DL and VS swap flights

[WorldTraveler]

Dawg,
it is true that DL and NW both operated as many flights in 2008 as they do now to LGW/LHR but that was in large part because DL was operating duplicate flights to LGW and LHR - and they weren't profitable doing it. DL couldn't get slots to operate to LHR so split the operation.

DL has a similar number of flights as they did during the transition period but DL entered the JFK-LGW market right before Open Skies allowed DL to enter LHR.

There was a rush for London when Open Skies came but that period was far from representative of the position that DL and NW had in London for years.

DL also has more seats than they did then, likely because the 764s are now the primary aircraft to LGW while the 763 did almost all of the flights then.

You didn't mention BOS which was picked up as part of the AA-BA JV divestiture and DL has remained in that market.

SEA-LHR did not last long because the times were terrible.

LAX-LHR is a longer flight - better for pilot and FA pay - than ATL-LHR.

And these numbers still don't count the latest additions which were announced by VS today - even though they involve DL flights - and thus haven't been loaded.


And for more significantly, DL has a presence in multiple key markets around the country and has seen its London revenues increase dramatically.

 

[topDawg]

Dawg,
it is true that DL and NW both operated as many flights in 2008 as they do now to LGW/LHR but that was in large part because DL was operating duplicate flights to LGW and LHR - and they weren't profitable doing it. DL couldn't get slots to operate to LHR so split the operation.
​huh? do you have any evidence of this?  

DL has a similar number of flights as they did during the transition period but DL entered the JFK-LGW market right before Open Skies allowed DL to enter LHR.

There was a rush for London when Open Skies came but that period was far from representative of the position that DL and NW had in London for years.

DL also has more seats than they did then, likely because the 764s are now the primary aircraft to LGW while the 763 did almost all of the flights then.
I would take that bet. NW was using 333s to London and Delta had 764s on ATL-LGW for sure. 
You didn't mention BOS which was picked up as part of the AA-BA JV divestiture and DL has remained in that market.
thought i did, it takes the place of the over CVG-LGW flight. 
SEA-LHR did not last long because the times were terrible.
okay.......?
LAX-LHR is a longer flight - better for pilot and FA pay - than ATL-LHR.
your missing the point. Delta is something like 10 transatlantic routes out of compliance in its agreement with DALPA, so while LAX-LHR is longer, it doesn't mean jack when you keep gutting your TATL network. 
 
I bet if you ask the pilots if they would trade LAX-LHR for 10 new routes from ATL/JFK they would say yes.  
And these numbers still don't count the latest additions which were announced by VS today - even though they involve DL flights - and thus haven't been loaded.


And for more significantly, DL has a presence in multiple key markets around the country and has seen its London revenues increase dramatically.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I used actual historic vs. present schedule data.

I know the pilots think that the company is out to screw them but the simple fact is that DL's network overall is proportionately smaller than a combination of DL plus NW. The whole notion of mergers was that capacity would be removed and fares would be forced up.

The DL/NW merger, unlike any of the other 3, took place BEFORE fuel spiked to $3/gallon.

Whether the pilots realize it or not, airlines must cover their costs. Similarly, increased air fares reduce demand. You simply cannot pass along a 10% increase in costs and expect that there will be a 10% increase in revenue without any loss of passengers.

So, yes, the pilots can believe that the company is out to get them but the whole nature of job protections specific to each JV are not realistic and realistically won't be agreed upon by the company. Even ALPA recognizes that a global approach to capacity is needed to reflect changes in specific markets.

I appreciate the pilots' desire to not allow the company to give away jobs to other airline's pilots using JVs.

But the whole notion of the structure that exists today doesn't work and it isn't even accurate with London to say that DL is shrinking its network relative to what it was.

Even using the most generous period of DL/NW growth post LHR Open Skies, DL capacity is essentially flat.

And, as much as you and the pilots want to believe otherwise, the company's goal is and always will be not to fly planes just for the sake of meeting production targets but to make money.

The fact that LGW was dropped as soon as LHR slots became available - the exact same thing that AA, UA, and CO did - should provide ample evidence that LHR is simply a higher revenue airport than LGW.

DL could not and did not obtain slots on its own at LHR. It bought its way into LHR via Virgin Atlantic. Despite what you and others want to argue, Virgin Atlantic's capacity systemwide will be down because of the realignment of their own network. The flights they will operate to the US are not going to generate the same number of block hours as the flights to Asia that they are cancelling.

Unless someone tells me otherwise, I am sure their crews are paid based on block hours just like DL's.

Not once have I heard in all of this "Virgin Atlantic is taking our flying" have I heard anyone acknowledge that reality.

I'm still not sure what this has to do with Tech Ops.

 

[metopower]

Well WT thanks for speaking up for the pilots . But before you do please make sure that you are speaking for the pilots or the union. The PILOTS are not objecting to the present arrangement .. In fact 90 % of the pilot could not tell you what the formula is for the joint venture or the code share. But it is with in 47% of the 50 % required. Unfortunately it has never been 51% as required. Dawg .. Flying to lgw is much different then flying to lhr .As far as most of us are concerned WE would like to see where things are going before we object to technical violations of agreements.

 

[WorldTraveler]

who said I was speaking for the pilots. I offered my opinion but you validated that my opinion regarding a single number measurement of compliance is correct.

A single number cannot address all concerns nor does it provide the flexibility to respond to changes in the market or circumstances that face other partners.

DL's partners - AF/KL and VS have labor unions they have to do with as well.

They simply cannot cut their workforces just because we tell them to.

Further, AF/KL's losses are in short and medium haul markets. The long haul system is the place where they can make money.

VS contracts out its entire intra-UK network.

DALPA would never agree to that - and they shouldn't.

In contrast, DL mainline is GROWING and is being driven by significant domestic growth that DL is accomplishing because of its network and because it is taking back flying from DCI carriers.

Yes, I want to see DL grow, including on the int'l system - not just swapping flights between partners.

But the company is not going to agree to or ultimately comply with any system that doesn't provide flexibility to address changing market conditions.

 

[topDawg]

I used actual historic vs. present schedule data.

I know the pilots think that the company is out to screw them but the simple fact is that DL's network overall is proportionately smaller than a combination of DL plus NW. The whole notion of mergers was that capacity would be removed and fares would be forced up.
*sign* this is all horse crap. Delta can be back in compliance with out adding a single seat across the Atlantic. One one seat. 
The DL/NW merger, unlike any of the other 3, took place BEFORE fuel spiked to $3/gallon.
which has what to do with anything?
Whether the pilots realize it or not, airlines must cover their costs. Similarly, increased air fares reduce demand. You simply cannot pass along a 10% increase in costs and expect that there will be a 10% increase in revenue without any loss of passengers.
​with you understand what a contract is or not, Delta must not agree to things (including LOAs signed after fuel went above 3 gallon) and then back out. 
 
How about the pilots walk out, just stop working. My guess is you would be on here telling us how worthless the pilots are, but why should they fallow the contract if Delta refuses to?
So, yes, the pilots can believe that the company is out to get them but the whole nature of job protections specific to each JV are not realistic and realistically won't be agreed upon by the company. Even ALPA recognizes that a global approach to capacity is needed to reflect changes in specific markets.
well okay. Now your just proving that you don't have the smallest idea about anything being talked about. 
 
The company agreed to a contract with the pilot group, they are in breach of that contract RIGHT NOW. Some how in your twisted head its the pilots fault though. 
I appreciate the pilots' desire to not allow the company to give away jobs to other airline's pilots using JVs.
no you don't. 
But the whole notion of the structure that exists today doesn't work and it isn't even accurate with London to say that DL is shrinking its network relative to what it was.

Even using the most generous period of DL/NW growth post LHR Open Skies, DL capacity is essentially flat.

And, as much as you and the pilots want to believe otherwise, the company's goal is and always will be not to fly planes just for the sake of meeting production targets but to make money.
The company should write checks they can't cash then. I personally think a little bit of jail time is what is really needed here. Honestly. 
The fact that LGW was dropped as soon as LHR slots became available - the exact same thing that AA, UA, and CO did - should provide ample evidence that LHR is simply a higher revenue airport than LGW.
That doesn't mean Delta wasn't profitable at LGW. 
DL could not and did not obtain slots on its own at LHR. It bought its way into LHR via Virgin Atlantic. Despite what you and others want to argue, Virgin Atlantic's capacity systemwide will be down because of the realignment of their own network. The flights they will operate to the US are not going to generate the same number of block hours as the flights to Asia that they are cancelling.
ahem, Delta has LHR slots they own from before the VS JV...... 
Unless someone tells me otherwise, I am sure their crews are paid based on block hours just like DL's.

Not once have I heard in all of this "Virgin Atlantic is taking our flying" have I heard anyone acknowledge that reality.
because it doesn't have anything to do with DALPA and Delta's agreement? VS could pay their pilots in apples and human poop, what that means to the DALPA section 1 is nothing. 
I'm still not sure what this has to do with Tech Ops.

What it has to do with TechOps? First off, the company in breach of contract with any work group means a lot to everyone. If they will lie to pilots and do whatever they want(WITH A CONTRACT) who knows what they will do to those that don't have a contract. 
Second, Pilots scope is every ones scope. If Delta had to buy 20 more 767s to be in compliance that would mean more work for everyone. Not just pilots. 
 

Well WT thanks for speaking up for the pilots . But before you do please make sure that you are speaking for the pilots or the union. The PILOTS are not objecting to the present arrangement .. In fact 90 % of the pilot could not tell you what the formula is for the joint venture or the code share. But it is with in 47% of the 50 % required. Unfortunately it has never been 51% as required. Dawg .. Flying to lgw is much different then flying to lhr .As far as most of us are concerned WE would like to see where things are going before we object to technical violations of agreements.

I know it is, I am just saying calling LGW unprofitable is a bit much without proof.  
 

who said I was speaking for the pilots. I offered my opinion but you validated that my opinion regarding a single number measurement of compliance is correct.

A single number cannot address all concerns nor does it provide the flexibility to respond to changes in the market or circumstances that face other partners.
What in the hot hell are you talking about 
 
DELTA AGREED TO IT! So clearly they thought it was more than fair. 
DL's partners - AF/KL and VS have labor unions they have to do with as well.
ugh you make me what to bash my head against the wall sometimes. DALPAs agreement with Delta is also an agreement with Air France, KLM and all the pilots unions. 
They simply cannot cut their workforces just because we tell them to.
Yes they can. The companies should not have agreed to anything they can't do. 
Further, AF/KL's losses are in short and medium haul markets. The long haul system is the place where they can make money.
​AF is a dumpster fire all around. Short haul to long haul.  
VS contracts out its entire intra-UK network.
means nothing here. 
DALPA would never agree to that - and they shouldn't.

In contrast, DL mainline is GROWING and is being driven by significant domestic growth that DL is accomplishing because of its network and because it is taking back flying from DCI carriers.
has nothing to do with anything. Delta doesn't get to pick what parts of the contract they fallow. 
Yes, I want to see DL grow, including on the int'l system - not just swapping flights between partners.

But the company is not going to agree to or ultimately comply with any system that doesn't provide flexibility to address changing market conditions.
Do you understand how contracts work? Like really? 
 
As I said, they s**t storm you would post if the pilots started picking what parts of the contract they like and what parts they down would be so bad, but if Delta says "eh, we don't believe in fallowing the contract" its completely okay with you. Man you take fanboy to a scary level. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

The fact that fuel went up means demand goes down. That is a basic principle of economics. DL and other carriers MUST remove capacity when prices from suppliers goes up. The airline industry post-deregulation operated for years with employees and stockholders subsidizing money losing operations. I don't want to see the industry ever return to that again.

I genuinely would like to hear your suggestion of DL can fix the JV imbalances - esp. without a single seat.

I am not advocating that DL walk away from agreements they made. But those types of agreements do not envision many changes that take place, including the equity purchase in Virgin Atlantic or the JV that came with it.

And as much as you want to advocate for the pilots walking off the job, they understand full well that there is nothing to be gained from forcing the company to fly capacity that is known to lose capacity. That is the fastest way to ensure that profit sharing is cut WAY down - and DL employees WANT their profit sharing to remain.

And you can't strike for one part of the contract... you walk away from it all and the company can choose to do what they have to do based on the entire pilot relationship.

DL has succeeded because its employees for decades have been able to see beyond single issues to the big picture - and the evidence is clearly seen today as DL employees are better off economically than their peers at other carriers.

I want to see DL employees get at least half and hopefully a whole lot more of the flying done in partnerships... but the agreements have to be flexible enough to address competitive and strategic changes, including with competitors who quite simply cannot eliminate jobs because they have no place else for their employees to fly.

DL IS adding mainline capacity and hiring pilots at one of the fastest rates the company has ever seen.

And DL employees, including pilots, are enjoying some of the fastest growing rates in compensation - including profit sharing - that they have seen in a long time - and those comparisons are quite favorable with competitor employees.

 

[topDawg]

The fact that fuel went up means demand goes down. That is a basic principle of economics. DL and other carriers MUST remove capacity when prices from suppliers goes up. The airline industry post-deregulation operated for years with employees and stockholders subsidizing money losing operations. I don't want to see the industry ever return to that again.
Quit talking about fuel, for real WT all you are doing is proving that you know nothing about the JV agreement. AGAIN an LOA was signed not that along ago that increased DALPA's share in JV flying, well well well well.....
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
........well.....
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WELL past the fuel spike of 2008. Understand? 
I genuinely would like to hear your suggestion of DL can fix the JV imbalances - esp. without a single seat.
easy, AF/KL/AZ pull back flying. The imbalance doesn't mean Delta has to go out and add 10-15 flights, it simply means that the flying is divided up equally and as agreed too. 
I am not advocating that DL walk away from agreements they made. But those types of agreements do not envision many changes that take place, including the equity purchase in Virgin Atlantic or the JV that came with it.
yes you are. That is exactly what you are doing. you are saying Delta doesn't have to fallow its SCOPE clause because they are so gosh damn stupid that they agreed to it, but basically things change and contract mean jack horse poop unless it benefits Delta. That is exactly what your saying. 
And as much as you want to advocate for the pilots walking off the job, they understand full well that there is nothing to be gained from forcing the company to fly capacity that is known to lose capacity. That is the fastest way to ensure that profit sharing is cut WAY down - and DL employees WANT their profit sharing to remain.
Good lord man, do you get a profit sharing check? its a blip.......a blip on the radar. Its nice, don't get me wrong but it is way, way way way down on the list of crap that really matters. (unless your a complete and total idiot). health care, pay, work rules, SCOPE, and retirement mean so much more than profit sharing. 
And you can't strike for one part of the contract... you walk away from it all and the company can choose to do what they have to do based on the entire pilot relationship.
no, now days you cant strike period. 
But no, one part of the contract, one line of the contract is more than enough for employees to tell the company to F off. Just ask the AMFA at Northwest or the IAM at Eastern. (or the APFA at American, ALPA at NK etc. etc. ) 
 
If you don't have scope you don't have a contract. period. Making 823487345348573478573485783945789347583975893759 an hour doesn't mean crap if everyone get outsourced to the lowest bidder. 
DL has succeeded because its employees for decades have been able to see beyond single issues to the big picture - and the evidence is clearly seen today as DL employees are better off economically than their peers at other carriers.
Really? shall we compare pay at WN again WT? Pilot for Pilot you think your better off at Delta than Southwest? Coke is one hell of a drug..... 
I want to see DL employees get at least half and hopefully a whole lot more of the flying done in partnerships... but the agreements have to be flexible enough to address competitive and strategic changes, including with competitors who quite simply cannot eliminate jobs because they have no place else for their employees to fly.
Delta should sign contracts they can't deliver on. This isn't BK, you agreed to it then do it, PERIOD. Delta is in breach of contract and it is just that simple. 
DL IS adding mainline capacity and hiring pilots at one of the fastest rates the company has ever seen.
good for them, still not fallowing the contract
And DL employees, including pilots, are enjoying some of the fastest growing rates in compensation - including profit sharing - that they have seen in a long time - and those comparisons are quite favorable with competitor employees.
Once again, look at me while that guy hits you in the back of the head with a baseball bat. To you that is okay, to me it isn't. 
 
 
but on the outside looking in it is pretty easy to tell other people to bend over and take it.........

 

[WorldTraveler]

first of all, tell us how YOU personally are affected.

You are a mechanic, are you not?

how are you claiming that you are personally affected by something the company is doing to another workgroup.

did you not read what Meto, the only DL pilot who regularly participates on these boards, says?

He says that pilots aren't interested in walking off the job because of a single number (paraphrased but I believe the essence). They want to see the big picture and understand what is going on. They don't want to be taken advantage of

As for fuel, if you don't understand that increased pricing - which follows increased fuel costs - will reduce demand, then you quite simply have no business participating in the conversation because you don't understand or want to accept the basic economics of delivering a product.

The DL-AF JV went back before the DL/NW merger which itself proceeded sustained $3 gal/jet fuel where we are today.

The DL/AF JV - to which KL was added - most definitely had requirements about how capacity was supposed to be shared.

DL and AF absolutely have the ability and I believe do sit down and talk about what capacity to cut as part of their antitrust immunity that goes with the JV.

I can't tell you where the breakdown comes but I am capable of seeing that AF/KL is a financial mess and it is because of their short and medium haul network for which they have just announced their most drastic attempt at trying to get costs in line with competitors.

Unlike DL and unlike other carriers, AF/KL cannot throw more capacity into the short/medium-haul market as profitability - or without losing as much money as they can in longhaul markets.

As such, the essence of the perceived injustice you feel DL is doing has to be understand as to why AF/KL cannot or does not reduce capacity as much as DL does.

I'm not letting them off the hook... but I am asking you what you propose to do given their circumstances.


The option to put the agreement in balance is to either fly capacity which DL knows cannot be profitably filled or for you to get on a plane and run over to CDG and throw a hissy fit because AF/KL isn't going to do what they are supposed to do.

The only one who appears to be unable to grasp what is really going on and figure out how to live in a seriously not fair world is you.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I can't tell you where the breakdown comes but I am capable of seeing that AF/KL is a financial mess and it is because of their short and medium haul network for which they have just announced their most drastic attempt at trying to get costs in line with competitors.

Unlike DL and unlike other carriers, AF/KL cannot throw more capacity into the short/medium-haul market as profitability - or without losing as much money as they can in longhaul markets.

As such, the essence of the perceived injustice you feel DL is doing has to be understand as to why AF/KL cannot or does not reduce capacity as much as DL does.

I'm not letting them off the hook... but I am asking you what you propose to do given their circumstances.

Ahhhhh, AF/KL is so fortunate to have a JV partner in DL so willing & able to take one for the (sky)team.
À chaque fou plaît sa marotte, I guess.

 

[WorldTraveler]

If you think that life for AF/KL and its employees is rosy, then I would suggest you spend a few days with their employees.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

If you think that life for AF/KL and its employees is rosy, then I would suggest you spend a few days with their employees.

Like I said, good thing DL is there to lend a hand, cause you know if the situation were reversed the French (or any Europeans for that matter) would be so willing to help out their American colleagues ....

 

[WorldTraveler]

show up in Paris next week about the 15th and see how happy AF pilots are with their situation.

The chances are real high that DL and KL will be carrying traffic for the JV.

The following is part of the advisory which DL has placed on its website


"Air France Pilot Industrial Action"

"A pilot industrial action may impact travel on all Air France operated flights. Check flight status frequently for up-to-the-minute info about your flight plans, or get updates sent directly to your wireless device or email with Delta Messenger.

"Rescheduling Flights
If your flight is canceled or significantly delayed, you are entitled to a refund. Even if your flight is not canceled, you may make a one-time change to your ticket without fee if you are scheduled to travel to, from, or through the following destination(s) on Delta, Delta Connection®, or Delta-coded flights during the specified time periods listed below."

more text available at delta.com.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Big deal! It's Europe. These industrial job actions are a dime a dozen. LH pilots held a job action this week and last week too I believe.

 

[WorldTraveler]

yes, and the reasons are essentially the same.

Both AF and LH have to get their costs down in order to compete with lower cost competition.

the future for the companies and their employees is incredibly clouded and uncertain.

The future of the European legacy carrier segment is at stake. Literally.

In the meantime, DL pilots will carry passengers that were originally AF and LH passengers.

It happens every time the European airlines strike.