Delta Memo looking at new narrowbody aircraft

[Jet Wash]

SWA can thank United & Delta for their current pay rates. UAL & DAL's contracts set the bar in 2000. Unfortunately they both had to take huge pay cuts while SWA was still making money so they didn't have to take the massive cut in pay.

 

[Cobraair75drvr]

And the Dal and Ual pilots can thank the Nwa pilots for holding our ground in 98. Your welcome....

 

[General Lee]

Contract negotiation time folks.

Pilot's contract up in 2012. Article states aircraft starting in 2013.

Straight out of management playbook. Dangle "growth aircraft" in front of the group.

So, if we don't go for the "bait" and instead go for pay and scope, will the planes just get older and older? Then what will management do? The planes really are getting older. I guess pax don't care......How about we call their bluff? And it would be replacement aircraft, not "growth". They need to replace a bunch of domestic birds.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Yup. But, we have 116 737s over here at Alaska if Anderson wants to expedite putting the planes to use for Delta! 737-900ERs supposedly on the way too! Should help out with the 757-200 replacement.

There is some truth to that, but then again why take planes away from the West Coast, leaving it bare again just like when DL bought Western Airlines? The 757s are getting older (some NWA birds are really old), and infact the latest article stated DL just bought 5 used 757s on the market. Hopefully they will be around for a long time. Great plane.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[JohnDoe]

So, if we don't go for the "bait" and instead go for pay and scope, will the planes just get older and older? Bye Bye--General Lee

Are you really that dense? Not taking the bait is entirely the point. If they are truly going to be replacing the aging aircraft, they will do so regardless of what pay and scope we go for right?

The timing of this release is the suspect point. It screams contract negotiation tactics 101.

Since you can't even envision that as a possibility, it entirely explains how mangagement has been able to get what they have from you. I am sure you will be in the group to give up scope for pay.

 

[General Lee]

Are you really that dense? Not taking the bait is entirely the point. If they are truly going to be replacing the aging aircraft, they will do so regardless of what pay and scope we go for right?

The timing of this release is the suspect point. It screams contract negotiation tactics 101.

Since you can't even envision that as a possibility, it entirely explains how mangagement has been able to get what they have from you. I am sure you will be in the group to give up scope for pay.

Sure, the timing is suspect, but the planes are getting old John. They are. That will not change. And, if these are replacement planes, not growth planes, how can they dangle that in front of us? Explain that? Passengers want newer planes that smell nice. That is normal, and employees normally don't have to pay for that in good time. Here is another article you can read a few times to rethink your theory that was not well thought out. (and, NO, I won't be voting for anything that gives up one ounce of scope. NOPE) PSST---John, you got "owned" again.


Bloomberg: Delta Air Plans to Order 200 Narrow-Body Jets, Seeks Options for 200 More
By Mary Jane Credeur - Jan 13, 2011 8:15 PM ET

Delta May Order 200 Narrow Jets

Delta Air Lines Inc. plans to order 100 to 200 narrow-body jets and seek options for 200 more, a possible record purchase as it moves to retire some of the oldest planes in the U.S. industry.

Deliveries may begin as soon as 2013 after a request for proposals was sent to “several” planemakers last month, according to a posting yesterday for employees on Atlanta-based Delta’s internal website. Airbus SAS, Boeing Co. and Bombardier Inc. are the biggest commercial-jet makers.

Ordering the full 200 planes would be a record, topping the plan unveiled this week by India’s IndiGo Airlines to buy 180 Airbus A320s with a list value of $15 billion. Delta would shed some of its oldest jets, including DC-9s that average 34 years of age and are among the most elderly aircraft in U.S. fleets.

“None of the other U.S. majors have planes as old as Delta,” said Jeff Straebler, a debt strategist at RBS Securities Inc. in Stamford, Connecticut. “The big costs on older aircraft are maintenance and fuel, and it was time for Delta to look at this.”

Delta, the world’s second-biggest carrier, traditionally bought Boeing jets until adding Airbus jets in its 2008 purchase of Northwest Airlines. The competitors now also may include Bombardier, whose new CSeries is designed to compete with the smallest single-aisle jets from Boeing and Airbus.

Opening for Airbus?

“There’s a better chance for Airbus now that Delta no longer exclusively flies Boeing aircraft,” Straebler said. “Delta’s big enough that they could continue with both Airbus and Boeing families, and maybe even the CSeries.”

Boeing’s 737 and the A320 are twin-engine models seating about 125 to 185 people. Their list prices, on which airlines typically get a discount, range from about $63 million to $95 million, depending on the version. Buying 200 737-800s, the top- selling U.S. jet, would cost $16.2 billion at list prices.

The CSeries seats 100 to 145 people and is intended to replace older models such as the DC-9, which was built by a Boeing predecessor. Montreal-based Bombardier is targeting the end of 2013 for the first deliveries and said last year that the list price would be $52.4 million to $60.9 million.

Delta will consider “large, medium and small” narrow-body jets, Chief Executive Officer Richard Anderson said yesterday in a separate weekly recorded message to employees.

“It’s important we take a very long-term view of our fleet,” Anderson said.

Aging Aircraft

A new jet order will replace planes including DC-9s that average 34 years old, Boeing 757-200s that are 18 years old and A320s that are 16 years old, Nat Pieper, vice president of fleet strategy and transactions, said on Delta’s website posting. The new planes would be used on domestic routes.

Trebor Banstetter, a Delta spokesman, confirmed the posting’s authenticity and said the company declined to comment further on its fleet plans.

“Airbus talks to customers and potential customers worldwide on an ongoing basis,” said Mary Anne Greczyn, a spokeswoman in Washington for the Toulouse, France-based company. “When it comes down to specific conversations about fleet needs and how Airbus can meet those needs, the content of those conversations, and even the existence of those conversations, are confidential.”


A spokesman for Chicago-based Boeing wasn’t available to comment yesterday.

Delta also has been acquiring used jets, including five Boeing 757-200s and 33 MD-90s, and will continue to look for additional used planes, Pieper said.

“We’ll evaluate all our options,” he wrote.

Single-aisle jets made up more than 80 percent of Delta’s fleet, which totaled 821 planes as of September. Delta said in October it was keeping its order for 18 of Boeing’s wide-body 787 Dreamliners, a new plane now running three years behind schedule, while deferring deliveries into the next decade.

A Delta order of narrow-body jets also would boost engine makers that are readying a new generation of engines that are about 15 percent more fuel efficient and quieter than the models they would supplant.

The geared turbofan engine from United Technologies Corp.’s Pratt & Whitney and the Leap-X from CFM International, the venture of General Electric Co. and Safran SA of France, are the choices on the announced A320 unveiled by Airbus last month. The CSeries will run on Pratt & Whitney’s geared turbofan.

Current 737s use engines from CFM, while existing A320 models use engines from International Aero Engines, a venture led by Pratt & Whitney and London-based Rolls-Royce Group Plc.

Delta rose 10 cents to $12.61 yesterday in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares fell 1.9 percent in the 12 months through yesterday.



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[GuppyWN]

General,

Replacing airframes is not growth.

Gup

 

[JohnDoe]

Sure, the timing is suspect, but the planes are getting old John. They are. That will not change. PSST---John, you got "owned" again.

And that is the point I am making. This announcement is suspect because I do not believe that these are all simply replacement for aging aircraft at mainline. They say that now, then next thing we know dci is flying around in those replacement for aging aircraft.

The fact that you believe this press release hook, line, and sinker says all there is to say.

You can't even concieve that this is negotiations 101. They put out a press release that states replacement aircraft will be flown by delta employees during contract negotiation time. Couldn't possibly be to try and influence scope expectations could it. Not a chance they are looking to put some kind of "c" series or jungle jet variation at dci is there...

 

[General Lee]

General,

Replacing airframes is not growth.

Gup

Ummmm, YEAH, that is what I have been trying to relay to good ole John Doe. He is SLOW.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

And that is the point I am making. This announcement is suspect because I do not believe that these are all simply replacement for aging aircraft at mainline. They say that now, then next thing we know dci is flying around in those replacement for aging aircraft.

The fact that you believe this press release hook, line, and sinker says all there is to say.

You can't even concieve that this is negotiations 101. They put out a press release that states replacement aircraft will be flown by delta employees during contract negotiation time. Couldn't possibly be to try and influence scope expectations could it. Not a chance they are looking to put some kind of "c" series or jungle jet variation at dci is there...

John,

Just stop. Really. You are looking worse and worse. No, this isn't negotiations 101 yet, because they haven't said anything about new planes as growth. Replacing old planes with newer planes is nice for passengers and for management who get fuel savings and mx savings. If they are the same size or type as current planes, that doesn't mean much pay wise. They are REPLACEMENT planes, not growth John. And Delta will not have the stagnation that other airlines will have, like the SWA/AT merger. DL will be retiring up to 500 or more Captains per year starting in the next few years, which will generate huge movement. Regardless John, those planes are not going to be dangled in front of us, and we will do great pay wise and focus on scope too. You try to have a better day now, ya hear?


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[JohnDoe]

They are REPLACEMENT planes, not growth John. And Delta will not have the stagnation that other airlines will have, like the SWA/AT merger. Bye Bye--General Lee

Stagnation at SWA/AT: now there is a prolific post from you. Got it SWA guys? Stagnation coming your way. So sayeth the general.

You keep right on believing that ceo unconditionally that those aircraft will only be flown by delta employees.

I understand entirely what you are saying. You say they are only replacements, and that they will never be flown by anybody else, 'cause that's what the ceo says.

I say time will tell and you are misguided for putting such absolute faith in some press release.

It's scary to think that someone would put 100% trust in a statement from a ceo that says they will be flown by delta only. They keep adding 70 seaters to dci.

Unlike you, I am not going to believe every press release I see simply because "the ceo said it." There is far too much history to not hold things suspect. "line in the sand..." "we do not believe....." "it is not in their interest...." "if we don't give this _____, then _______"

 

[General Lee]

Stagnation at SWA/AT: now there is a prolific post from you. Got it SWA guys? Stagnation coming your way. So sayeth the general.

You keep right on believing that ceo unconditionally that those aircraft will only be flown by delta employees.

I understand entirely what you are saying. You say they are only replacements, and that they will never be flown by anybody else, 'cause that's what the ceo says.

I say time will tell and you are misguided for putting such absolute faith in some press release.

It's scary to think that someone would put 100% trust in a statement from a ceo that says they will be flown by delta only. They keep adding 70 seaters to dci.

Unlike you, I am not going to believe every press release I see simply because "the ceo said it." There is far too much history to not hold things suspect. "line in the sand..." "we do not believe....." "it is not in their interest...." "if we don't give this _____, then _______"

Tell me John, what expansion will there be for the SWA and AT guys? They are getting 737-800s to replace (again John, REPLACE) 737-700 orders. Nothing new there. Then add younger AT guys to the SWA mix, and that means stagnation. It's been stated on here that they may have a max of 150 retirements per year. With young AT guys entering the mix, that won't help much. If you know otherwise (which you do not), then state it.

As far as what the CEO says, it does carry weight. No, you don't have to believe everything he says, but public statements can be hard to get away from. This wasn't a backroom rumor, it was stated to the press. Sure, you can't hold people to that always, but it is also hard to back away from that.

And, If you think 100+ seaters are going to DCI, keep wishing it. Go for it John, YOU CAN DO IT!!! I can see you really think it will happen, and if you sit down, squint really hard, maybe you will see it happen, and you will soil your shorts too. That's pretty much your argument. Good one, John.



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[regionalcap]

Can you guys at least pick one of the threads to argue back and forth? It's confusing going back and forth between the two. :smash:

 

[contrail67]

General,

Replacing airframes is not growth.

Gup

Replacing airframes is not growth and buying your type rating to get hired is not PFT.

 

[titans10]

Ouch!!

 

[Freebrd]

As far as what the CEO says, it does carry weight. . This wasn't a backroom rumor, it was stated to the press. Sure, you can't hold people to that always, but it is also hard to back away from that.Bye Bye---General Lee

what a putz, Jenny is in lala land fer sure :laugh:

 

[Whataburger]

Better start charging more for those bags so you can pay for the new jets! Would DAL have made a profit last year if they did not charge for bags? Does that make DAL a cargo airline? Yall just wait 'til those bag fees run out!

 

[johnsonrod]

Better start charging more for those bags so you can pay for the new jets! Would DAL have made a profit last year if they did not charge for bags? Does that make DAL a cargo airline? Yall just wait 'til those bag fees run out!

It looks to me that those fees are here to stay, and with Southwest having to pay Airtan employees new Southwest wages, maybe they will add some too. I also think Delta might have made a profit without them, too.

 

[johnsonrod]

what a putz, Jenny is in lala land fer sure :laugh:

Says Mekong Sally...... How much bhat do you spend each month on guy friends in Hanoi?

 

[General Lee]

Better start charging more for those bags so you can pay for the new jets! Would DAL have made a profit last year if they did not charge for bags? Does that make DAL a cargo airline? Yall just wait 'til those bag fees run out!

As Johnsonrod stated, I bet you guys are going to add MORE fees. You already have one, to board first with a free cocktail, and that will be the first of many to pay off the Airtran pilots, stews, and groundies. Your costs will go up sky high, along with your fares and new fees. Welcome to the new reality.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Monster Buck]

Funny, guys we should be scared !!!! Because SWA is coming to Atlanta! Sooooo....our competition in ATL just lost all of their first class high paying customers....the ramp personnel just doubled in cost for wages....the FA's just double in cost....the pilots.....the mechanics.....I have looked at many many rates for one to fly to numerous destinations via many different airlines.....SWA prices are not as cheap as they once were. They are a very nice airline to fly for as a pilot and they make great wages but...they are not going to do much to Delta.

 

[Freebrd]

Says Mekong Sally...... How much bhat do you spend each month on guy friends in Hanoi?

another JennyLee wannabe putz, man dey all ova duh place

 

[General Lee]

another JennyLee wannabe putz, man dey all ova duh place

You got it Judy. Hey, your "cool" ebonics talk must be fun to hear in Ho Chi Min City. I bet you tell all the guys on the corner "me so hoe--ney." Go love them some long time......Judy.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[GogglesPisano]

Better start charging more for those bags so you can pay for the new jets! Would DAL have made a profit last year if they did not charge for bags? Does that make DAL a cargo airline? Yall just wait 'til those bag fees run out!

What does this matter? A profit is a profit. Bundled or unbundled. And how exactly will fees "run out?"

And what's a "Yall?"

 

[Whataburger]

What does this matter? A profit is a profit. Bundled or unbundled. And how exactly will fees "run out?"

And what's a "Yall?"

Regarding the fees running out: It was a sarcastic reference to our hedges runnin out.

A "yall" is more than one person.

"All yall" is more than about 4 people.

 

[Helos2Galaxy]

Replacing airframes is not growth and buying your type rating to get hired is not PFT.

I am not a SWA nor have I ever paid for a job, but, just because my wife spent $100K on law school, does that meab SHE paid for her job too? 8K for a type rating seems like a bargain.

 

[JohnDoe]

And, If you think 100+ seaters are going to DCI, keep wishing it. Go for it John, YOU CAN DO IT!!! I can see you really think it will happen, and if you sit down, squint really hard, maybe you will see it happen, and you will soil your shorts too. That's pretty much your argument. Good one, John.

Good gracious. Hard to believe I have to point this out yet again:

I do not wish for it general. You are saying that, not me. I hope you are right general (for the 4th time..). However, I am not going to sit back like you and assume scope will not change based on touchy-feely press releases or verbal union member statements. I am going to continue to do what little I can to ensure scope remains right up until an agreement is signed. History shows we need to do that.

That's pretty much your argument. Good one, John

No...it isn't. And with some reading comprehension you would see that.

Sure, you can't hold people to that always, but it is also hard to back away from that.

It is extremely easy to back away from those statements. It happens all the time thoughout the corporate world. Go read my post in regionals for further on that subject.

It boogles my mind that you are so willing to "shoot inside the circle" at someone that wants to ensure we do everything we can to make sure scope remains, and that we do not become complacent.

But after reading some of your 14000 posts over the years it is not surprising in the least I guess.

 

[Freebrd]

But after reading some of your 14000 posts over the years it is not surprising in the least I guess.

JennyLee is just a putz, she doesn't read what you write cause he's nearing an orgasm (only takes 11 seconds according to johnsonrod) writing his cute response, which is the same tune, over and over, and then repeats it with her johnsonrod putz, amusing a little

 

[General Lee]

Good gracious. Hard to believe I have to point this out yet again:

I do not wish for it general. You are saying that, not me. I hope you are right general (for the 4th time..). However, I am not going to sit back like you and assume scope will not change based on touchy-feely press releases or verbal union member statements. I am going to continue to do what little I can to ensure scope remains right up until an agreement is signed. History shows we need to do that.

John, the part that is annoying is the sentiment that mainline pilots will ALWAYS roll over on Scope. Fact is, the last scope change was forced upon us by a BK judge. You never take that into account. While many of the older pilots that actually left Delta just prior to the BK with their lump sums may have allowed more RJs and did actually facilitate the original allowances for 50 and 70 seaters, the current group of pilots stuck around during the DL/NWA BKs, and have watched the RJ proliferation and loss of mainline jobs, and don't like it. That is key. Past generations (pre-BK) pilots might not have cared, but they are GONE now. The vast majority of current pilots loathe RJs.



No...it isn't. And with some reading comprehension you would see that.




It is extremely easy to back away from those statements. It happens all the time thoughout the corporate world. Go read my post in regionals for further on that subject. John, saying things in public can always come back and bite you. Most CEOs have press people that can deal with statements like that. Very few CEOs themselves go out on a limb and make statements like that. It's true. Sure, you can always go back and state "I didn't quite know the facts..." But, that doesn't always work. Regardless, we will fight for scope, pay, and a better contract this time around. It really will be more of a restoration contract than any give and take. That is just a fact. BK was their opportunity for the take part, and they did.

It boogles my mind that you are so willing to "shoot inside the circle" at someone that wants to ensure we do everything we can to make sure scope remains, and that we do not become complacent. Our aim is to tighten scope, not just allow it to remain. When things are taken from you in a BK contract, the aim is to get it back, and a bit more. The UAL/CAL guys are trying to do it first, and we will be next. Simple as that.

But after reading some of your 14000 posts over the years it is not surprising in the least I guess. The key is YEARS. Many years, and I have enjoyed all of them.

Read above please.



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[JohnDoe]

Fact is, the last scope change was forced upon us by a BK judge. You never take that into account.

That, I believe, is not entirely true. Allowing certain seat-size aircraft to even be used by dci: yes, but the total numbers of them, no.

The joint-contract; ratified post bankrupcy for both airlines and by the pilot's of both airlines during the merger; allows for up to 255 70/76 seater's at dci.

At the time the joint contract was ratified, I do not believe dci (or nw's version) had a total combined of 255 of those aircraft. They have since been adding 70 seaters up to that maximum since the joint contract. You yourself touched on that fact when you mentioned the new CR7's at skywest.

Seems to me we most certainly did give up some scope during the joint contract. We allowed for a maximum number of 70 seat aircraft that was greater than the number that existed at both airlines at the time the joint contract was ratified. Yes, both airline's agreements allowed for 70 seater's, but we allowed them to have even more.

We should have capped the number of 70 seaters to the number that existed at the time the joint was signed. We did not do that. Hence, the additional CR7's at skywest you yourself mentioned, and hence another example of my caution regarding all-things scope related.

I may be wrong in the numbers/situation I detailed above, but I don't think I am.

The above does not even take into account the recent "B B B But we might have lost the arbitration......"

the current group of pilots stuck around during the DL/NWA BKs, and have watched the RJ proliferation and loss of mainline jobs, and don't like it. That is key.

I hope that is truly the case. But never underestimate the draw of a large increase in pay in exchange for some "minor" (TIC) change to scope. I, like you, was fairly content that scope would be a non-issue. But events of the last year or so have changed my mind.