More pressure on Comair....

[On Your Six]

You didn't do very well with reading comprehension in school, did you? You say I'm not answering your questions, but you just aren't getting the answer.

Comair is being left out next year for aircraft expansion just like ASA was left out in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Comair as you say was more expensive then too. Comair has more airplanes than ASA and next years expansion will even those numbers out.

That's BS and you know it. Delta is not trying to just "even out" the fleet numbers and taking turns in terms of aircraft deliveries. It's not that simple. Delta had a lot more cash back then and was financially more stable.

Comair is more expensive now than the other regionals and Delta is bleeding cash. Growth seems to be going elsewhere. Can you draw a connection? Did you read the article and the analyst comments? I guezz I needs moor skools.

 

[MedFlyer]

On an apples-to-apples basis Comair's costs are higher than other regionals, and its growth will likely suffer. But don't take my opinion - just read the article....

Again, show me some hard numbers that show Comair has a higher cost than other regionals. I know you won't because you can't. Your article doesn't have numbers, it's just people's opinions. There is NO proof that Comair's costs are higher.

Sadly, all the mainline pilots are falling for managements ploy. Whenever mainline costs come up, all the mainline pilots cry "It's not my fault." But when RJ costs come up, you automatically blame the pilots. You are so desperate to spread your misery on those who are having success that you will stoop to any low. Very sad........

You ever think the reason that Comair isn't growing is because DL doesn't want Comair to get too big and powerful. If management learned anything from the Comair strike is that they can't afford to let any regional get too strong (look how much the Comair strike cost DL!!!). Right now, Comair is about 25% bigger than ASA. In order to keep ASA a similar size to Comair (and offset the retirements of the ATR's), the planes will go to ASA. Plus, DL sends some planes to the contract carriers because they don't want the wholly-owneds getting too strong either.

It's the portfolio concept that management is always talking about. You never want any part of your portfolio to become too dominant.

 

[standaman]

It's the portfolio concept that management is always talking about. You never want any part of your portfolio to become too dominant.

This seems reasonable. So if ASA and Comair even up in 2005 then we will need to have this arguement in 2005 to determine who is better on paper. By then Delta would have released any new growth for 2006. That will be an indicator of who is better on the books.

My humble opinion

 

[wms]

According to SB, ASA is not paid fee per departure, but a fee per asm. He also says that no one in the DCI portfolio operates 50 seaters for less than ASA, that is why we got 25 RFP aircraft. From Skip's mouth to our ears at the DFW closure meeting.

Also, you cannot believe a word FB says. I don't believe for a second what he or anyone says about DCI financials and their impact on DAL, and neither do creditors. They twist the numbers to fit the moment and the agenda. The statements from DAL/DCI leadership contradict each other and show their lack of honesty in reporting the true picture. The Kremlin and glass tower operate in an ethics free zone.

 

[On Your Six]

Again, show me some hard numbers that show Comair has a higher cost than other regionals. I know you won't because you can't. Your article doesn't have numbers, it's just people's opinions. There is NO proof that Comair's costs are higher.

Sadly, all the mainline pilots are falling for managements ploy. Whenever mainline costs come up, all the mainline pilots cry "It's not my fault." But when RJ costs come up, you automatically blame the pilots. You are so desperate to spread your misery on those who are having success that you will stoop to any low. Very sad........

You ever think the reason that Comair isn't growing is because DL doesn't want Comair to get too big and powerful. If management learned anything from the Comair strike is that they can't afford to let any regional get too strong (look how much the Comair strike cost DL!!!). Right now, Comair is about 25% bigger than ASA. In order to keep ASA a similar size to Comair (and offset the retirements of the ATR's), the planes will go to ASA. Plus, DL sends some planes to the contract carriers because they don't want the wholly-owneds getting too strong either.

It's the portfolio concept that management is always talking about. You never want any part of your portfolio to become too dominant.

Guess what - Delta could file for bankruptcy soon. The portfolio argument doesn't fly when Delta is bleeding cash. That may have been the case a few years back but times have changed and Delta is scrutinizing costs now more and more. You blame this viewpoint on the mainline pilots (I have zero affiliation with Delta) and yet all of the analysts in this and other articles agree that Comair costs are too high - it's a fact and many people seem to ignore this. Your managment has stated that too (not that you can always agree with management). I am not the one who has the numbers - Delta has apparently screwed with the numbers (that's what the article claims) and they are ambiguous... Can you provide the actual numbers yourself and prove that you are super-profitable?

I am getting tired of this circular argument. Re-read the article. Tell me if you think it glorifies Comair and states that it is irrefutably super-profitable (Delta's saving grace) and that people believe Comair is actually a very cost-effective operation. Please verify that for me. Cuz I am getting tired of the denial... Sorry to say it, but times have changed and Comair might need to change as well to be more cost-effective while Delta starts its recovery...

 

[mkingmei]

Just like everything in this industry, we don't know a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** thing unless we are the decision-makers (which we are not, until contract time comes around).

We can sit here and argue about all this crap all night, when in all reality none of us know what is going to happen.

We all know that everything that comes out of managements' mouth is a lie anyhow, so don't listen to those guys. Some of them don't even really know what is going on, like Leo Mullin (he was sheltered by "yes" men the whole time).

My .02 cents.

 

[wms]

ASA and CA are already cost effective. Even in our negotiations and kool-aid classes ASA mgmt haven't been able to make the case that we aren't. And have even said the pilots will get a raise. Taking a pay cut and qualifying for food stamps again so a ML pilot who's selling the summer house can feel like we're all sharing the pain is not justification for a pay cut when you're already under paid.

Also, ASA/CA will not necessarily go BK with DAL if it happens. Again, according to our mgmt for what it's worth, they will have to see if it's beneficial to join them in BK or be on our own. If we're on our own we can expand because our credit is still good. But we would lose protection (ie from repos) afforded by CH11. Creditors could hold ASA/CA assets hostage to get money from our parent company because we would not be in BK. If we joined them in BK the creditors could not touch us.

 

[MedFlyer]

You blame this viewpoint on the mainline pilots (I have zero affiliation with Delta) and yet all of the analysts in this and other articles agree that Comair costs are too high - it's a fact and many people seem to ignore this.

It is NOT a fact...it's an OPINION. The article contains OPINION's...not facts. Every analyst quoted is giving his OPINION...not stating facts. You might want to learn the difference.

 

[On Your Six]

It is NOT a fact...it's an OPINION. The article contains OPINION's...not facts. Every analyst quoted is giving his OPINION...not stating facts. You might want to learn the difference.

Where are your facts? What are you bringing to the table? How can you refute these "opinions"? Do you know something the many analysts don't? Do you honestly believe Comair and ASA are as cost-effective as CHQ and Mesa? Could Delta actually save money by using CHQ or even Mesa on new routes or frequencies vs. Comair or ASA? It all comes down to unit costs and I'd be curious to see how they compare. Evidently the analysts believe Comair's costs are too high - that's what the article says and I am sure they understand the economics better than you do (despite the ambiguity surrounding Delta's numbers).

I am NOT a proponent of Comair or ASA guys getting paid less (everyone deserves a good wage), but I acknowledge the new cost-cutting reality of the industry. That's all. It seems like the argument was the same for the Mainline guys at one point and now the argument has shifted to the regionals. It's all about being as cost-effective as the competition - and in this case, CHQ, Skywest, Skyway and even Mesa are the competition.

 

[chperplt]

OY6,

Where's your dog in this fight?? If you don't work for either DAL, Comair, or ASA, why are you getting so riled up with this topic?

 

[captainv]

>Where are your facts? What are you bringing to the table? How can you refute these "opinions"?

well, how about this. CMR made $20-something million in the second quarter according to the DOT numbers, right? sure, those numbers come from the DOT and aren't internal Delta numbers, but until Delta gives up that info (perhaps in bankruptcy, but still they'll show whatever Delta wants them to show), that's all anybody has.

So, how did Mesa, CHQ, Skywest and all the rest do? any other regionals making $20 million a quarter?

 

[Sam Fisher]

I remember reading something last year about ACA. It said their contract with United gave them break even plus a 50% profit. Do you think Comair was paid cost plus 50% before 9/11??

This isn't even remotely close to being accurate. Most "cost plus" deals are in the cost plus 10% range.

Sam

 

[chperplt]

This isn't even remotely close to being accurate. Most "cost plus" deals are in the cost plus 10% range.

Sam

I didn't say it was exact. I'll try and find the article.. It was about ACA not wanting to cut their lucrative deal with UAL and decided to start I-Air..

 

[Sam Fisher]

I didn't say it was exact. I'll try and find the article.. It was about ACA not wanting to cut their lucrative deal with UAL and decided to start I-Air..

Any "airline" that can make a guaranteed operating margin (even 7-12%) is operating under a "lucrative" situation.

Sam

 

[General Lee]

Chperplt,


I think Onyoursix has a lot of valid points, and he is not even a member of DL or DCI. He can see thru this morass and see that Delta wants less pay for growth. Delta has a lot to choose from, and they will grow WHO THEY WANT TO DEPENDING ON WHAT IS GIVEN UP. That is unfortunately the game now. The article brought up a lot of "opinions" that we mainliners have been saying all along, and that is IT IS POSSIBLE FOR DELTA TO ALLOW THE BOOKS TO APPEAR IN A WAY TO MAKE COMAIR OR ASA LOOK PROFITABLE. When we said stuff like that before, we were slammed and told by many of you that we were WRONG. Well, it looks like many other people have the same OPINION. We are ALL going to take pay cuts eventually. I don't mind Onyoursix's opinion, he seems to be able to see this whole mess without haveing a DL/DCI conflict.


WMS,

You say ASA has the cheapest 50 seat rate going for DCI, but for the 70 seat rate--Skywest has the cheapest (even though Skywest isn't allowed to fly 70 seaters for us) because they fly them at 50 seat rates. If Dalpa allows more 70 seaters and Delta can find some at Skywest, would ASA guys be willing to match Skywest's 70 seat rates? The downward spiral continues---and we will all lose......


Bye Bye--General Lee