More DL Connection ERJs

RJ Stud-

According to Delta Q&A on the DeltaNet relating to the CHQ contract and its MCO operation, it stated that there were major cost advantages in CHQ operations over Comair.

Including:

-cost advantage of the 37 seat ERJ over the 40 seat CRJ.

-40 seat CRJ costs the same to operate as the 50 seat CRJ. (they did note that the purchase price was slightly less, however the maint., fuel burn, crew costs were the same)

-proving runs to acquire the ERJ (at Comair) would be costly and training cost would skyrocket because of multiple type aircraft.

-40 and 50 seat CRJ load restrictions in EYW vs. ERJ

-fixed cost product

-no capital needed for aircraft acquisition

-CHQ safety record (highest among all its regionals) resulted in lower liability insurance costs

Delta is looking to save money anyway it can. Just as mainline flying has gone to ASA/Comair on thin routes, ASA/Comair will lose flying to contract carriers when the money equation makes sense.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/14/2003 11:43:00 AM FL370 wrote:

RJ Stud-

According to Delta Q&A on the DeltaNet relating to the CHQ contract and its MCO operation, it stated that there were major cost advantages in CHQ operations over Comair.

-40 and 50 seat CRJ load restrictions in EYW vs. ERJ

----------------
[/blockquote]

I'm a little skeptical of this as ASA is flying the CR7 to EYW from ATL and Eastern used to fly a 727 to MIA from EYW. Granted that EYW-MIA is alot closer than MCO is from EYW, but none the less, it is a 727 vs. and RJ. I don't think that you would have to load restrict a CRJ to MCO from EYW - anyone here in the know want to answer to that?
 
I'm not a pilot nor expert on aircraft performance, however the reason I heard that the CRJ100/200 was restricted was the lack of leading edge slats. Without the slats, the CRJ100/200 need a longer runway if they are maxed out on weight.

The CRJ700 has leading edge slats. However, DL does still have some restrictions on the CRJ700 that operates ATL-EYW.

The 727 was built in part to operate out of short runways. This made it possible for the 727 to enter many smaller airports that had previously been left out of the jet age.

I'm sure there's a pilot out there who could give you a more technical explanation.
 
Ok Cart Pusher,

The DCI flying did belong to DALPA. They gave it up years ago because they didn't want to fly props. They didn't anticipate the RJ. They still have control over what percentage of their flying can be flown by code-share partners. Right now that percentage is between 43 - 49% for DCI. That does not include international code-share through the SkyTeam and the new CO/DAL/NWA code-share agreement.

Don't feel too sorry for the furloughed DAL pilots that might want the DCI flying (we are hiring furloughed DAL pilots so they can get it that way if they really want it). They got something in return for it in their last few contracts (I don't know what specifically, but you can bet that they got something). That is the way the collective bargining process works. Also, if DALPA really wanted it back they could make a deal with DAL to get it back through the collective bargining process. I guess they don't want it, yet.

ASA and Comair are WO's of DAL. We are part of DAL. We enjoy all of the benefits of being a DAL employee, except the retirement. We are actively working through the collective bargining process to secure all of the DCI flying for our employees (pilots, flight attendants, mechs, rampers, etc). DAL does not want us to have that kind of power, and uses contract carriers like Chit to under-cut our bargining positions. That is why we do not care for them. It is nothing personal against any employee of these contract carriers. It's the airline business.

The only reason that Chit was brought into MCO was to punish the senior Comair pilots for the 89 day strike. That is it. At ASA we are in contract talks right now, we know that if we have to strike, we will face a similar fate. We really don't like it. This lower cost thing is a bunch of crap.

Look, Chit has to make a profit doesn't it? Do they fly for free (well they almost do)? When ASA and Comair fly for DAL all of the profits go straight to DAL. We both add around $15 to $20 Million per quarter to DAL. When Chit, Skywest or ACA fly for DAL, some of the profits go to DAL, but not all of it. These companies have to stay in business (make some money) right?.

I don't care about the career expectations of the contract carriers. I care about the career of every ASA employee, and will fight the DAL whip-saw every chance that I get.

If your kids are older than me, then you must be around 80 years old, gramps.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/14/2003 5:05:46 PM RJStud wrote:

Ok Cart Pusher,

The DCI flying did belong to DALPA. They gave it up years ago because they didn't want to fly props. They didn't anticipate the RJ. They still have control over what percentage of their flying can be flown by code-share partners. Right now that percentage is between 43 - 49% for DCI. That does not include international code-share through the SkyTeam and the new CO/DAL/NWA code-share agreement.

[/blockquote]

Originally, much of the DCI flying was flying that DAL would have lost anyway. You can't really say that now. With the "regionals" flying legs that are well over 3 hours now, I think it's safe to say that they are getting service that would have gone directly to DAL in another day. Therefore, it's safe to assume that ALOT of the DCI flying being done today is at the expense of DAL Pilots. Incidentally, how many ASA Pilots are currently on furlough?


[blockquote]
Don't feel too sorry for the furloughed DAL pilots that might want the DCI flying (we are hiring furloughed DAL pilots so they can get it that way if they really want it). They got something in return for it in their last few contracts (I don't know what specifically, but you can bet that they got something). That is the way the collective bargining process works. Also, if DALPA really wanted it back they could make a deal with DAL to get it back through the collective bargining process. I guess they don't want it, yet.
[/blockquote]

Could you blame the DAL Pilots for not wanting to fly at the regionals? They probably make more on furlough then they would as a first year FO at ASA or Comair.

One thing we both agree on, the Pilots sure did get something back in their last contracts - and now they are paying for their greed. Their lack of foresight caused them to kill the goose that was laying the golden eggs.

Do you really think that DAL would agree to give back a sizeable percentage of DCI flying to DAL simply because DALPA wants to ensure secure futures for their Pilots? Just as the Pilots don't give back huge things in negotiations, neither does the company. They fought too hard to get to where they are now.


[blockquote]
ASA and Comair are WO's of DAL. We are part of DAL. We enjoy all of the benefits of being a DAL employee, except the retirement. We are actively working through the collective bargining process to secure all of the DCI flying for our employees (pilots, flight attendants, mechs, rampers, etc). DAL does not want us to have that kind of power, and uses contract carriers like Chit to under-cut our bargining positions. That is why we do not care for them. It is nothing personal against any employee of these contract carriers. It's the airline business.
[/blockquote]

You enjoy everything but the significant pay which is why management finds ASA and Comair so much more attractive than DAL.

Don't count on getting all of the DCI flying back again, ever. DAL learned their lesson during the Comair strike. They learned what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket - big mistake! In fact, it seems that other airlines, that use more than one regional, have learned from that lesson as well - look at NW and US and UA. Note the way they have divided up the flying amongst their regionals so as not to have any one regional completely dominate one hub.

[blockquote]
The only reason that Chit was brought into MCO was to punish the senior Comair pilots for the 89 day strike. That is it. At ASA we are in contract talks right now, we know that if we have to strike, we will face a similar fate. We really don't like it. This lower cost thing is a bunch of crap.
[/blockquote]

It appears to me, and any airline analyst as well as your union leaders, that DAL is simply making sure that they don't have another situation, such as the one in CVG, they had not too long ago. It had to be a foregone conclusion that as soon as that strike was over, DL was going to spread that flying around alot more so they wouldn't have the same worries again when contract time came rolling around at ASA. Smart move on their part really - though not entirely popular amongst the union I'm sure. It sure does give Comair and ASA a little less leverage. Incidentally, you knock the contract carriers but just remember who DID NOT fly any Comair routes during their strike. It would have been easy for Skywest management to step in and agree to pick up a little slack - they didn't, and not because management didn't ask them if they would be willing. They were asked, and out of respect for their bretheren, the declined. And Skywest isn't even ALPA to my knowledge - at least they weren't at that time. I don't know if that's changed.

[blockquote]
Look, Chit has to make a profit doesn't it? Do they fly for free (well they almost do)? When ASA and Comair fly for DAL all of the profits go straight to DAL. We both add around $15 to $20 Million per quarter to DAL. When Chit, Skywest or ACA fly for DAL, some of the profits go to DAL, but not all of it. These companies have to stay in business (make some money) right?.
[/blockquote]

CHQ probably does have lower costs - and maybe their pilots do make less money. DAL pays them on a fee per departure basis. It is in DAL's best interest to make sure those flights are full. If they are, DAL is probably making more money than they would if they were to have to operate those flights themselves or have their WO's do it. I don't think that DAL is losing any money on the deals they have with their contract carriers.

[blockquote]
I don't care about the career expectations of the contract carriers. I care about the career of every ASA employee, and will fight the DAL whip-saw every chance that I get.
[/blockquote]

Another thing we agree on, you should fight the DAL whipsaw. It doesn't mean you are always going to get what you want but it does mean that DAL WON'T always get what they want too.

[blockquote]
If your kids are older than me, then you must be around 80 years old, gramps.
[/blockquote]

no disrespect to you or any other regional Pilot but I've been flying for 20 years. If you have also then please forgive the implication. I've seen the average age at the regionals however and think it's safe to say that I was flying when most of your peers were still in elementary/Jr. High school. That doesn't make me a grandpa.

Happy flying!
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/14/2003 12:03:54 PM Cart Pusher wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/14/2003 11:43:00 AM FL370 wrote:

RJ Stud-

According to Delta Q&A on the DeltaNet relating to the CHQ contract and its MCO operation, it stated that there were major cost advantages in CHQ operations over Comair.

-40 and 50 seat CRJ load restrictions in EYW vs. ERJ

----------------
[/blockquote]

I'm a little skeptical of this as ASA is flying the CR7 to EYW from ATL and Eastern used to fly a 727 to MIA from EYW. Granted that EYW-MIA is alot closer than MCO is from EYW, but none the less, it is a 727 vs. and RJ. I don't think that you would have to load restrict a CRJ to MCO from EYW - anyone here in the know want to answer to that?

----------------
[/blockquote]

The CR7 that ASA flys ATL-EYW is maxed at 53passengers.
 
Actually, you can get a max of 70/90 sometimes out of Atlanta. It depends on whether you need a take-off alternate in ATL and the WX in Key West. The trip back to ATL is where we have problems. It will get a little better when they fix the latest fuel AD (we have to carry an extra 3000 lbs. of fuel right now).
 
Cart Pusher,

I really don't know what DAL would be willing to give to the DALPA pilots in their next round of contract talks. There has been some talk about forming another WO to be staffed by furloughed mainline pilots flying 100 seat RJ's. My original point was that DAL gave up this type of flying years ago, and in exchange for it they got things in their contract that they wanted more (money, rigs, days off, I don't know, I was not there). Now they may want it back, but what are they willing to give DAL in exchange for it? If they want it bad enough they can get it.

Now you want us to feel sorry for them because they have pilots on furlough and we are performing more flying at DCI. Wait, the DAL pilots set the percentage of block hours that can be flow by DCI in their PWA. And they just let the company increase it to 43 - 49% while they have pilots on furlough. I guess they got something they wanted more than the return of their furloughed pilots in exchange.

Now, lets talk about the international code share (Skyteam). Look at all of those high paying B-767/747/777 jobs they farmed out to air Frenchy, etc. What did they get in exchange? I guess it was something they wanted. Also look at the new code-share with CO and NWA. They agreed to this and the new scope limits while they have 1050 pilots on furlough.

If mainline had never let go of the flying currently performed by DCI, what would those jobs have paid? Also FYI, on a per seat basis we at ASA make more per hour than a mainline pilot. We are paid about right for the size aircraft we fly, I don't expect $200 per hour to fly a 70 seat RJ.

Finally, the DAL pilots had a chance to approve a PID with ASA and Comair. Instead they blocked it. I can assure you that we would have been stapled to the bottom of their list. If they had allowed this to happen, 20 year ASA pilots would be furloughed right now, and would be replaced with DAL new-hires. That is right, not a single DAL pilot would have been furloughed, it would have been all ASA and Comair pilots on the street (and I have already been there before, so I know how it feels). I am sure that you would feel real sorry for us too. Oh well, you can't predict the future can you?
 
RJ Stud -

The flying that is being done by DCI carriers, and the regionals at other airlines, has far surpassed what was originally intended when the majors formed their alliances with "commuter" carriers. Originally it was intended so that the majors could continue service to small communities which could no longer support service on full sized jets. Cities like ILM, PFN, TRI, etc. When the commuter alliances were formed I don't think anybody thought that Comair or ASA would be flying hub to hub service or flights between major cities (ATL-JFK, ATL-DCA, etc.)

By your logic, it could be said that DCI allowed DAL to bring the contract carriers into the picture, therefore, you to will need to live with the agreement you made.

I think that it's VERY safe to say that DAL will never step backwards in agreeing to anything that will allow the mainline pilots to once again return to levels of flying that they previously held. Don't be fool enough to believe it yourself.

No, I can't predict the future. What I can tell you is that Delta will not allow themselves to become so dependent on the WO's again that they allow the operation to be compromised again the way it was during the Comair strike. If you think that ASA pilots giving DAL longer duty days, vacation time, sick time, retirement benefits or ANYTHING else will convince management to become so vulnerable again you are sorely mistaken. I'm assuming (maybe wrongly so) that you might be fairly new to the industry (several years or so), as are most pilots at regionals, and you might think management is going to roll over to the pilots, but I can tell you that won't happen again. Management is in the business of surviving now - not pandering to the wants and desires of pilots or making any group of employees, save for management, rich. Those days are over.

The economy is cyclical, it will change, it always does. By the time that happens, however, management will have a new hold on their business. Everything is changing and it won't ever go back to the way it was. That much is obvious.

This argument, mainline Pilots vs. regional Pilots, has been argued for quite some time. The mainline Pilots have beat the horse to death and moved on to newer things. I don't see the need to stick around and argue a point that doesn't directly affect me. It's clear that you believe that the WO's are being wronged and your position won't change. I stand by my original statement that I find it hypocritical of you to criticize the contract carrier pilots for flying work that you think should be WO flying. Most mainline pilots have said the same thing about the regional pilots - even those at ASA or Comair.
 
Cart Pusher,

When this started you wanted me to tell you why the WO's resent the contract DCI carriers. You just answered it, they are here to keep us from getting better contracts. That is it.

I don't know what management will do. I know that many of us are ready to strike, if necessary, to obtain scope on DCI flying. Is DAL in a position to lose another $600 million in an ASA strike? We will find out in the next 2 years I guess.

Again, you have never responded to my questions. Who created the current system? Mainline pilots. Who could end the current system? Mainline pilots. They are the only ones with scope (at least the ones that are not bankrupt yet). We cannot exceed the agreed upon 43-49% of DCI flying agreed to in DALPA's PWA. Why don't you understand this. The pilots that control all DAL flying, DALPA, have allowed 43-49% of their flying to be performed by DCI. No more, no less, 43 - 49%. It is soooooooo simple.

Enough, I 'm out of this one.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/16/2003 9:05:16 AM RJStud wrote:

Actually, you can get a max of 70/90 sometimes out of Atlanta. It depends on whether you need a take-off alternate in ATL and the WX in Key West. The trip back to ATL is where we have problems. It will get a little better when they fix the latest fuel AD (we have to carry an extra 3000 lbs. of fuel right now).
----------------
[/blockquote]



A take off alternate? I don't know if your airline flies under some different rules, but all the airlines I know of, a take off alternate doesn't change your burn off or your min fuel. The issue isn't getting in to EYW, it is getting out.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/14/2003 1:10:47 PM DLFlyer31 wrote:

I'm not a pilot nor expert on aircraft performance, however the reason I heard that the CRJ100/200 was restricted was the lack of leading edge slats. Without the slats, the CRJ100/200 need a longer runway if they are maxed out on weight.

The CRJ700 has leading edge slats. However, DL does still have some restrictions on the CRJ700 that operates ATL-EYW.

The 727 was built in part to operate out of short runways. This made it possible for the 727 to enter many smaller airports that had previously been left out of the jet age.

I'm sure there's a pilot out there who could give you a more technical explanation.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Actually, the EMB-135/140/145's do not have any leading edge devices either. From what I understand, the 135's that CHQ use can carry a full load of pax and bags out of EYW, but it's still tight.
 

Latest posts