If Age 65 goes forward, how will that affect CAL's hiring or retirements?

[General Lee]

You looking for a job GL?

Heck no. We're doing great over here. We are hiring, and we are growing due to actual growth (we have parked the planes we wanted to park already), not because of projected retirements that may or may not be there.

Thanks for asking though, and here is an article you can read. Enjoy your day.

Delta Returns to Trading
With Strong Balance Sheet

By THOMAS G. DONLAN
May 13, 2007

Pilots often say that any landing you walk away from is a good landing. By that standard, Delta Air Lines made a good landing into bankruptcy in 2005, for the company walked away from the wreckage and spread its wings for a new take-off this month.
Not so the old shareholders, who were wiped out. The 400 million new shares that opened for trading on the New York Stock Exchange May 3 were issued to former Delta unsecured creditors, employees, managers and the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
Trading under the old ticker symbol, DAL, the shares finished last week at about $19. Over the next two quarters, however, the company should do well enough to justify a price closer to $25. Looking further ahead, two Morgan Stanley analysts may well be right when they say "buy on material weakness," and project a share price of $27 to $29.
Delta shed about $13 billion of debt and lease obligations, 6,000 people and 82 planes during its bankruptcy-law proceedings. It now has one of the stronger balance sheets in the industry. And it is looking to grow primarily on international routes, which can be more profitable than domestic business. Moreover, there's a general uptrend in the airline industry and summer is always its best period.
But Delta and all airlines are risky investments, highly vulnerable to slumps, terrorism, fuel-price increases and overcapacity. They face intense competition on key routes. They do well in good times and atrociously in bad times.
Delta's operating losses hit $3.3 billion in 2004 and $2 billion in 2005, before an operating profit of $58 million in 2006. For 2007, Delta projects a pretax profit of about $800 million -- about $2 a new share, meaning the shares are trading for about 10 times 2007 earnings.
Thomas G. Donlan is a staff writer at Barron's magazine, available online at www.barrons.com.



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[whymeworry?]

If I were given the choice between DAL and CAL today, I would chose DAL without question.

CAL will be a faster upgrade with or without the age-60 change but the contract at CAL is a complete joke. The rocket-scientists who voted this POS in looked at only one page in the contract, compensation. What they failed to consider was how work rules, or lack thereof in this case, significantly enhance your pay.

Under our old contract, which by the way was an average contract negotiated in 1997, widebody F/Os were making $20,000 a month. Not the case today. Now those same F/Os are bidding captain just so they don't suffer such a huge pay hit. Our payscales on paper showed only a 9% cut, but the reality was more like a 30-50% cut depending on which subbase you are in.

Then there is the QOL issue. Most pilots now fly 90 hours with only 12 days off per month. The ability to trip trade is severely limited since we are always below min reserve coverage. This the result of PBS, which has killed our industry/ way of life.

DALs contract is just better, hands down. And this after TWO concessionary agreements while in CH 11.

The only light at the end of the tunnel is that the old guard in the union have twice now been replaced. New blood is in and hunting for a fresh kill. C'08 is going to be a series of battles but if our pilots can get over themselves and unify we will for sure win the war. It's going to be a miserable existance between now and then though.

 

[RJAA]

But Delta and all airlines are risky investments, highly vulnerable to slumps, terrorism, fuel-price increases and overcapacity. They face intense competition on key routes. They do well in good times and atrociously in bad times.

Bye Bye--General Lee

This is obviously a happy-happy joy-joy time for Delta, therefore, its supporters will only read the part of the article about what they would want to read. However, the more any of these legacy carriers chooses to trim down the domestic capacity and launch those airplanes to the new international destinations in its new configuration, the more risk it would incur during the downturn. For anyone who has been in the industry, they should know it comes in cycles. International stuff is extremely vulnerable. Try making HKG-LAX work during the bird flu outbreak with a shiney new B772ER. Another thing, they can rave all you want about the new LHR access, I agree that the advantage is enormous there, but many people tend to overlook the open skies agreement with EU would also create many opportunities for EU carriers to expand to places where Delta and/or Continental pretty much hog the market. The competion maybe a new LCC type EU carrier who may offer $300 one way between NYC-DUB with good service. How much longer airlines like Delta or Continental be able to charge whatever they want across the pond. The better plan is to plan conservatively expand carefully and not at the expense of domestic capacity. The Fleet planning should be in a way that provides flexibility for changing demand. It's more than connecting dots across the globe. TUS-ATL is no way to go in a CRJ. So with all of those things considered is Continental really a bad choice?

 

[General Lee]

This is obviously a happy-happy joy-joy time for Delta, therefore, its supporters will only read the part of the article about what they would want to read. The more any of these legacy carriers chooses to trim down the domestic capacity and launch those airplanes to the new international destinations in its new configuration, the more risk it would incur during the downturn. For anyone who has been in the industry, they should know it comes in cycles. International stuff is extremely vulnerable. Try making HKG-LAX work during the bird flu outbreak with a shiney new B772ER. Another thing, they can rave all you want about the new LHR access, I agree that the advantage is enormous there, but many people tend to overlook the open skies agreement with EU would also create many opportunities for EU carriers to expand to places where Delta and/or Continental pretty much hog the market. The competion maybe a new LCC type EU carrier who may offer $300 one way between NYC-DUB with good service. How much longer airlines like Delta or Continental be able to charge whatever they want across the pond. The better plan is to plan conservatively expand carefully and not at the expense of domestic capacity. The Fleet planning should be in a way that provides flexibility for changing demand. TUS-ATL is no way to go in a CRJ. So with all of those things considered is Continental really a bad choice?

We are getting more domestic planes at mainline (to be announced shortly), and routes like ATL--TUS will probably have some mainline presence to help fill all of our INTL expansion. Yes, I did read we may offer an extra flight to TUS on a CR9 from ATL--while keeping 757s or 738s on the other flights to TUS.

I still think CAL is a great airline, and this thread was created to ask the question about age 65 and what could happen.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[timmay]

RocketBob had posted this on another thread in Dec 06:

Here's what I could find for CAL's retirement numbers

2007: 313
2008: 241
2009: 215
2010: 209
2011: 218

If the rule was to change today that would be 1196 pilots that wouldnt retire for 5 years. Assuming most of them are captains I would think that means stagnation.

 

[RJAA]

The thread included about the possible rapid upgrades and growth of both airlines and how they may impact the future decision making of where to work and how secure it can be based on retirements numbers only. I'd say go look at other stuff really, good day.

 

[zonker]

Then there is the QOL issue. Most pilots now fly 90 hours with only 12 days off per month. The ability to trip trade is severely limited since we are always below min reserve coverage. This the result of PBS, which has killed our industry/ way of life.

MOST pilots? I don't think so. There are plenty of junior people getting 12 days off, I've also seen new hires with 15-16. I get 16-18 days off every month, but then again I bid at around 45% in my base. But I think "MOST" is a mischaracterization.

I can't argue with the trip trading though. It's horrendous. They have no business slowing down hiring this summer. But they will because they can.

All I can say is that I've signed up for a P2P class and I'm going to do my part to make things better around here.

 

[mamba20]

If the rule was to change today that would be 1196 pilots that wouldnt retire for 5 years. Assuming most of them are captains I would think that means stagnation.

Just because they can, dosent mean they will. I think many of them will chose to retire at 60. One of the big things affecting that is the B plan. We still have it and as it was stated in an earlier post, people staying on after 60 will start to loss money. I really dont think there will be much of an impact overall. Initially, yes. We as pilots have a terrible tendancy to look short term. CAL is a strong company and getting stronger. The contract definitely needs to be improved but there is a lot more leverage to do something about with the company making money. Lots of smoke and mirrors and typical upcoming contract negotiation positioning.

Bottom line, you'd be a fool to turn down CAL.

 

[mamba20]

On the topic of PBS. There is a definite learning curve with it and there are some definite bugs that need to be worked out. I've talked to a lot of guys about it and the most common response is "To get what you want, you can't think like a pilot" meaning you have to be realistic about what parameters you set and really know how to use the system. Senority dosen't hurt either.

 

[ACWild]

Another thing to factor in is that although there will be a bunch who hang on after 60, I think most have no intention of staying all the way to 65. I've seen a bunch who I have doubts about making it to 60. Yes, the 65 change would have an impact, but I don't think it'll be as severe as many expect.