess you suggest instead we should park mainline planes and cut those jobs and family provider positions? What a bunch of aholes. All to protect your most junior pilots, many of whom were just hired and knew they were taking a risk making a job change in this economic enviroment. You mean like you being a pilot at any company in this economic environment? Everything in this industry is a risk no matter where you work, eventually you will figure that out.

Then you want your companies to pay RJ leases while AC sit in the dessert, just to preserve mainline jobs. Yup as it should be and should have been the whole time. That would cost more. You are effectively adding a lease to the 9, because you are operating a dc9 and still having to pay the lease on the RJ. Not if the flying was cut for poor performance or any other loop hole in the agreement. All CPAs have language in them to reduce capacity. Just look at all the hours being cut at the regionals right now. Its funny, while those junior mainline new hires were still at their respective regional airline (flying ac that you all voted away), they sure were not advocating parking there current job! Thanks for speaking for me but you're wrong. I have always been a keep the jobs at mainline guy. Hence why i bailed asap. Just now that they have moved on, those jobs are expendable. What makes your any less expendable?

I don't want any job losses anywhere. But your managements and your mainline pilot groups made your bed voting away your scope and signing long term contracts with Fee For Departure carriers. Now you have to lie in that bed.

I still haven't seen any hard figures on whether a dc9 is more efficient than two rjs. Just a bunch of armchair QBs guessing or hoping.

Pot meet kettle!

 

[Superpilot92]

Uhh....wouldn't you have done that in BK????

Did I just miss something here?

Well during BK the pilots didnt have as much control as we do now. The new pilot contract that mgmt NEEDS, should include scope changes and caps. ALL mainline pilot groups have seen first hand the damage that can be done if scope is relaxed and most are determined not to let it happen again. The more mainline jobs that are kept and added is whats best for the industry because typically that means more higher paying positions in the long run especially after we get out of these concessionary contracts. :beer:

 

[Smarta$$]

Pot meet kettle!

You did not actually answer anything there. You guys (AS A COLLECTIVE MAJORITY) voted away those jobs. You guys made this bed. Now lie in it.

The most junior guys on both NW and DL seniority lists were very recently hired. They made a job change in a very difficult economic environment. Now they and you don't want to accept the risk that you took. You want those that saw a job change right now as an unnessesary ADDITIONAL risk, to assume the risk YOU took on.

Parking RJs with leases is more expensive and less finantailly wise than parking an airplane that has no penalty for parking. Otherwise you are just adding an RJ lease to the dc9.

I don't care what your specific feelings about mainline jobs are, because it does not reflect the actuall actions of your pilot groups. You voted those jobs away. Now you regret that. Well, we all regret those actions. But those flying RJs should not lose are jobs because you guys made a bad deal.

I do agree that if a regional airline can't meet its performance requirements, then by all means they should not keep thier contract. That is a management, or mismanagement problem that Jon O. and Phil T. have and should worry about. They don't deserve to keep those contracts the way they run airlines.

But, NW leases all of there RJs dirrectly from the bank. The Fee For Departure companies just lease them from NW. So, even if NW cancels a contract with a specific regional, even for performance, NW still has to pay the lease.

And no, RJs should not be parked just to preserve mainline jobs. You guys made bad decisions and bad deals in regards to outsourcing. Its your bed.

You can help repair the mistakes made in the past, by tightening scope in the new combined agreement.

 

[737 Pylt]

Let me understand you guys logic. You (collective majority) vote away scope and create RJ jobs. Now you want to park them all and have potentially thousands of family providers out of work. What a bunch of aholes.

So let me guess, you want to park mainline airplanes and have potentially thousands of family providers out of work? What an ahole!

All to protect your most junior pilots, many of whom were just hired and knew they were taking a risk making a job change in this economic enviroment.

Is this that same risk you took when you started flying that rj for your present employer?

Then you want your companies to pay RJ leases while AC sit in the dessert, just to preserve mainline jobs.

I hope that the airplane didn't get dirty while it sits in the dessert?:laugh: Hopefully it had lunch first!

That would cost more. You are effectively adding a lease to the 9, because you are operating a dc9 and still having to pay the lease on the RJ. Its funny, while those junior mainline new hires were still at their respective regional airline (flying ac that you all voted away), they sure were not advocating parking there current job! Just now that they have moved on, those jobs are expendable.

You wouldn't be that same ahole wanting to park more mainline dc9's and advocating new hires at mainline out of work. How hypocritical!

I don't want any job losses anywhere. But your managements and your mainline pilot groups made your bed voting away your scope and signing long term contracts with Fee For Departure carriers. Now you have to lie in that bed.

Times change, contracts, renegotiated. Your job is based on negitiated PWA with their respective airlines. You made your bed when you signed on with the respective company, now lie in that bed!

I still haven't seen any hard figures on whether a dc9 is more efficient than two rjs. Just a bunch of armchair QBs guessing or hoping.

What are you expecting from FI? facts?:laugh:
Keep trying!

737

 

[MJ42]

You did not actually answer anything there. You guys (AS A COLLECTIVE MAJORITY) voted away those jobs. You guys made this bed. Now lie in it. You chose to work for a regional knowing the risks involved, right?

The most junior guys on both NW and DL seniority lists were very recently hired. They made a job change in a very difficult economic environment. Now they and you don't want to accept the risk that you took. You want those that saw a job change right now as an unnessesary ADDITIONAL risk, to assume the risk YOU took on. You took a risk also, albeit a different one with a regional. This industry changes. If you were around (flying) in the early to mid 1990's your thoughts would be different. Mainline jobs disappeared as regionals grew. Thousands had their career delayed many years because of regional growth, even with the late 90's hiring(and subsequent furloughs in 2001)

Parking RJs with leases is more expensive and less finantailly What is this word? Define please...wise than parking an airplane that has no penalty for parking. Otherwise you are just adding an RJ lease to the dc9.I think 36 Freedom aircraft answer this question. Look for Delta to find a way to park more RJ's without getting stuck with a lease payment.

I don't care what your specific feelings about mainline jobs are, because it does not reflect the actuall actions of your pilot groups. You voted those jobs away. Now you regret that. Well, we all regret those actions. But those flying RJs should not lose are jobs because you guys made a bad deal.I guess it's time to correct past mistakes of those who "voted those jobs away"!

I do agree that if a regional airline can't meet its performance requirements, then by all means they should not keep thier contract. That is a management, or mismanagement problem that Jon O. and Phil T. have and should worry about. They don't deserve to keep those contracts the way they run airlines.GOOD!

But, NW leases all of there RJs dirrectly from the bank. The Fee For Departure companies just lease them from NW. So, even if NW cancels a contract with a specific regional, even for performance, NW still has to pay the lease.See above. Delta will find a way to park more RJ's without paying the lease...like they are doing with Freedom

And no, RJs should not be parked just to preserve mainline jobs. You guys made bad decisions and bad deals in regards to outsourcing. Its your bed.Wrong, time to fix past mistakes. We have the opportunity and now MUST take advantage of it! Lots of unity on this subject!

You can help repair the mistakes made in the past, by tightening scope in the new combined agreement.

We will!

 

[Superpilot92]

You did not actually answer anything there. You guys (AS A COLLECTIVE MAJORITY) voted away those jobs. You guys made this bed. Now lie in it. They made the bed and now you should expect us to start changing the sheets. Also its time for a new matress also.

The most junior guys on both NW and DL seniority lists were very recently hired. They made a job change in a very difficult economic environment. Now they and you don't want to accept the risk that you took. You want those that saw a job change right now as an unnessesary confused ADDITIONAL risk, to assume the risk YOU took on. You mean like risk you have working for any regional airline? You will ALWAYS be at whim of the major you fly FOR. You speak of economic environment, well the facts are the smaller aircraft arent as economically friendly as they once were. YOU are taking the risk of staying at a regional just like I "risked" moving on to the company that controls what flying YOU do.

Parking RJs with leases is more expensive and less finantailly confused wise than parking an airplane that has no penalty for parking. Otherwise you are just adding an RJ lease to the dc9.

I don't care what your specific feelings about mainline jobs are, because it does not reflect the actuall confused actions of your pilot groups. You voted those jobs away. Now you regret that. Well, we all regret those actions. But those flying RJs should not lose are jobs because you guys made a bad deal. Seriously i am not a spelling Nazi but to be taken seriously you should at least learn to spell or at least proofread.

I do agree that if a regional airline can't meet its performance requirements, then by all means they should not keep thier confused contract. That is a management, or mismanagement problem that Jon O. and Phil T. have and should worry about. They don't deserve to keep those contracts the way they run airlines.

But, NW leases all of there RJs dirrectly confused from the bank. The Fee For Departure companies just lease them from NW. So, even if NW cancels a contract with a specific regional, even for performance, NW still has to pay the lease.

And no, RJs should not be parked just to preserve mainline jobs. Have you seen the NWA scope clause? The mainline fleet floor has been set after these last planes go to Compass and Mesaba Mainline planes cant be parked without first parking Regional Jets. You guys made bad decisions and bad deals in regards to outsourcing. Its your bed.

You can help repair the mistakes made in the past, by tightening scope in the new combined agreement.

The industry is changing just like it always does. I know why you are concerned, you are probably a new capt and are worried about your new position. Thats understandable, thats why i left my last job as a regional Captain because i too was worried about the reductions coming up for the regionals. Thats why its always better to work for the company that holds all the cards. No regional is safe as a long term career IMHO. Good luck

 

[Smarta$$]

You can criticize my spelling instead of understanding my points. Thats fine. My point is, you guys ruined the job as we once knew it, and now you want to ruin the job I have now.

Why do we keep paying for your mistakes.

NW leases ALL of its RJs directly from the bank. You can and should get out of contracts for non-performance. But you WILL still have to pay the leases. The NW RJ structure is VERY different than the freedom deal. I guess you could file BK again to get out of the contracts that you signed with the banks and the Fee For Departures.

Amazing how you don't want to share in the pain YOU created.

 

[Superpilot92]

You can criticize my spelling instead of understanding my points. Thats fine. My point is, you guys ruined the job as we once knew it, and now you want to ruin the job I have now.

Why do we keep paying for your mistakes.

NW leases ALL of its RJs directly from the bank. You can and should get out of contracts for non-performance. But you WILL still have to pay the leases. The NW RJ structure is VERY different than the freedom deal. I guess you could file BK again to get out of the contracts that you signed with the banks and the Fee For Departures.

Amazing how you don't want to share in the pain YOU created. Pain? What pain did the regionals have? Explosive growth? that "pain" allowed you and I and many others to upgrade quickly at the expense of the mistakes of the majors by relaxing scope.

We?? Who is incorporated in the "We" group?

You stated above that it was a "mistake" right? So isn't the goal to usually correct mistakes? The mistake was made and its time to fix it so its no longer a mistake. Is your career goal to stay at your regional?

Discuss

 

[Smarta$$]

I am all for fixing the huge mistakes made by the mainline pilots. But not at my expense. Your (collective majority) mistake, your expense. If you want to take some of the flying back, then fine. But realize that your pilot groups F-ed up. Find a way that does not put people that did not vote there jobs away on the street.

If you have so much leverage right now to take scope back, then use it to end this whipsaw all together and put us all on one big Delta list.

 

[Superpilot92]

I am all for fixing the huge mistakes made by the mainline pilots. But not at my expense. Your (collective majority) mistake, your expense. If you want to take some of the flying back, then fine. But realize that your pilot groups F-ed up. Find a way that does not put people that did not vote there jobs away on the street.

If you have so much leverage right now to take scope back, then use it to end this whipsaw all together and put us all on one big Delta list.

The Collective Majority is trying to fix the mistake. Do you plan on staying at your regional for the rest of your career? If not you should be all for the collective majority fixing the "F-Up", right? You yourself said it was a mistake thus meaning you feel it should be different yet you are arguing that it shouldnt get fixed? The simple truth is that the 50 seater is a big bullseye for the majors right now at the mgmt level. that mixed with the pilot groups wanting less flying at the regionals and more at the mainline level appears to point to a reduction in regional feed mostly at the expense of the 50 seaters. just my observation.

 

[~~~^~~~]

You guys voted away those jobs.

The most junior guys on both NW and DL seniority lists were very recently hired. They made a job change in a very difficult economic environment. Now they and you don't want to accept the risk that you took.

Parking RJs with leases is more expensive and less finantailly wise than parking an airplane that has no penalty for parking. Otherwise you are just adding an RJ lease to the dc9.

.....but those flying RJs should not lose are jobs because you guys made a bad deal.

.....You can help repair the mistakes made in the past, by tightening scope in the new combined agreement.

I'm not sure I understand your point. You say that RJ's should not be parked to make up for bad decisions and also write that scope should be tightened.

First, management decides who is going to fly aircraft. Nothing in scope prevents jets from being operated at mainline.

Second, pay rates at mainline are in some cases less than the contract carriers.

Third, scope was not arbitrarily voted away. It was sold. In Delta's case, I can argue that a scope sale kept the company in business - when Delta needed cash to maintain minimum liquidity levels to continue their contract with American Express. Without the sale of large RJ flying to SkyWest, Delta would have defaulted and would not have been able to proces credit card sales. No airline would survive a week if they had to sell tickets for cash money.

Fast forward to today and you see many of the same pressures that resulted in former scope sales combining again & companies like SkyWest are awash in cash. It will take sustained profitability before the Company, or ALPA, will show any interest in taking flying back.

You are correct that the RJ leases equate to an additional cost on the operation of a DC9. If a DC9 replaces an RJ, it has to earn the RJ's lease payment, plus 20%/25% more fuel on a CASM basis! This is why I think tales of DC9 flying (getting a 100 seat aircraft back on Delta property) balanced by CRJ's getting parked is complete political white wash.

Facts:

• Delta has way too many RJ's that they HAVE to pay for
• The DC9's are paid for = cheap to park
• The CRJ (even the 50 seater) is MORE efficient than a DC9 on any route even on a seat mile basis
• Delta needs more liquidity
• SkyWest has too much cash and is looking to buy in for more flying
• ~and the CRJ700/900 is more efficient than a MD88 and give the baby bus a run for its money.

I just pray that ALPA (or more importantly the Delta MEC) gets its head right about RJ's. They are not going away in the numbers predicted, they are getting bigger and they are a threat to every narrowbody mainline job.

The way we make these RJ's safe (not a threat) is to get them on the mainline list. We must stop making arbitrary divisions between pilots. If it is at another company, fine, but it must be ONE LIST, so that pilots are not always the loosers as longevity and careers are destroyed by playing musical certificates.

 

[~~~^~~~]

I am all for fixing the huge mistakes made by the mainline pilots. But not at my expense. Your (collective majority) mistake, your expense. If you want to take some of the flying back, then fine. But realize that your pilot groups F-ed up. Find a way that does not put people that did not vote there jobs away on the street.

If you have so much leverage right now to take scope back, then use it to end this whipsaw all together and put us all on one big Delta list.

Truth is, they are not interested. Nothing puts a mainline ALPA Rep to sleep faster than talking about getting flying "below them" back on the seniority list.

Talk about equity and you have rapt attention. You ask what got sold to get the equity and they change the subject.

I hope getting the NWA guys on board helps to change ALPA's political direction. The Reps are not going to change until Superpilot 92, me, and a few others, stand shoulder to shoulder and just keep throwing questions and comments about scope and narrowbody flying until they do something. It has to be a priority and right now, it just isn't.

Now is the perfect time to get Comair, Pinnacle, Compass and any of the ALPA DCI carriers on the list, but no one has any interest. If SkyWest wants to fly 90 seaters fine, but they have to get on the list and join ALPA.

JMHO and my HO is completely out of phase with the current ALPA political thought on this subject.