Delta/DALPA-Let's lay it all out re: SCOPE

[jetflier]

NOT ONE MORE RJ. NOT ONE. (period)

...grow a f*cking pair !

 

[GogglesPisano]

NOT ONE MORE RJ. NOT ONE. (period)

...grow a f*cking pair !

You've got that. By several hundred. In this very TA.

 

[GogglesPisano]

From LEC 66:

PQC: How do you know this is the best we could get? We can get more if we simply go back to the table.

R: Delta management has two paths. We’ll call them paths “A” and “B.” Path A includes shifting a great deal of capacity from DCI to mainline. We have been begging them to do so for years. We prefer (but are not married to) path A. Path B is to more slowly park the 50-seat jets as soon as their contracts allow, hence a much slower drawdown of DCI capacity and, therefore, a much slower corresponding increase of mainline-capacity growth.

Plan A and plan B both represent financial implications to management. They would prefer plan A because they believe it will make Delta more profitable. The trick, and the fleeting opportunity that we had, was to extract the most value possible for the Delta pilots for plan A. The rub? That number is finite. At some point, plan A becomes more expensive than plan B, and management (because they are not stupid) will almost certainly choose the less expensive option. At that point, we believe that we will lose the opportunity to extract financial gains from something that also benefits us—the shifting of capacity (jobs) from DCI to mainline.

We were recently briefed by Linda Pachula, the head of the National Mediation Board. During her brief, she discussed common mistakes that she has seen unions make. Most common was: “They didn’t listen to their experts.” We have experts working for us. Despite allegations to the contrary, we have professional negotiators—lawyers who collectively have assisted in more aviation labor negotiations for more years than perhaps anyone else in the country. We have financial analysts, accountants, and subject-matter experts on every section of the contract. And we have our Negotiating Committee, men the entire MEC trusted enough to unanimously reelect. They studied the plans and financials extensively. They negotiated fiercely (the idea from some that they just accepted management’s first offer is simply laughable). They extracted significant value. And they firmly believe two things: 1) we got every penny of value we could at this time, and 2) if we reject this deal, the company will revert to plan B and pursue traditional (and usually lengthy) Section 6 negotiations.

This is what the experts we hired told us. They saw the books and were in the room. And we trust them. The people who assert that we could do better if we send this back are basing that opinion on a hunch or a hope. We chose not to risk hundreds of millions of dollars for the Delta pilots on a hunch. We chose to heed the lessons of other unions’ failures. We chose to listen to our experts.

 

[nimtz]

The simple fact is the block ratio improvements and decrease in airframes are only occurring because management is desperate to park the 50's. The same geniuses that went hog wild with those POS (and furloughed countless) now needs scope help from good old DAL ALPA. Now you guys have gotten enough koolaid dumped on you to believe it to be true.

Essentially the company boned itself and needs to shrink Connection. Now they get to do it on terms far more favorable as they get 20 years worth of DC-9 sized RJ's. Sure keep calling that a 'victory'.

Oh and your getting no help from those dysfunctional Unical pilots who refuse to allow anymore big RJ's on property. Oh and DAL needs the bigger RJ's so they can increase revenues thus causing more WB orders. Any more ALPA spin I missed?

 

[Flyerdan]

I see these threads pop up over and over again and I am always left wondering what will replace the 50 seat aircraft? Can a 76 seater or something even bigger go into the smaller communities and pick up 30-50 passengers and make money?

Will we see the smaller operators like Great Lakes, etc. expand their operations using Beach 1900's? Will mainline give up some of this feed and leave it for a Southwest like operation to pick up?

There seems to be a vacuum left behind in all the contract talks and I wonder how the industry will adapt to fill it.

 

[General Lee]

I see these threads pop up over and over again and I am always left wondering what will replace the 50 seat aircraft? Can a 76 seater or something even bigger go into the smaller communities and pick up 30-50 passengers and make money?

Will we see the smaller operators like Great Lakes, etc. expand their operations using Beach 1900's? Will mainline give up some of this feed and leave it for a Southwest like operation to pick up?

There seems to be a vacuum left behind in all the contract talks and I wonder how the industry will adapt to fill it.

Great Lakes has taken up the slack left by Saab 340s leaving the DL system (Mesaba), at least in MSP anyway. Those cities mostly had EAS money, but somehow still couldn't support a Saab. Maybe Great Lakes can do it with a Be-1900.

As far as a 50 seater being replaced by a 70 or 76 seater, that is the idea. With high oil, the CASM is too high on the 50 seater. You have to be able to cover all of the costs, and apparently a lot of the 50 seaters can't do it, espcially when you put them up against a SWA 737 or something bigger that can charge a bit less, but has more seats and can cover the total costs. So, throw a bit bigger RJ on the route and try to lower the costs overall, and make a profit where the 50 cannot. If you can't do it with those planes, then I suppose the routes could be dropped. If the 76 seaters are doing very well, that might be an opportunity to upgauge the equipment to the next size, like a 717. You have to find the right sized plane for each route.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[waveflyer]

General, you're missing FlyerDan's very well thought out point. The market pairs must support 76 seats at 80%+ load factor to beat a 50. 50's are inefficient per seat, but they're still cheaper to buy, and suck less gas (albeit, not much) than a -900. The -900's are only more efficient if you fill them. This is the gaping wide hole in your argument that these aircraft will replace feed from smaller communities currently served only by 50's. Frequency stimulates demand. Take frequency away from smaller communities by running two -900's instead of three -200's, and you may not have 150 people who will buy that ticket every day bc they may not have choices that fit with their schedule. Run three -900's and fill them with 50 pax each and you lose all the efficiency of the larger airplane and DAL would've been better off keeping with the 50's.
On the flip side, the -900's are very well purposed to increase frequency on mainline routes (or FORMER mainline routes)

Admit it,general-
This airplane is not going to be running folks from Peoria to the closest hub. Outside of the TA offering no assurances that they would, (ie: you're just making that part up) it wouldn't make sense for them to.

 

[General Lee]

General, you're missing FlyerDan's very well thought out point. The market pairs must support 76 seats at 80%+ load factor to beat a 50. 50's are inefficient per seat, but they're still cheaper to buy, and suck less gas (albeit, not much) than a -900. The -900's are only more efficient if you fill them. This is the gaping wide hole in your argument that these aircraft will replace feed from smaller communities currently served only by 50's. Frequency stimulates demand. Take frequency away from smaller communities by running two -900's instead of three -200's, and you may not have 150 people who will buy that ticket every day.
On the flip side, the -900's are very well purposed to increase frequency on mainline routes (or FORMER mainline routes)

Admit it,general-
This airplane is not going to be running folks from Peoria to the closest hub. Outside of the TA offering no assurances that they would, (ie: you're just making that part up) it wouldn't make sense for them to.

Wave,

Maybe you don't know this, but a few "first class" seats bought on those 76 seaters could pay for those flights, even with lower load factors. Those 50 seaters couldn't offer that better product to DL's best customers. Some of those best customers live in smaller cities or towns, that just can't handle a 717 or larger. DL is paying a lot of money to standardize the RJs to have wifi and more roomy seats than those 50 seaters that will be on the way out. Almost 3 times the number of RJs will leave, compared to the amount coming in if the TA passes. The ones coming in, which would be operated by cheaper Regionals, will have more amenities than other RJs operated for other legacies to small cities.

The big question will be though, where will the 88 717s go? They will probably cover current, better performing 76 seater routes, and yes, those 76 seaters may get booted back to Peoria(isn't Caterpillar based there?) while the 70s and remaining 50 seaters hit Dothan and Montgomery. It's possible, and the 717s will likely compete better against your 737s compared to our current 76 seaters. That will be fun to watch. (if the TA passes, that is)


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Hamfighter]

Just remember this fact: no airline has ever been successful and profitable without RJs. It can not be done.
Also, no airline can be successful and profitable paying their pilots industry leading wages.

 

[General Lee]

Just remember this fact: no airline has ever been successful and profitable without RJs. It can not be done.
Also, no airline can be successful and profitable paying their pilots industry leading wages.

You may be hinting at SWA. They do not have a hub and spoke type system that hits smaller cities. There is no way they would do well if they used 737s to Montgomery and and places like that. The only "small" cities they go to are within Texas, and outside of there you are hard pressed to find one the size of Midland, other than "North Florida Beaches." I can't think of another small one, but that is for a reason. Airtran will be pulling out of a lot of them shortly, and so far they haven't been paid the same as their own counterparts in that merger.


Bye Bye---General Lee