More Cuts at MEM

Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, making the topic what you think it should be, and having no tolerance for a discussion moving five or ten degrees left of center.

I guess preaching really is your calling -- you get to do all the talking and nobody interrupts out of politeness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
No, it is no about allowing or disallowing thread drift or controlling the discussion.

It is about accuracy in what is being said.

From the beginning you and others jumped on the bandwagon trying to argue that DL is cutting something in order to fund something else or are deepening their cuts.

Those are not accurate statements. DL has indeed cut a number of flights from MEM over the past couple of years but this latest schedule change is about cutting the number of destinations but increasing the number of seats.

There is no accuracy to any statement that DL will be reducing ACS staffing as a result of this move.

It is also accurate to say that DL's employment will increase as a result of bringing in the 717s, which are a key reason for the cuts at CVG and MEM since those hubs extensively used small RJs. The 717s are a part of the MEM schedule, as they are at a number of other cities - and the list is growing.

Dawg can argue that maintenance is not seeing a similar increase in staffing as a result of the 717s but it is not specific to MEM where that plane flies; staffing specific to MEM involves pilots and FAs which fly anywhere on the system and regarding ACS which are specific to MEM.

I care far less about thread drift than I do about accuracy and many have jumped on these latest couple of flights as an opportunity to throw more mud regarding MEM.

Yet there remains no evidence that this move has an impact on employees or that what DL has done with MEM in the past is any different from what any other carrier has done.

What is different with MEM and CVG is that DL has retained a majority of the local market, something that has not been done by other carriers.

Perhaps DL's share will fall but for now it is accurate to say that DL has largely cut connecting traffic at those two airports, has retained a majority of the local market at both, and has protected employees using the same procedures which it uses elsewhere on its system that are essentially no different from what other airlines use except that DL does not allow a displaced employee to bump a non-displaced employee from his/her job/location. DL employees have not indicated in a majority that they want DL's policy regarding bumping to change.

Again, if the topic were accurately addressed and the article was properly noted from the beginning to not involve any reduction in seats, I would have been happy to stay out of the conversation.
 
WorldTraveler said:
Those are not accurate statements. DL has indeed cut a number of flights from MEM over the past couple of years but this latest schedule change is about cutting the number of destinations but increasing the number of seats.

There is no accuracy to any statement that DL will be reducing ACS staffing as a result of this move.
And yet, you jumped on the bandwagon (by yourself, since nobody else shared your opinion) that AA doing seasonal reductions was resulting in a loss of staffing, which was entirely a false assumption on your part, no?

Never mind the fact that I've never claimed there was a staffing impact at MEM.

Bottom line... Upgauging one frequency and eliminating two might be a zero sum game on capacity, but it is still a loss of two departures, and it's freeing up equipment to flow elsewhere or to fund cutting back CPA service within the system.

It's hardly rocket science, but feel free to continue arguing this isn't the case here.

Again, if the topic were accurately addressed and the article was properly noted from the beginning to not involve any reduction in seats, I would have been happy to stay out of the conversation.
Right. And the scorpion won't sting the frog halfway across the river.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
nope, I did not say that AA's schedule cuts will result in staffing cuts.

I said it could and given that AA mainline has more staff that DL, UA, or WN for comparable number of ASMs produced; given that AAL's labor costs went up by 12% in the 2nd quarter on a year over year basis, AA has very little tolerance to be in an overstaffed situation.

Just like in other conversations, you don't understand or don't want to properly understand the correct meaning of verbs of possibility like COULD and MIGHT plus a verb vs. definite verbs like the perfect past (WALKED) or future (will walk).

If you are jumping into this discussion because you want "revenge" for me suggesting that AA is overstaffed or that it will have to match employment costs with its peers, then it is not difficult to see why your arguments fall apart.

You might not like what I say about AA - but the facts are there to see. I have no personal inside information but simply read the same public information that is available to anyone else.



You have no evidence that DL is shifting aircraft around for growth at SEA; it is impossible for any of us to know that given that DL is removing scores of 50 seaters at the same time it is inducting 717s plus growing SEA - and that was announced long ago.

If you or others had simply questioned if DL's staffing would be effected by this move, we could have dispensed with the discussion a long time ago.

It is not. As has been noted dozens of times, DL IS reducing its total DCI program and increasing the size of Delta mainline. DL said on the date the DL/NW merger was announced that they would do this and they have.


DL is reducing the number of flights across its system by using larger aircraft both in mainline and with contract carriers. WN is doing the same thing. Whether it is showing up yet, AA and UA will be doing the same thing as smaller RJs leave.
 
WorldTraveler said:
nope, I did not say that AA's schedule cuts will result in staffing cuts.I said it could and given that AA mainline has more staff that DL, UA, or WN for comparable number of ASMs produced; given that AAL's labor costs went up by 12% in the 2nd quarter on a year over year basis, AA has very little tolerance to be in an overstaffed situation.Just like in other conversations, you don't understand or don't want to properly understand the correct meaning of verbs of possibility like COULD and MIGHT plus a verb vs. definite verbs like the perfect past (WALKED) or future (will walk).If you are jumping into this discussion because you want "revenge" for me suggesting that AA is overstaffed or that it will have to match employment costs with its peers, then it is not difficult to see why your arguments fall apart.You might not like what I say about AA - but the facts are there to see. I have no personal inside information but simply read the same public information that is available to anyone else.You have no evidence that DL is shifting aircraft around for growth at SEA; it is impossible for any of us to know that given that DL is removing scores of 50 seaters at the same time it is inducting 717s plus growing SEA - and that was announced long ago.If you or others had simply questioned if DL's staffing would be effected by this move, we could have dispensed with the discussion a long time ago.It is not. As has been noted dozens of times, DL IS reducing its total DCI program and increasing the size of Delta mainline. DL said on the date the DL/NW merger was announced that they would do this and they have.DL is reducing the number of flights across its system by using larger aircraft both in mainline and with contract carriers. WN is doing the same thing. Whether it is showing up yet, AA and UA will be doing the same thing as smaller RJs leave.

And there is the problem , how many times have you posted could , might , and should . You have no crystal ball . Could you imagine if all of us used those words in every post after post about DL on every topic. You could not keep up and your head would explode.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
If you are jumping into this discussion because you want "revenge" for me suggesting that AA is overstaffed or that it will have to match employment costs with its peers, then it is not difficult to see why your arguments fall apart.
This is why people don't engage in conversations with you, WT.

Whenever anyone disagrees or presents a dissenting view from yours, it's about revenge, winning, or some other motive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
WorldTraveler said:
Just like in other conversations, you don't understand or don't want to properly understand the correct meaning of verbs of possibility like COULD and MIGHT plus a verb vs. definite verbs like the perfect past (WALKED) or future (will walk).
If you're gonna throw down the linguistics card, then you cannot describe my earlier use of the phrase "quite likely" as an absolute, nor can you call it inaccurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
WorldTraveler said:
nope, I did not say that AA's schedule cuts will result in staffing cuts.
Here, let me refresh your memory...

http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/57495-more-cuts-at-mem/#entry1109521
 
Since we're now discussing semantics, please tell all of us little people how the following contains "could" "may" "quite likely" or "might" as one of your usual escape clause?
 
where was your concern for all of the lost jobs regarding AA/US' recent announcements int'l route announcements?

"take the log out of your own eye in order to remove the speck from the other person."
You spend so much time putting logs in everyone elses eyes, it's downright funny. Or sad. Depends on how you want to look at it. If you can see it, that is...

I'm guessing that seeing the forest thru the trees gets difficult when the forest is in your eye...


Please, respond and then ask the moderators to lock it down, so that you can get in the last word. We've all come to expect that now. After all, you *are* in control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
diamondcutter said:
And there is the problem , how many times have you posted could , might , and should . You have no crystal ball . Could you imagine if all of us used those words in every post after post about DL on every topic. You could not keep up and your head would explode.
 
no, I am sorry but those words are part of the English language.

If you or others don't understand their use, then I don't need to apologize nor do I need to withhold the use of them because others can't properly use or understand conditionals.

tell you what, though, if you would like to provide a list of English language concepts that you don't know how to use, I will try my best to make sure I don't use them with you.
 
eolesen said:
This is why people don't engage in conversations with you, WT.

Whenever anyone disagrees or presents a dissenting view from yours, it's about revenge, winning, or some other motive.
No, it's about having an accurate discussion.

DL hasn't announced any new cuts to its TATL schedules different than what it does every year. AA has.

As meto noted a long time ago in this thread, this is a simple schedule change that is far smaller than a dozen other changes that are far more significant to any airline.

Why was that? The two are nowhere near the same thing.

DL is adding seats. If you can show me that AA is adding seats as a result of the cuts they have announced across the Atlantic, then I will gladly acknowledge the two are equally inconsequential.

And my comment about AA/US' cuts was directed at robbed who immediately jumped to the conclusion that this would result in cuts.

If AA/US isn't resulting in personnel cuts, then US particularly was either severely understaffed or Parker is unwilling to rock the boat(my guess) in order to keep labor from coming unglued because on a system basis, US is losing a significant amount of int'l flying which isn't being replaced on their domestic system.
 
Kev3188 said:
If you're gonna throw down the linguistics card, then you cannot describe my earlier use of the phrase "quite likely" as an absolute, nor can you call it inaccurate.
help me understand what post you are talking about and where I said that.

I have no problem admitting I was wrong if I was but to be honest with you, I don't disagree with anything you have said in this post other than that you accepted the notion that these cuts are driven by a need for aircraft which can hardly be validated.

DL is eliminating far more aircraft in total from its combined mainline/DCI fleet than it is replacing but it is also increasing ASMs and seats - similar to what WN is doing - by using larger aircraft.

Even a change of two flight departures cannot be connected with anything given DL's overall fleet strategy.

again, I have to agree with meto that this latest thread is just one more attempt at trying to make something out of a pretty routine schedule change.

Even in large hubs, other airlines don't maintain the exact same number of cities on a year round basis from one year to another. Yes, it would appear that MEM is losing a couple of destinations but that happens on a pretty regular basis with other hubs.
 
WT, please please tell us you are always right. Really, what is your problem as you sit there on an island of one! You only seem to compare DL to AA , what about UAL? Your are so threatened by us that it has consumed you!!! It's actually comical now!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
eolesen said:
This is why people don't engage in conversations with you, WT.

Whenever anyone disagrees or presents a dissenting view from yours, it's about revenge, winning, or some other motive.
You're just JEALOUS of Delta's success.    :D
 
Gotta wonder how well the preachin' is working out, as congregants can sometimes be turned off by someone who always wants to "control" the conversation and are definitely turned off by someone who feels the need to "win" at all costs.   
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
WT, please please tell us you are always right. Really, what is your problem as you sit there on an island of one! You only seem to compare DL to AA , what about UAL? Your are so threatened by us that it has consumed you!!! It's actually comical now!!
No, I won't say that because I may or may not be.

I do speak about what I know and speak accurately.

Given that you and others run around looking for an opportunity to try to prove me wrong, it is not surprising that you are the ones who are frustrated and not me.

I'm glad you are enjoying the board - and, I hope, life.

I have repeatedly made references and comparisons to not just AA and DL but esp. all of the big 4 and even broader to their competitors when it is relevant to note.



 
You're just JEALOUS of Delta's success.     :D
 
Gotta wonder how well the preachin' is working out, as congregants can sometimes be turned off by someone who always wants to "control" the conversation and are definitely turned off by someone who feels the need to "win" at all costs.
maybe he is, maybe he is not.

for all the talk here about religion, there seems be a cultlike devotion by some to ensuring that nothing counter to the "leader's" message is allowed to stand.

You have always been one of the more rational ones on here but I do find it amazing how you try so hard to avoid admitting some of the things that I have said.

we're deep into the weeds by this point, so about you distill for us what I have said that is inaccurate - and if you can, how about you tell us the part about this topic (not me) that you find inaccurate and needs to be corrected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
FWAAA said:
You're just JEALOUS of Delta's success.
To be perfectly clear, I have great respect for what Delta's accomplished. I just don't find it necessary to wear it on my sleeve, and have no problem separating my own emotions from an analysis.

Some people don't do that as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
I don't wear it on my sleeve. Your comment is not terribly veiled.

Again, I would have been happy to have stayed out of the conversation if someone would simply have noted that the article specifically noted that DL was adding seats and that, despite all of the speculation otherwise, there is no evidence that there are any employee implications to what is taking place.
 
I've never seen you stay out of a discussion on the DL forum, so somehow I find that difficult to believe, WT.

You're right that you don't wear it on your sleeve. You've probably got it tattooed across your chest, though. Not that I have any interest in seeing proof either way, mind you...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Status
Not open for further replies.