Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

NWA/DAL solving the seniority issue

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
Superpilot92 said:
You ignore the statements of others and continue to post your babble. The debate had nothing to do with the 737's you were just in your own la la land there. The original question was about why you continue to ignore the NWA scope clause and produce your own imaginary ideas.
Click to expand...

Your scope clause is better, but our current one is being thrown aside thanks to high fuel. We don't need the RJs now, too expensive. Even the 76 seaters can't pay their own bills. If fuel stays high, RJs will be seen less, even the larger ones. At JFK, some routes cannot take a mainline connection, and the 50 seaters are being replaced with 76 seaters. That may be the only larger expansion of the 76 seat market, because those thinner routes connecting the INTL pax at JFK can use a slightly bigger plane to pay for the gas and the added seats for the influx of INTL pax in general.


How's that? Care to rebutt any of that?


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
General Lee said:
Your scope clause is better, but our current one is being thrown aside thanks to high fuel. We don't need the RJs now, too expensive. Even the 76 seaters can't pay their own bills. If fuel stays high, RJs will be seen less, even the larger ones. At JFK, some routes cannot take a mainline connection, and the 50 seaters are being replaced with 76 seaters. That may be the only larger expansion of the 76 seat market, because those thinner routes connecting the INTL pax at JFK can use a slightly bigger plane to pay for the gas and the added seats for the influx of INTL pax in general.


How's that? Care to rebutt any of that?


Bye Bye--General Lee
Click to expand...

Now we are getting closer. You keep talking about parking DC9s etc. Those planes are pretty much full and sure gas is expensive but do you think that either mgmt would just park full airplanes and let some LLC come in and take over those routes? The -9 is a proven plane and IMHO will be around until a 100 seat replacement is found.
 
Superpilot92 said:
Now we are getting closer. You keep talking about parking DC9s etc. Those planes are pretty much full and sure gas is expensive but do you think that either mgmt would just park full airplanes and let some LLC come in and take over those routes? The -9 is a proven plane and IMHO will be around until a 100 seat replacement is found.
Click to expand...

Actually, the scope clause ensures they'll be around.

Schwanker
 
Superpilot92 said:
Now we are getting closer. You keep talking about parking DC9s etc. Those planes are pretty much full and sure gas is expensive but do you think that either mgmt would just park full airplanes and let some LLC come in and take over those routes? The -9 is a proven plane and IMHO will be around until a 100 seat replacement is found.
Click to expand...

It could be around that long, and what I am saying is if gas gets sooooo high and Steenland (still at NWA thanks to no merger) decides to do something, he could park the DC9s. The LCCs will probably not enter the Minot or Grand Forks markets, especially with high gas. He can limit the number of flights (keep some DC9s), and park the rest, knowing LCCs won't invade some of those cities.

As far as RJs go, a lot of them will be parked, and the larger ones will go to slot controlled airports, like JFK coming up here. Our "worse" scope clause is negated due to higher fuel.

Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Schwanker said:
Actually, the scope clause ensures they'll be around.

Schwanker
Click to expand...

That's not hat Ed Bastian is saying, our CFO/PRES. Re-read the new 777LR article. He said we have way too many RJs.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
General:

Unfortunately the truth is not that black & white. We have too may 50 seaters, but the 700's and 900's turn in better numbers than the DC9 and the MD88's.

There seems to be a very dangerous assumption going around that scope is going to be fixed by high fuel prices. That thinking is completely incorrect.

The large RJ's are a very good mainline replacement until the next generation of Narrowbody GTF powered jets are available. Delta would like to have someone else buy these "obsolete" large RJ's and operate them during the 5 to 7 year gap until the next gen aircraft is on line.

The reason why Delta did not commit to the E170 / 190 was that Embraer wanted long term leases and DL just wants them for 5 years. If they are outsourced the problem with leases are somebody else's problem. Sign a 5 year contract with Republic - ola - no problemo.

Something appears to be going on with Comair and and a contract for more flying as part of a sale. We'll learn soon if there is any legs on that story, or if it is all rumor.
 
Last edited:
General Lee said:
It could be around that long, and what I am saying is if gas gets sooooo high and Steenland (still at NWA thanks to no merger) decides to do something, he could park the DC9s. The LCCs will probably not enter the Minot or Grand Forks markets, especially with high gas. He can limit the number of flights (keep some DC9s), and park the rest, knowing LCCs won't invade some of those cities.

As far as RJs go, a lot of them will be parked, and the larger ones will go to slot controlled airports, like JFK coming up here. Our "worse" scope clause is negated due to higher fuel.

Bye Bye--General Lee
Click to expand...


I guess i didnt realize that the DC9 just flys to fargo, minot, and grand forks :cool: :rolleyes:
 
Redmeat head said:
LMAO!

Yeah that's the typical Delta crash pad vehicle seen in the ATL employee lot!!!:eek:


:smash: :D
Click to expand...

:laugh:
Good one. I would show you the pic I got of some of the trailers parked in the NWA DTW employee lot, but while walking away, I got mugged!:nuts:

737
 
IMO we should just wait until DAL goes bankrupt again by expanding into one of the worst financial markets in the history of the United States while oil is at a record high. Then we can pick up their pieces, invert their seniority list and offer preferential interviews in that order. Only after a thorough psychological screening of course.

Sorry I just wanted to post with my new avatar. :pimp:
 
General Lee said:
Drew,

We have 3 777LRs coming this year (LR equals Long Range, equals lots of Captains---2 per ultra long flight), and we get 6 777LRs within 3 months starting at the end of this year (Dec 31st to Mar 31st of 09). How many Captains will that represent? We also get 6 737-700s, just completed getting 17 757-200ERs, and we have more orders for those 73NGs (25 total 737-700s and more 737-800s). And, of course, there are the MD90s, which are out there and we are the only major flier of them. Saudia just put 28 up for sale, and there are many more in China and Japan, some of which we have already looked at. The rumor I heard was that they would slowly replace the DC9-40s/50s. So, we are upgrading due to actual expansion, not waiting for a plane that hasn't even flown yet. We have planes coming NOW, and our INTL expansion adds the need for even more pilots. You guys are bringing new planes in the FUTURE, and FUTURE retirements. We are brining future airplanes (777s, 737-700s, MD90s), and planes/expansion NOW.


Bye Bye--General Lee
Click to expand...

Drew,

Guess you have missed the posts about Delta's advance entitlements. In the last six months there have been three. The last had more than 500 openings with more than 100 Captain slots, most of those were widebodies.

I do not know why NWA pilots think the DAL list is stagnant when Delta is running classes of 50 new hires every two weeks and still short on pilots.

Others have posted the staffing requirements for the 777-200LR's, I think was 30 pilots per jet. That 30 is multiplied down the list in the 765, 767ER, 767, 737, MD88 categories. The result will be probably thousands of "openings" and the smallest Delta jet is bigger than a A319, or DC9.

Further, "word" is that there are going to be more 777's ordered.

Then when the retirements start, there is only a three to five year lag before the total number of Delta retirements exceeds the NWA retirements by a large number.

Then you can add to those openings some folks who just will not commute to a DC9 gig up north. Delta hires a high percentage of MBA types who have better options than sitting #11,000 in KMSP. Many of those new hires are on the 767 & ER. Probably only a handful would leave, but it is more than NWA is going to retire in the next three years.

The crystal ball can be clouded by all of these X factors. I think Delta brings much more to the table, the NWA guys think their 1,000 retirements are the ace in the hole. Really this is just "noise" since none of us can bank on the future in this business right now. The big picture items we have to look at (and I'm guessing you are a new hire)
Click to expand...

Can you guys honestly say you believe Delta will bring more vacancies over the next three years? Five years? Ten years?

Who gets credit for the vacancies caused by the change in work rules? NWA? Delta? Isn't it NWA airplanes that will be staffed?
 
DrewBlows said:
Can you guys honestly say you believe Delta will bring more vacancies over the next three years? Five years? Ten years?

Who gets credit for the vacancies caused by the change in work rules? NWA? Delta? Isn't it NWA airplanes that will be staffed?
Click to expand...

Isn't it enough that you guys are getting the Delta pay and work rules...you also want credit for DELTA's staffing formula...one of the many items we fought for during our bankruptcy...if you retired your airplanes and we bought new ones would you think that you should get credit for those too??They will require new hires below all of us no one gets credit for them!!!Unbelievable!!!
 
How about some pictures of Lake Lanier, down what? 25 feet? Lots of boats can't even get out of their marinas. Water rationing coming to your suburb of ATL soon!
 
Busdriver320 said:
How about some pictures of Lake Lanier, down what? 25 feet? Lots of boats can't even get out of their marinas. Water rationing coming to your suburb of ATL soon!
Click to expand...

Lake Lanier's low level is the direct and indisputable effect of global warming caused by A320 starts in the frigid North.

CM1 - Ooor Dear, Oh Geez O Pete, will eet start?
CM2 - Ah you Betcha, lots of smooke, dooh, Spendy
CM1 - Hope der's no merger, hard to find de Lutefisk and Lefse ootside of Minisoota
CM2 - And instead of Garrison Keilloor they have that Neal Booortz.
CM1 - Okra and Lutefisk?
CM1 - Better configure for de deicing...
CM2 - Yeeah, you betcha, can I git a can oof Pop first?

Go Green Bay!
 
Last edited:

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top