Delta TechOps wins Top Shop award

[WorldTraveler]

dawg
first, as much as you want to see all of that work brought back inhouse, you have to acknowledge that the ship is turning and change takes time.

second, regardless of what you think of any company, you have to believe there was a rational reason for a business leader to make the decision they did. obviously, AA execs had different perspectives on MRO work just as DL has had different perspectives under different leaders.

third, DL's more complex fleet argues AGAINST more insourcing because it should be easier to insource with a small number of engine types than having it spread over many types - but that is not what is happening.

fourth, AA got some benefit from having TAESL as a partnership with RR - which is the same principle I have said exists with DL... use MRO work to help reduce AA's costs or at least use AA's capabilities which are developed for its own fleet to make money.

I don't see how there can be an argument for DL or any airline insourcing if they don't do what they do well AND want to bring that work in from other carriers...

and I still argue that part of the reason why some carriers don't want to bring MRO work in is because it increases the number of employees necessary which gives labor more power.

You can argue that isn't an issue but I believe it very much is.

 

[topDawg]

dawg
first, as much as you want to see all of that work brought back inhouse, you have to acknowledge that the ship is turning and change takes time.

it is work that should have never been sent out in the first place. Somethings were very, very short sighted by TechOps management. But that is what happens when you put fools in charge.
Tony should have been pushing for a new test cell before the merger. Delta is way late to the party and because of that it has cost the company revenue chances.
 

second, regardless of what you think of any company, you have to believe there was a rational reason for a business leader to make the decision they did. obviously, AA execs had different perspectives on MRO work just as DL has had different perspectives under different leaders.

no I don't. I have been here to long. Airlines do what is the cool thing to do at the time. Airlines and good management do not go together. There have been a few people in the industry, don't get me wrong, but the majority of the industry has been run by fools.
on top of that the constant pissing contests between labor and management have helped no one. I can't think of an industry has has more failure that is simply due to egos than airlines.

Horton went for cuts (and a good bit have been reversed) simply because it was what wall street wanted them to do. I don't believe, for a second, that Arpey (not a labor champion in his own rights) would keep so much work in-house if it was costing the company so much money. Like so many other times AA used labor to cover up mismanagement. Delta used labor to cover for mismanagement. United used labor to cover for mismanagement.
Its low hanging fruit and easy to blame. Very few CEOs or management types have the balls to say THEY screwed up.
 

third, DL's more complex fleet argues AGAINST more insourcing because it should be easier to insource with a small number of engine types than having it spread over many types - but that is not what is happening.

Dumb argument. LH says hey. 
 

fourth, AA got some benefit from having TAESL as a partnership with RR - which is the same principle I have said exists with DL... use MRO work to help reduce AA's costs or at least use AA's capabilities which are developed for its own fleet to make money.

how do you get TAESL as a cost savings? its AA employees working under the same terms as the guys in the TULE engine shop.
I think you don't understand what TAESL is. Its an AA engine shop that get TotalCare work and has some Rollers Marketing people there. thats its. Its not even the smallest bit of a difference than Delta overhauling a FedEx engine.
 

I don't see how there can be an argument for DL or any airline insourcing if they don't do what they do well AND want to bring that work in from other carriers...

plenty of airlines do work in-house but don't do much if any for other airlines. Lower costs are lower costs.
but its not just about the cost. Its about the cost, the time, the supply chain, the laws, etc. etc. etc. So it might be best for Delta to overhaul its own MD88s in-house but it wouldn't be the best option for AA to send them to DL.
Having said that, the 219 is a 100% Delta engine. they (AFAIK) do not have a single MRO customer for the 219s. Why? could be a number of different factors.
 

and I still argue that part of the reason why some carriers don't want to bring MRO work in is because it increases the number of employees necessary which gives labor more power.

I KNOW that is part of it. Hell Northwest was a frickin huge MRO. You know why Anderson and Steeland wanted it gone? one less Union to deal with. Short sweet and to the point.
egos man. They kill this industry. ON BOTH SIDES

I have seen the Unions ask for and do some very stupid things. Some of the things those AA guys expect is simply bat **** crazy. Only working during the week. Having Christmas off and the hangar shut down. 60 bucks an hour....
I almost wish that to get an A&P you had to take some business and economic classes. JMO.

 

[WorldTraveler]

thank you for agreeing that the labor-mgmt. environment in the industry HAS cost jobs. NW was tired of dealing with its own mechanics and wasn't about to give outside work which would inflate their numbers.

NW isn't alone among airlines that have chosen not to insource to reduce the influence of unions.

DL Tech Ops is willing to insource in large part because unionization has the least chance of working in Tech Ops of other large depts. at DL. and I would also bet you that DL mgmt. is only now beginning to increase MSP maintenance again because they are 1. comfortable that Tech Ops won't unionize and 2. to show other MSP work groups what happens when you play nice with the company.

LH certainly does believe in a complex fleet and has the maintenance capabilities to both support it but also benefit by selling its own services. But look at other parts of the airline (dept) and they outsource far larger parts of their own operation. The German Wings accident was a reminder that European airlines have outsourcing of mainline aircraft size "domestic" operations.

Mgmt is just like any other discipline - there are "fad" ideas that everyone jumps on including outsourcing. I'm not defending the decisions but simply noting that you are correct but things have gone both ways. And remember that DL's current mgmt. is more contrarian to the status quo than any other airline in the US - owning a refinery which is now profitable, buying used aircraft, and yes, growing maintenance insourcing.

and I am absolutely hoping that DL will grow Tech Ops more and more and the way to do it is prove that Tech Ops can very reliably and cost effectively do DL's own work and bring work in and be profitable doing it - and not everything that DL does can be done inhouse or for others. DL went both ways with maintaining Deltamatic which is also the only single airline inhouse only large mainframe CRS in the industry.

and let's remember that DL is growing mainline while shrinking regional carrier operations faster than AA or UA; this year alone AA is retiring more mainline jets than they are buying new ones while regional carrier operations are growing.

The pendulum does swing. and DL's current mgmt. team recognizes more and more the value of doing work inhouse where it can be done - in contrast to what other airlines are doing and bringing work in to DL to a larger extent than many other airlines are doing.

 

[topDawg]

thank you for agreeing that the labor-mgmt. environment in the industry HAS cost jobs. NW was tired of dealing with its own mechanics and wasn't about to give outside work which would inflate their numbers.

There is no question about it. 
This is the problem I have with the industry. Labor is stuck in the 1960s. Good management is nearly impossible to find.  
 

NW isn't alone among airlines that have chosen not to insource to reduce the influence of unions.

I wont say that is the complete reason. 
One thing you have to remember is the "me too"
During BK, even at Delta, cuts had to be across the bored and fair. Didn't matter, in some cases, what the costs were but were more about not pissing the other work groups off.
 
I mean how do you go to pilots and ask them for 300 76 seat jets for DCI but don't outsource any maintenance? And the effect wall street has on airline outsourcing, but having very very little data to know what the real costs are.  
 

DL Tech Ops is willing to insource in large part because unionization has the least chance of working in Tech Ops of other large depts. at DL. and I would also bet you that DL mgmt. is only now beginning to increase MSP maintenance again because they are 1. comfortable that Tech Ops won't unionize and 2. to show other MSP work groups what happens when you play nice with the company.

only part of it. 
The fact of the matter is ATL is full. ATL is so full Bay 10 (a paint bay) is used for DeltaNorth work and they have even been doing c checks in bay 12(also a paint bay) Why? they have no room. 
To bring in two lines of 330 c-checks Delta had to 1) build a new hangar 2) use MSP. Well hard to justify a new hangar when MSP is only drop ins and two bays of c-checks.
Delta isn't just now building up MSP. They have been doing drop in engine work and V2500 QEC work for a while and started doing the t-tail work not long after the merger (when 320 c-checks took the tail space here)
 
I imagine Delta wishes they still had the Eastern hangar. But it is what it is now.  
 

LH certainly does believe in a complex fleet and has the maintenance capabilities to both support it but also benefit by selling its own services.

LH is, exactly, what I think TechOps "should" be. (even AF/KL E&M is a good goal for DTO)
I don't believe there is any work that we cant do better and cheaper than most of the vendors.  
 

But look at other parts of the airline (dept) and they outsource far larger parts of their own operation. The German Wings accident was a reminder that European airlines have outsourcing of mainline aircraft size "domestic" operations.

Not really apples to apples. Euro carriers can't really be compared to US carriers. A big reason, that we don't have in this country, low cost high speed train options. 
having said that. LH is well under the amount of airplanes they outsource compared to Delta. True Delta has only 76 seaters or under, but that is due to much better Unions in the US than Europe. Don't think for a minute Delta wouldn't have done the same in BK if they could have. 
 
They wanted to. 
 

Mgmt is just like any other discipline - there are "fad" ideas that everyone jumps on including outsourcing.

exactly. 
 

I'm not defending the decisions but simply noting that you are correct but things have gone both ways. And remember that DL's current mgmt. is more contrarian to the status quo than any other airline in the US - owning a refinery which is now profitable, buying used aircraft, and yes, growing maintenance insourcing.

Right now I agree. I still don't think they are doing enough though. 
 

and I am absolutely hoping that DL will grow Tech Ops more and more and the way to do it is prove that Tech Ops can very reliably and cost effectively do DL's own work and bring work in and be profitable doing it - and not everything that DL does can be done inhouse or for others. DL went both ways with maintaining Deltamatic which is also the only single airline inhouse only large mainframe CRS in the industry.

This is where I think AA's unions are screwing up. Some of them want to drive costs way up, others "only care about AA work" 
Both are equally stupid and short sighted. I want Delta to do basically all of its MX work in-house...but I also want them overhauling other airlines engines, components, APUs, gear, airframes etc. I think the best chance we have as a craft is to work with management to get something cost effective that saves the company on its fleet and makes the company money on other fleets. 
 

and let's remember that DL is growing mainline while shrinking regional carrier operations faster than AA or UA; this year alone AA is retiring more mainline jets than they are buying new ones while regional carrier operations are growing.

Not apples to apples. AA is ~200 frames bigger than Delta with a plan of staying just south of 1,000 airplanes. They are growing on the big end and the little end. 
 
Delta is quickly becomes a short haul airlines with the minimum wide body fleet. DALPA needs to knock that scope out of the park with this contract. If not they will be northwest..... 2.0.
 
(and yes it matters to me, big planes need more man hours, this more staff thus making TopDawg even more senior. QOL and all that )  
 

The pendulum does swing. and DL's current mgmt. team recognizes more and more the value of doing work inhouse where it can be done - in contrast to what other airlines are doing and bringing work in to DL to a larger extent than many other airlines are doing.

Thats not quite true just yet. 
 
Lets see what happens at AA before we throw that card on the table. 
having said that the trend is going the right way. I still think we have a long way to go and hope to see it keep moving up. As i have told you, still a lot of items, even outside of airframe overhauls, Delta needs to bring in house. Really want that total outsourcing % to be in the 30-35% range.(and i mean not counting insourcing revenue) (I really want to see it at about 0-5% honestly, but baby steps) 

 

[WorldTraveler]

well said, dawg, but just a couple points.

first, the size of fleet does not determine how much maintenance is done. AA has a larger fleet but DL and UA get far more usage out of its fleet; that is part of the nature of the early stages of a merger but DL and UA are generating similar if not more ASMs than AA on the int'l side - where the big iron works - than AA is.

AA has a big domestic network but their traffic stats show they are shrinking the mainline fleet in order to grow regional operations because they had such restrictive scope on 76 seaters that they have to add 76 seaters in order to make a lot of markets work. AA either has to use a lot of regional aircraft because of the large number of hubs it has or start closing hubs. So far, they are leaning toward the former.

In contrast, DL is bringing more flying back to mainline AND growing mainline in terms of total size compared to AA and UA which are either shifting flying from mainline to large RJs or are outright growing RJ operations while shrinking domestic mainline.

Perhaps you missed it in the most recent financials, but DL's domestic network is 50% larger than UA's.

part of the reason why UA is facing so many financial headwinds is because it is such an int'l carrier that it is far more exposed to int'l economic and political crises than DL is. DL's int'l network still has a higher percentage of US origin passengers than either AA or UA which helps insulate DL from int'l crises including the strong dollar right now.

as for Europe, it isn't so much about the power of unions but about the more socialistic governments which are much more labor friendly. Still, when you consider that the big 3 in Europe are codesharing or have regional operators that are using 320 and 737 size jets, their scope is far weaker than in the US.

and let's see how well the EU3 fare after a few more years of 380s from the ME3 dropping into every route they fly at the same time that LCCs operate the routes within that trains don't.

I would dare so that the outlook for Europe's traditional airlines is far more clouded and scary for labor than exists in the US.

 

[topDawg]

first, the size of fleet does not determine how much maintenance is done. AA has a larger fleet but DL and UA get far more usage out of its fleet; that is part of the nature of the early stages of a merger but DL and UA are generating similar if not more ASMs than AA on the int'l side - where the big iron works - than AA is.

That is true only to a point. Unless you have 900 new airplanes then you are doing work. Even most airplanes get their first c-checks in a 18-24 months of flying.
 

AA has a big domestic network but their traffic stats show they are shrinking the mainline fleet in order to grow regional operations because they had such restrictive scope on 76 seaters that they have to add 76 seaters in order to make a lot of markets work. AA either has to use a lot of regional aircraft because of the large number of hubs it has or start closing hubs. So far, they are leaning toward the former.

I look at a frame by frame. AA is clearly going to be shifting some flying to big RJs, but that is something Delta was able to do 5 years ago. Remember Delta has 200+ big RJs.
 

In contrast, DL is bringing more flying back to mainline AND growing mainline in terms of total size compared to AA and UA which are either shifting flying from mainline to large RJs or are outright growing RJ operations while shrinking domestic mainline.

Delta is almost adding a 76 seater for every 717 they add. FWIW.
 

Perhaps you missed it in the most recent financials, but DL's domestic network is 50% larger than UA's.

United and Jeff are Leo Mullen and 50 seat jets at Delta. I'm not shocked at all.
 

part of the reason why UA is facing so many financial headwinds is because it is such an int'l carrier that it is far more exposed to int'l economic and political crises than DL is. DL's int'l network still has a higher percentage of US origin passengers than either AA or UA which helps insulate DL from int'l crises including the strong dollar right now.

I don't disagree
 

as for Europe, it isn't so much about the power of unions but about the more socialistic governments which are much more labor friendly. Still, when you consider that the big 3 in Europe are codesharing or have regional operators that are using 320 and 737 size jets, their scope is far weaker than in the US.

but you act like it hasn't happened before in the US. Generally it was with a B-scale but DeltaExpress is a great example.....
 

 

[WorldTraveler]

I still have my Delta Express t-shirt and although it is a little worse for the wear, it did outlast the business concept by a long shot.

and I am also aware that DL's fleet shrank post NW merger in favor of RJs - and DL and NW both had large numbers of large RJs on order at the time of the merger.

I am just saying that AA is now in that phase of rationalizing its network and will be adding more large RJs because their network demands it and because they have the labor ability to do it. Still DL is moving in the opposite direction now.

and the number of aircraft does not directly correlate to maintenance needs because AA's network is not that much larger than DL or UA's despite having many more aircraft. DL and UA simply use their fleet more efficiently - which is a product of their mergers.

 

[topDawg]

I still have my Delta Express t-shirt and although it is a little worse for the wear, it did outlast the business concept by a long shot.

better idea than song.....

and I am also aware that DL's fleet shrank post NW merger in favor of RJs - and DL and NW both had large numbers of large RJs on order at the time of the merger.

really and truly I'm not sure this is the real case. I know we parked the DC9s(and some 757s) but we also brought in 50 MD90s. So I am not sure how small the fleet got post merger, but during BK Delta went big RJ crazy.

I am just saying that AA is now in that phase of rationalizing its network and will be adding more large RJs because their network demands it and because they have the labor ability to do it. Still DL is moving in the opposite direction now.

but Delta isn't moving in the opposite direction. Like i said, they are wrapping up the 40 CR9 order for 9E and I believe just signed up for 10 or so more E75s for S5. They still have 20 more frames they can add if they want. (and they will just give it time)
They aren't doing it as fast as AA, no because AA just got the green light to match Delta. At the end of the day AA and DL will pretty much have the same number of big RJs. AA is also trying to park 50 seaters (or smaller) as fast as they can. They are behind Delta, yes
but Delta isn't going in the opposite direction. Matter of fact the only one of the big three that has or has plans to park any big RJ is.....

United.

and the number of aircraft does not directly correlate to maintenance needs because AA's network is not that much larger than DL or UA's despite having many more aircraft. DL and UA simply use their fleet more efficiently - which is a product of their mergers.

Network size has little to do with maintenance needs. I would argue that if AA has more planes than Delta but a network they same size they are probably doing MORE MX work.

and the stats back that up. Delta has been having days where they have exactly zero airplanes down for non routine MX. Zero MX cancellations etc. AA and UA(and WN) not so much.
I think the last thing I heard was for Delta to run like AA or UA does they would have to add something like 20 airplanes. It was a crazy number.

but I do get what you are saying, fleet count is not the only thing that matters in MX. But i think that the thing that is overlooked (or not understood) is just how fast new airplanes start having work (heavy) done on them. So while AA is saying they aren't putting airplanes in the hangars, they only have a few more months till they will have to start c-check lines for the little buses. That MX vacation is very short, its not years and years like some over on the AA side make it out to be. That is simply more misinformation spread by the company and the union.

(the **** show that is AA MX is the exact reason why I don't want a union. I have never seen so many people in charge of a union that say things that are just wrong.)

 

[WorldTraveler]

traffic statistics are the most accurate way to know what is happening with regional carrier vs. mainline capacity.

You seem to want to forget - or maybe don't realize - that a big reason why DL wants and needs to grow mainline is because growth is what keeps costs down. LCCs have proven that principle for years. If an airline doesn't grow, then costs will go up because people move up the scale faster than senior people move out the door.

Regional operations are a big way that DL can reduce regional carrier operations and grow mainline - by taking back work that was done by regional carriers.

"big" RJs are only 26 seats larger than "small" RJs - at least for DL. DL is getting rid of RJ capacity faster than any other US carrier, including United.

DL's latest traffic results will be out early next week.

take a look at the latest line and then compare it to AA and UA when they get around to reporting their traffic - about a week later.

and just like with a lot of things, it is possible to do the work proactively in advance or spend more time and inconvenience after the fact fixing things - and inconveniencing passegners.

I don't know who at DL is responsible for the plan to turnaround maintenance reliability at DL but the thinking is not traditional and anyone only has to look at cancellations at other carriers to see why DL is so distinct.

 

[topDawg]

You seem to want to forget - or maybe don't realize - that a big reason why DL wants and needs to grow mainline is because growth is what keeps costs down. LCCs have proven that principle for years. If an airline doesn't grow, then costs will go up because people move up the scale faster than senior people move out the door.

two things, better pension would get the old folks out the door too. Delta wants my profit sharing like rumored i have made it clear i will sell SOME of it for matching the pilots 401K match. Does it help me out? not that much but that is something we need to fight for the young guys....

having said that, i do agree with that you are saying. I don't forget Delta is growing mainline but you seem to want to forget the fact that Delta already has 200+ big RJs. PMAA had 60ish.... so all they are doing now is catching up to the bar ALPA keeps setting.

Regional operations are a big way that DL can reduce regional carrier operations and grow mainline - by taking back work that was done by regional carriers.

i don't disagree, but again, Delta is still adding planes to DCI. They are parking 50 seat jets but adding 76 seat jets.

"big" RJs are only 26 seats larger than "small" RJs - at least for DL. DL is getting rid of RJ capacity faster than any other US carrier, including United.

every seat matters.

take a look at the latest line and then compare it to AA and UA when they get around to reporting their traffic - about a week later.

I don't need to. I'm not saying your wrong. I am simply pointing out AA and CO had the most restrictive scope clauses in the industry. All that is happening is AA and UA(due to CO merger) are catching up to what Delta started 10 years ago. So AA/UA are growing RJ capacity. Very clear. But what you can't seem to grasp (or don't want to) is they are simply still playing catch up to Delta.

I don't know who at DL is responsible for the plan to turnaround maintenance reliability at DL but the thinking is not traditional and anyone only has to look at cancellations at other carriers to see why DL is so distinct.

Delta is starting to do exactly what i have been harping on for years that you just can't understand.
These vendors do **** work. Its cheap (ish) but ****. They have quickly found out that doing **** work cost the company money. That is why you are seeing more and more work coming back in-house. Simple logic is what is turning the operations around. DTO has gotten rid of a lot of the bean counters and put people in charge that are very logical in what they do.

Even when you on the hangar in mexico and staff it with your management.....oddly enough when you higher **** workers, for **** pay.........still get **** work. It isn't rocket science why no other airline has been willing to touch that turd with a 10 foot pole.


the problem Delta has now is that so much work was sent out they can't just flip a switch. capacity is also an issue in some areas. (and as you see, some of that is being handled. But the engine shop stuff should have been done 10 years ago. sadly is has cost Delta a ton in revenue they could be making.)

 

[WorldTraveler]

you touched on three subjects.

first - pension. remember that DL employees other than the PMDL pilots have FROZEN, not terminated pensions. No non-pilot DL employee has lost any of his/her pension benefits or the rules of those pension plans. Remember that PMDL non-pilot pension plans included the right to begin pension benefits as early as 52. you can tell me what other airlines allowed that but in the case of AA employees who have frozen and not terminated pension benefits, they can't do that. Even with the social security offset, the reason why DL has been able to convince as many senior workers to leave is because they can access their pension benefits early enough to have a second career.

as for current pension benefits, you can argue rightfully that DL employees need to see improved retirement funding now but the huge profit sharing payouts that DL employees are seeing right now is a HUGE opportunity to fund 401ks and that is precisely where WN profit sharing goes. DL employees should be funneling huge amounts of that profit sharing check into their 401ks and in the process also eliminate much of the extra withholding that comes from lump sum pay as large as what DL profit sharing is becoming. and according to some DL pilots, the profit sharing checks for them are pushing many of them into the Alternative Minimum Tax which is all the more reason to not plan to spend that money but to push it into retirement savings.


second, I don't disagree with your arguments about the quality and long-term cost of sending lots of heavy maintenance out - but DL is not any worse off in that regard than its peers at other airlines including WN that have long sent large amounts of their maintenance out the door since the beginning of that company. and again, the issue for DL is that previous mgmt. teams dismantled huge amounts of the maintenance infrastructure around the country and that cannot be quickly rebuilt - and on the same basis AA will not bring back much of the work which they AA plus US have sent out up to this point. DL is turning the corner - the first time since 9/11 - in making significant investments in maintenance facilities to bring work back to DL on a long-term basis. that is a good sign but those investments are laying the framework for how maintenance will be run for years to come.

and third, you sound just like a pilot with your "not a single more large RJ" nonsense but it really isn't supported by even the most basic logic.

even with the most restrictive scope language, AA and UA BOTH had regional carrier route systems that carried as much or more traffic as DL's did.

Work that is being done by outsourced companies is not mainline work, REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE of the aircraft used.

To try to portray large RJs as some huge boogey man while excusing the flying that hundreds more 50 seat aircraft do is beyond logic, esp. since UA (and CO before it) has used its 50 seat RJs to fly routes more than halfway acorss the country - 3 plus hour flights.

DL is the only one of the big 3 that has been consistently shrinking its total regional carrier operation and shifting that flying to mainline. UA is now starting to do the same but on a smaller scale than DL, likely because UA is now beginning to have options to get rid of the huge number of 50 seaters in their fleet and to rationalize their hubs.

AA is still a long ways off from being able to reduce total regional carrier flying because they haven't rationalized their hubs and don't have enough large RJs on order to both fix their network issues including at ORD which is heavily large RJ dependent and also remove 50 seat aircraft.

further, DL DID agree to reduce total RJ flying in return for bringing in the 717 which is a key part of DL's strategy to increase its mainline presence. Given that DL is acquiring every additional 717 it can get and there are rumors that DL wants to place an order for new build 100 seat class jets - perhaps the E or E2 jet - DL recognizes the value of small jets in the mainline fleet, something AA and UA have not done. add in that even if ALPA further allows DL to trade more large RJs with likely elimination of 50 seat flying much faster than DL earlier predicted, and DL will have upgauged its network while shifting more total flying back to mainline than either AA or UA have done - and still provided more jobs for DL employees across the board while putting mainline service into more cities than any other US airline has done or can do.


just as with maintenance, DL can't just flip a switch with its regional operations but they have been committed to a strategy of BOTH shifting regional carrier flying to mainline WHILE ALSO upgauging the remaining regional carrier flying to larger RJs.

whether some people will see it or not, DL's strategy is bringing jobs back to DL people while also reducing DL's regional carrier CASM and improving the customer service experience - both of which are driving revenue premiums for DL as a whole.

 

[700UW]

Before our pension was terminated for mechanic and related we could have gone out at 52.

 

[WorldTraveler]

precisely.... before it was terminated.

That highlights a big difference between terminated and frozen pensions. Frozen pensions are still run under the rules of the sponsoring carrier. Given that AA and DL are the only major airlines that have frozen and not terminated employees and I don't think AA's pensions allow a departure w/ benefits that early - correct me if I am wrong - DL employees do have an advantage in being able to move on to a second career which can easily be done by 52. Since DL has offered early retirement programs and that have allowed people to leave much earlier than 52, wait until 52, and still start getting their pension benefits at 52 while working somewhere else, DL's pension benefits are still very generous compared to that at other legacy carriers.

 

[700UW]

I can collect my terminated pension when I turn 50, nothing has changed in that regard.

 

[WorldTraveler]

a US Air pension?