Airline Pilot Forums

Can someone help me get my hands on the new Delta Contract?

I want to compare the AMR CLA (84 seat at ????) and LBO (79 seat @ 40% narrow body fleet) against DAL scope.

APA/USAPA should NOT give up any more scope than DALPA has.

Can someone help me get my hands on the new Delta Contract?

I want to compare the AMR CLA (84 seat at ????) and LBO (79 seat @ 40% narrow body fleet) against DAL scope.

APA/USAPA should NOT give up any more scope than DALPA has.

To be clear, DALPA did not give up not even one seat. 76 seats is it for any AIRCRAFT flown under DCI. DCI seats have been significantly reduced under this TA. Of course it is good spin to float the Fallacy that because 200's were park and replaced with CRJ9's that it was a MASSIVE concession..... LESS PILOTS AT DCI FLYING DAL PASSENGERS and LESS DCI seats in total avail to to be sold on DCI under this TA is not giving up anything. It is a capture without question. I am not sure why any other pilot group at any other airline can make comment on this TA until they get their own house in order. I hope all Majors leap frog our agreement and do even better. But let us not look at the facts because it does get in the way of reality. Of course JMHO!:rolleyes:

Does anyone know the upper limit of 76 seat jets allowed at Delta?

To be clear, DALPA did not give up not even one seat. 76 seats is it for any AIRCRAFT flown under DCI. DCI seats have been significantly reduced under this TA. Of course it is good spin to float the Fallacy that because 200's were park and replaced with CRJ9's that it was a MASSIVE concession..... LESS PILOTS AT DCI FLYING DAL PASSENGERS and LESS DCI seats in total avail to to be sold on DCI under this TA is not giving up anything. It is a capture without question. I am not sure why any other pilot group at any other airline can make comment on this TA until they get their own house in order. I hope all Majors leap frog our agreement and do even better. But let us not look at the facts because it does get in the way of reality. Of course JMHO!:rolleyes:

Thanks for your post. Please understand that my post is about gathering information and not insulting Delta's contract. My fear is that the industry will relax scope far beyond what DALPA recently established.

84 seat scope at the new American would eventually impact Delta and UAL pilots.

Congratulations on reducing your DCI flying by getting rid of 50 seat aircraft, but they were going away anyway. I will always wonder if Delta could have put the new 76 seat jets on the Delta seniority list for Delta pilots to fly. The resulting hiring way alone may have forced DCI carriers to drop 50 seat flying due to short staffing.

Cheers. ;)

LESS PILOTS AT DCI FLYING DAL PASSENGERS and LESS DCI seats in total avail to to be sold on DCI under this TA is not giving up anything. :

Yep.

Just give them 100 737's next time.

Same argument would work.

Brilliant!:D

First you post this.......


Thanks for your post. Please understand that my post is about gathering information and not insulting Delta's contract. My fear is that the industry will relax scope far beyond what DALPA recently established.

84 seat scope at the new American would eventually impact Delta and UAL pilots.

Then you post this.....

Congratulations on reducing your DCI flying by getting rid of 50 seat aircraft, but they were going away anyway. I will always wonder if Delta could have put the new 76 seat jets on the Delta seniority list for Delta pilots to fly. The resulting hiring way alone may have forced DCI carriers to drop 50 seat flying due to short staffing.

Cheers. ;)

Nice job drifting on only your second post of this thread.... :rolleyes:

Again, just keep ignoring the facts. I think you are implying that our group would actually give up 737 to DCI, really? 200's may or may not have gone away. DAL could have also just increased the CRJ900's by 25 or so without us signing the agreement and offset losses on the 50's and shrunk mainline even more. I guess if you dont know what you are talking about and dont look at the contract, you could just keep spouting BS.

DALPA did approach the company about flying 76 seat aircraft, we were rejected. Let me know how that works for you when you go to MGMT at your airline and prove us all wrong. Id love to see you do it. Our TA left a lot to be desired, just be sure you capture your scope in a meaningful way, surpass 42% pay raise (approx across the board) to MATCH us, exceed our work rules and secure a better term of the contract.

So again tell me how DALPA screwed you and the industry??

So why not just start the thread by asking if you could get a copy of the DAL contract, because you would like to compare it and improve upon your position for negotiations. That you think you would like to do better than the DAL TA. (not a DAL pilot that would not want that to happen for all carriers).

But instead, you start a thread insulting the very pilots you want something from and include false hoods to state your case for wanting the contract..... Really??

Our TA left a lot to be desired, just be sure you capture your scope in a meaningful way, surpass 42% pay raise (approx across the board) to MATCH us, exceed our work rules and secure a better term of the contract.



Current pay rate for 757 F/O here is $116. DAL is $134.

If we got a 42% pay raise, it would bring us up to $165 ($30 more than DAL).

You need to stop exaggerating your TA bud. ;)

Current pay rate for 757 F/O here is $116. DAL is $134.

If we got a 42% pay raise, it would bring us up to $165 ($30 more than DAL).

You need to stop exaggerating your TA bud. ;)

So it will take you a 15% raise to equal ours. Think that's gonna happen AND put the scope genie YOU have back in the bottle?

I hope so....

We're all counting on ya.

Current pay rate for 757 F/O here is $116. DAL is $134.

If we got a 42% pay raise, it would bring us up to $165 ($30 more than DAL).

You need to stop exaggerating your TA bud. ;)

32.7% needed to match our top 757 rate in 2015. Good luck, and I'm not being a smartass.

32.7% needed to match our top 757 rate in 2015. Good luck, and I'm not being a smartass.

I've learned NOT to look too far in the future in this business. UAL went from BILLION dollar profits and industry leading pay to BK in less than 2 years. American filed BK with 4 BILLION in the bank.

Good luck to us all!:eek:

Current pay rate for 757 F/O here is $116. DAL is $134.

If we got a 42% pay raise, it would bring us up to $165 ($30 more than DAL).

You need to stop exaggerating your TA bud. ;)


Who is talking current rates? i hope you guys exceed our contract by 2015...... so I see no where I exaggerated anything BUD! Except maybe I am exaggerating my politeness at the moment towards you kind sir.....

Just even get a contract on paper over the next 3 years.

Why did this turn into such a pi$$ing contest, I think someone was only looking for some info. I think the upper limit on 70 seat and larger aircraft is now 325. While these aircraft actually hold 90 seats they are currently limited to an upper limit of 76 seats (which mgt will want to increase IMO)

Flyby,

I agree with you with the respect that the 50 seaters were going away anyhow and we fell for it and wound up giving them an additional 70 larger RJ's and thus I was not a proponent of this agreement, but alas was in the minority so we have what we have.

Untied,

Yes that philosophy would be the same and I have seen us just give them more and more scope through the years, makes me sick. First it was just a few 70 seaters, then more and more and now look at what we have. We as a group have not done well in defending our jobs, something I blame ALPA directly for since in my eyes they are in a position of having a BIG conflict of interests and cannot represent both groups as they should, and that is why there is somewhat of a movement to replace them at our property.

I've learned NOT to look too far in the future in this business. UAL went from BILLION dollar profits and industry leading pay to BK in less than 2 years. American filed BK with 4 BILLION in the bank.

Good luck to us all!:eek:

Well what an interesting post!!!!!

Why did this turn into such a pi$$ing contest, I think someone was only looking for some info. I think the upper limit on 70 seat and larger aircraft is now 325. While these aircraft actually hold 90 seats they are currently limited to an upper limit of 76 seats (which mgt will want to increase IMO)

Flyby,

I agree with you with the respect that the 50 seaters were going away anyhow and we fell for it and wound up giving them an additional 70 larger RJ's and thus I was not a proponent of this agreement, but alas was in the minority so we have what we have.

Untied,

Yes that philosophy would be the same and I have seen us just give them more and more scope through the years, makes me sick. First it was just a few 70 seaters, then more and more and now look at what we have. We as a group have not done well in defending our jobs, something I blame ALPA directly for since in my eyes they are in a position of having a BIG conflict of interests and cannot represent both groups as they should, and that is why there is somewhat of a movement to replace them at our property.


The thread was not started with just a request. It was implied Falsely and not based on fact that DALPA screwed the industry.....just read thread starter...:mad:

I did read it and I did not get that impression at all.

Why did this turn into such a pi$$ing contest, I think someone was only looking for some info. I think the upper limit on 70 seat and larger aircraft is now 325. While these aircraft actually hold 90 seats they are currently limited to an upper limit of 76 seats (which mgt will want to increase IMO)

Flyby,

I agree with you with the respect that the 50 seaters were going away anyhow and we fell for it and wound up giving them an additional 70 larger RJ's and thus I was not a proponent of this agreement, but alas was in the minority so we have what we have.

Untied,

Yes that philosophy would be the same and I have seen us just give them more and more scope through the years, makes me sick. First it was just a few 70 seaters, then more and more and now look at what we have. We as a group have not done well in defending our jobs, something I blame ALPA directly for since in my eyes they are in a position of having a BIG conflict of interests and cannot represent both groups as they should, and that is why there is somewhat of a movement to replace them at our property.

Yeah, and that someone gave the DAL pilots a not so disguised fist to the head... Exactly like you did in your above post.. How do you expect us to react?

Your post is a study in contradiction in and of itself. First you mention that we got the RJ problem under control, and then you go on to say we gave it away... well... which is it?

And ALPA is not some nebulous monster that is out of control. ALPA is us. Just like the presidential election, if we are not involved in the process, we get what we deserve. It is easy to sit home and throw grenades from your keyboard, but actually getting involved in the process takes a little effort. The conflict of interest theory gives you a convenient scapegoat that has little basis in fact.

Since it seems that you are a DAL pilot, I cannot believe you are defending this. Just sit back and watch the process at UAL. Let's see if all that tough talk by untied comes to bear any edible fruit. I know where my money will be on his plan.

Can someone help me get my hands on the new Delta Contract?

I want to compare the AMR CLA (84 seat at ????) and LBO (79 seat @ 40% narrow body fleet) against DAL scope.

APA/USAPA should NOT give up any more scope than DALPA has.
The OP's opening......


The thread was not started with just a request. It was implied Falsely and not based on fact that DALPA screwed the industry.....just read thread starter...:mad:
Reading the above, you sure are ultra sensitive in interpreting what was actually written. Through what twisted pair of drama laced glasses do you prescribe when seeing it as so?

Lighten up.

The OP's opening......



Reading the above, you sure are ultra sensitive in interpreting what was actually written. Through what twisted pair of drama laced glasses do you prescribe when seeing it as so?

Lighten up.

The way I read that is that DALPA gave up scope. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The way I read that is that DAL gave up scope. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We'll that's up for interpretation from one person to the next.....BUT was not written in the opening.

From the opening, the OP expressed that he/she felt that APA/USAPA, if faced with the choice, should not give up SCOPE any more than DAL's most recently ratified contract. How is that 'accusing' of DALPA's actions, or inactions???

If you, or others, choose to coddle those remarks that DALPA 'gave away' SCOPE......have at it!! That's NOT what was written. If you have some sensitivity beyond that, certainly not my issue, one that you may need to explore.

T,

I never said or implied that we had the RJ's under control, we have just given more and more of them over the years. First it was just 50 seats, then just a few 70 seats, then more and more. How is that "under control?"

Maybe we need a fist to the head!! In my eyes, the 50 seaters WERE going away eventually so we DID give a concession in this regard, when will we wake up and quit giving away our jobs. Yes, in the short term we did get fewer seats in the RJ's, but long term we gave more larger frames away.

ALPA is us, could not agree more but I think that many of us do not read all that ALPA puts out and just goes along with what they recommend, and they HAVE recommended giving up these seats through the years, something I have never agreed with and said so with my vote, but I am only one and so will live with the results.

We'll that's up for interpretation from one person to the next.....BUT was not written in the opening.

From the opening, the OP expressed that he/she felt that APA/USAPA, if faced with the choice, should not give up SCOPE any more than DAL's most recently ratified contract. How is that 'accusing' of DALPA's actions, or inactions???

If you, or others, choose to coddle those remarks that DALPA 'gave away' SCOPE......have at it!! That's NOT what was written. If you have some sensitivity beyond that, certainly not my issue, one that you may need to explore.

OK.. fair enough. Besides, I know what we have, what was accomplished, and I shouldn't give a rat's ass what a keyboard warrior like untied thinks. Like FIIGMO, it rubbed me the wrong way. So I'll let it go. However, if he had phrased it more like " APA/USAPA needs to recapture scope to the degree that DALPA did", then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As it is, it insinuates that APA/USAPA's scope is better than ours. I wholeheartedly disagree. Have at it.

Your boy Kiffin is doing great things out there. :( I hope we never play each other.

I've learned NOT to look too far in the future in this business. UAL went from BILLION dollar profits and industry leading pay to BK in less than 2 years. American filed BK with 4 BILLION in the bank.

Good luck to us all!:eek:

Don't mind my DAL brothers... They're just trying to wistle past the graveyard.

Nu

Don't mind my DAL brothers... They're just trying to wistle past the graveyard.

Nu

I think you may be on to something there NU.

I think you may be on to something there NU.

I see what you did there :)

OK.. fair enough. Besides, I know what we have, what was accomplished, and I shouldn't give a rat's ass what a keyboard warrior like untied thinks. Like FIIGMO, it rubbed me the wrong way. So I'll let it go. However, if he had phrased it more like " APA/USAPA needs to recapture scope to the degree that DALPA did", then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As it is, it insinuates that APA/USAPA's scope is better than ours. I wholeheartedly disagree. Have at it.

Your boy Kiffin is doing great things out there. :( I hope we never play each other.
Fair enough TS~

As far as FBS, I'm ready to rock-n-roll.
Honestly, it's not Lane that's pulling all the strings. I really think that it's Pat Haden's short leash that is truly keep'in Kiffin's bravado in check. I wish USC would get their a$$ out to Knoxville (or SEC country)!! I'd love to see the sights complete with pre-game moonshine down on the river in the shadows of Neyland.....If that happens, hope to see you there!

if he had phrased it more like " APA/USAPA needs to recapture scope to the degree that DALPA did", then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Actually, it can be argued that you did not "recapture" scope, you shifted it.

Sad fact that ComAir Pilots will be gone yet some of them will be going to GoJets.. making less money to still fly Delta Passengers, working for a **** company. How many 50 seat RJ's did GoJet give up to secure added CRJ7's? answer.. none.

If that is "recapture Scope to the degree that DALPA did".. then we, as an Industry- are ****'d!

I hope someone from these Delta Threads posts numbers as 70/76 seaters are added and how many 50 seaters have been parked.

Actually, it can be argued that you did not "recapture" scope, you shifted it.

Sad fact that ComAir Pilots will be gone yet some of them will be going to GoJets.. making less money to still fly Delta Passengers, working for a **** company. How many 50 seat RJ's did GoJet give up to secure added CRJ7's? answer.. none.

If that is "recapture Scope to the degree that DALPA did".. then we, as an Industry- are ****'d!

I hope someone from these Delta Threads posts numbers as 70/76 seaters are added and how many 50 seaters have been parked.


Are you implying that the TA is BS? That 200's will not be parked?
I am asking a sincere question, just not sure what you are implying or want to know. It seems that you feel our TA is not valid and that the ratios are just fantasy.

Are we not suppose to get back as much as we can when we can? Jobs at main line are the key. DCI at DAL is smaller and has less seats and less DCI pilots flying DAL passengers. The new contracts DAL is having the gojets and SKYW sign for any new jets I am sure are not the long term deals of the past. I get the fact that we did not succeed in getting DCI shut down with this TA (just imagine what pilots would be saying about us then for doing that???) But DAL took back a lot of flying on our property. Can UAL/AMR say that at this moment? I hope they do, because it means getting more off the property next time. So again I ask the question of those that question fact of our TA, what dont you understand about our TA?

Are you implying that the TA is BS? That 200's will not be parked?
I am asking a sincere question, just not sure what you are implying or want to know. It seems that you feel our TA is not valid and that the ratios are just fantasy.
Wait Wait Wait.....
Are we talking about the same agreement you just voted some weeks back? As per the title of the thread, I would think so.

If that's the case, isn't a "ratified agreement" (or PWA as DAL calls it) no longer "tentative" (aka TA) once it's voted into being?

Just making sure I'm not short-busing it here.

Wait Wait Wait.....
Are we talking about the same agreement you just voted some weeks back? As per the title of the thread, I would think so.

If that's the case, isn't a "ratified agreement" (or PWA as DAL calls it) no longer "tentative" (aka TA) once it's voted into being?

Just making sure I'm not short-busing it here.

SoCal I see your point and yes not a TA as the last 4000 pages or so refer to it here on APC, so my poor choice of title. Lets be sure our facts are straight and we argue about real substance. If you want to go to PM, I am sure you will be better able to convey your thoughts more precisely.

SoCal I see your point and yes not a TA as the last 4000 pages or so refer to it here on APC, so my poor choice of title. Lets be sure our facts are straight and we argue about real substance. If you want to go to PM, I am sure you will be better able to convey your thoughts more precisely.
No, I'm good. As far as conveying what my thoughts on the topic, nothing I would write in PM that I wouldn't write here.

Just wanted to make sure we're referring to the same "agreement".

No, I'm good. As far as conveying what my thoughts on the topic, nothing I would write in PM that I wouldn't write here.

Just wanted to make sure we're referring to the same "agreement".


OK now that all that is behind us, please be specific in front of all of our peers and tell us how DAL pilots new contract has screwed up the industry?

OK now that all that is behind us, please be specific in front of all of our peers and tell us how DAL pilots new contract has screwed up the industry?
^^^^Do you care to cut-n-paste as where I said that????^^^^

You have my attention now::rolleyes:

^^^^Do you care to cut-n-paste as where I said that????^^^^

You have my attention now::rolleyes:


Nothing to cut and paste SoCAL. Your tone and stance seems to favor the opinion of the thread starter, if it does not then what is your point about TA vs signed contract and labeling posters on this board?

Dead thread now! So I guess we will never know.

Thanks for sending me the contract guys.

My point is American scope should not exceed Delta's new Industry Standard Scope.

APA has agreed to give Doug Parker 84 seat scope... I really cannot believe that this is happening when the 50 seaters would have gone away anyway.

...good luck to us all.

Are you implying that the TA is BS? That 200's will not be parked?
I am asking a sincere question, just not sure what you are implying or want to know. It seems that you feel our TA is not valid and that the ratios are just fantasy.

Are we not suppose to get back as much as we can when we can? Jobs at main line are the key. DCI at DAL is smaller and has less seats and less DCI pilots flying DAL passengers. The new contracts DAL is having the gojets and SKYW sign for any new jets I am sure are not the long term deals of the past. I get the fact that we did not succeed in getting DCI shut down with this TA (just imagine what pilots would be saying about us then for doing that???) But DAL took back a lot of flying on our property. Can UAL/AMR say that at this moment? I hope they do, because it means getting more off the property next time. So again I ask the question of those that question fact of our TA, what dont you understand about our TA?

Just the opposite. I DO believe that the 50 seaters are leaving. Hell, they are uneconomical and needed to leave anyway! And without your PWA they would have left also...

My point is that ALPA National should be setting a minimum level. Growing 70/76 seaters at any mainline is (in my opinion) a bad thing. But once it happens, how do you reverse it? And how do the others hold the line?

You have a CRJ9 payscale yet if you allow the Regionals to fly them, how will they ever get to mainline?

I just hope that in the end, you don't end up with a bunch of 70/76 seaters flown by lowest cost bidders out there (GoJets, etc..) while other Regionals (ALPA Carriers) who tried to hold the line end up on the street.

Guess I'm old school.. but you don't get anything worth a damn without a fight... and if it sounds or looks to good to be true, it probably is.

Time will tell.

Motch

PS> As I write this, I have received a Union Blastmail stating that-

"Today, ALPA reached agreements in principle (AIPs) with United Continental Holdings, Inc. management on all major economic and scope provisions of the joint collective bargaining agreement (JCBA), after two years of bargaining and with the assistance of the National Mediation Board (NMB). Work remains on some non-economic issues that will continue in the days ahead, but the JNC is confident that, with the continued support of the NMB, we can reach satisfactory agreement on those as well."

Nothing to cut and paste SoCAL. Your tone and stance seems to favor the opinion of the thread starter, if it does not then what is your point about TA vs signed contract and labeling posters on this board?

Dead thread now! So I guess we will never know.
Your right Fig....There was nothing to 'c-n-p' by way of your claims.

Appreciate it, best of luck sir.

From the most recent actions, looks like the 50's are going much much faster than contractually required.

Not that they weren't going to be parked anyways, but it looks like DL mgmt is full speed ahead tossing them out.

To be clear, DALPA did not give up not even one seat. 76 seats is it for any AIRCRAFT flown under DCI. DCI seats have been significantly reduced under this TA. Of course it is good spin to float the Fallacy that because 200's were park and replaced with CRJ9's that it was a MASSIVE concession..... LESS PILOTS AT DCI FLYING DAL PASSENGERS and LESS DCI seats in total avail to to be sold on DCI under this TA is not giving up anything. It is a capture without question. I am not sure why any other pilot group at any other airline can make comment on this TA until they get their own house in order. I hope all Majors leap frog our agreement and do even better. But let us not look at the facts because it does get in the way of reality. Of course JMHO!:rolleyes:


FIGMO,

Save your breath, or in this case your keystrokes.

Some regional guys are saying DAL is screwing them by parking the 50 seaters at the same time some of the other mainline guys are saying we sold out on Scope.

Go figure. :confused:

This is the first time we held SCOPE - a good thing. Was it perfect - hell no, but at least the percentage of domestic passengers being flown by DAL pilots is going up - another good thing.

Would it have been great to not allow any more 76 seaters - Hell yeah, but imagine the howl from the DCI guys then, "DAL is really screwing us, parking 50s and not getting any more 76 seaters."

Scoop

Imo, 3/4 of our scope was a win and 1/4 was a loss. No way I can view more 76 seat Rj's as a win. Give me percentages moving towards mainline and no more RJ airframes (period) and I'll consider it a win.

Many Delta pilots were not happy with our contract in regards to Scope. In the Delta pilots defense, Ucal, Usair and American all having essentially bk contracts didn't help us out any. Many thought that Ucal would of had a contract by the time Delta got to the plate, thus making it easier for Delta to make gains.

I hope Ucal gets a great contract and holds the line on Scope. Best of luck to us all.

I really cannot believe that this is happening when the 50 seaters would have gone away anyway.


This is a perspective thing. I would guess that you are relatively young... and maybe or maybe not very junior. The point is that you have the luxury to wait until those things go away.... in another 10 years or so. That's fine. I get that. So you feel it better to wait until they die.. there is nothing unique or noble in that stance.. just so you know. It is merely your opinion. I would be interested to see how you felt about resulting stagnation that might result if the 50s stay.

Now.. the 80+ seaters that AMR is talking about is another thing..

And I still see your posts as a backhanded slap btw... So set me straight. What do you mean by "exceed Delta's scope"?

FIGMO,

Save your breath, or in this case your keystrokes.

Some regional guys are saying DAL is screwing them by parking the 50 seaters at the same time some of the other mainline guys are saying we sold out on Scope.

Go figure. :confused:

This is the first time we held SCOPE - a good thing. Was it perfect - hell no, but at least the percentage of domestic passengers being flown by DAL pilots is going up - another good thing.

Would it have been great to not allow any more 76 seaters - Hell yeah, but imagine the howl from the DCI guys then, "DAL is really screwing us, parking 50s and not getting any more 76 seaters."

Scoop

If you're flying 50 seaters, you need to realize they're unpopular, uneconomical and unwanted.

Hence, they're going away.

If you are flying at mainline all of the above is a good thing. If you have the big picture as a regional pilot, it's a good thing as well but maybe not short term.

By then saying we'll allow 50 seaters to go away slightly quicker in exchange for allowing more jumbo RJs, then for the mainline pilot that is a bad thing.

For the regional pilot, in the short and long term, it's a bad thing.

If you're flying 50 seaters, you need to realize they're unpopular, uneconomical and unwanted.

Hence, they're going away.

If you are flying at mainline all of the above is a good thing. If you have the big picture as a regional pilot, it's a good thing as well but maybe not short term.

By then saying we'll allow 50 seaters to go away slightly quicker in exchange for allowing more jumbo RJs, then for the mainline pilot that is a bad thing.

For the regional pilot, in the short and long term, it's a bad thing.

Trust me, some of us -200 drivers get it.... Re-source mainline flying=more jobs for us qualified guys.

I'm all for it.

Trust me, some of us -200 drivers get it.... Re-source mainline flying=more jobs for us qualified guys.

I'm all for it.

I think most will.

But to Scoops, point, how can both the mainline pilot and regional pilot be unhappy? Easy, the mainline pilot might have shrunk DCI but they increased DCI where it hurts most and set a precedence to continue to do the same thing. For the regional pilot, not only do they face losing their jobs but the long term upside is threatened as DCI will be getting larger regional jets, the one's that hurt mainline the most. If it was possible to have a lose lose for a large portion of the Delta seniority list and most all of the DCI list, our TA was it.

This is a perspective thing. I would guess that you are relatively young... and maybe or maybe not very junior. The point is that you have the luxury to wait until those things go away.... in another 10 years or so. That's fine. I get that. So you feel it better to wait until they die.. there is nothing unique or noble in that stance.. just so you know. It is merely your opinion. I would be interested to see how you felt about resulting stagnation that might result if the 50s stay.

Now.. the 80+ seaters that AMR is talking about is another thing..

And I still see your posts as a backhanded slap btw... So set me straight. What do you mean by "exceed Delta's scope"?

If you're going to live with this section 1 for 15-40 years then waiting 10 years to get rid of 50 seaters without giving up 76 seaters was justifiable. As Section 1 would trump all else.

If you're out in 10-15 years or less, it wasn't justifiable to wait as Section 1 wasn't the number one priority.

Is that right?

If you're flying 50 seaters, you need to realize they're unpopular, uneconomical and unwanted.

Hence, they're going away.

If you are flying at mainline all of the above is a good thing. If you have the big picture as a regional pilot, it's a good thing as well but maybe not short term.

By then saying we'll allow 50 seaters to go away slightly quicker in exchange for allowing more jumbo RJs, then for the mainline pilot that is a bad thing.

For the regional pilot, in the short and long term, it's a bad thing.


Agenda driven perspective aside, I disagree.

Agenda driven perspective aside, I disagree.
Tsquare, if the DB pension plan was still around, I would agree with your posts 100%. Now that it's not, protecting low seniority jobs and pay rates are more important than the nest egg you're building for the junior pilots. If you had held the line, Delta would have been forced to buy even more narrow body jets for mainline because the 50 seaters don't cut it. The 70 seater is an alternative to buying those mainline jets. Does that make sense?

If it doesn't, think about this: Your last contract had unlimited 50 seaters and management was parking them in droves; Now, they just gave you a huge bonus so they can buy more 76 seaters.

This is a perspective thing. I would guess that you are relatively young... and maybe or maybe not very junior. The point is that you have the luxury to wait until those things go away.... in another 10 years or so. That's fine. I get that. So you feel it better to wait until they die.. there is nothing unique or noble in that stance.. just so you know. It is merely your opinion. I would be interested to see how you felt about resulting stagnation that might result if the 50s stay.

Now.. the 80+ seaters that AMR is talking about is another thing..

And I still see your posts as a backhanded slap btw... So set me straight. What do you mean by "exceed Delta's scope"?

My post seems like a backhanded slap because I hinted at an alternate reality that will never happen.

I mean to say that I look at 76 seats contract flying as the last line of defense. I hope that the merger of US Air/AMR does not produce scope larger than 76 seat aircraft (CRJ900). Physical seats of merged AMR/US should not exceed the proportions of DCI to Delta's narrow body fleet.

US Air pilots keep telling me that scope does not affect them. *slaps forehead*

Don't mind my DAL brothers... They're just trying to wistle past the graveyard.

Nu

Yep, that may be true.

Yep, that may be true.

I really hate being right all the time. It makes you look like a smart ass, and no body likes a smart ass.

Nu

FIGMO,

Save your breath, or in this case your keystrokes.

Some regional guys are saying DAL is screwing them by parking the 50 seaters at the same time some of the other mainline guys are saying we sold out on Scope.

Go figure. :confused:

This is the first time we held SCOPE - a good thing. Was it perfect - hell no, but at least the percentage of domestic passengers being flown by DAL pilots is going up - another good thing.

Would it have been great to not allow any more 76 seaters - Hell yeah, but imagine the howl from the DCI guys then, "DAL is really screwing us, parking 50s and not getting any more 76 seaters."

Scoop

This is true. Seats were reduced. A true win would have been limits on the CPA's that eventually put Dal pilot in those seats, through tradational or non-tradational thinking. Unionism on a national level should take care of the pilots effected.

I really hate being right all the time. It makes you look like a smart ass, and no body likes a smart ass.

Nu

Except when you're trying to spell "whistle"....

sorry, I couldn't resist.

Except when you're trying to spell "whistle"....

sorry, I couldn't resist.

I'm going to blame that on Steve Jobs!

Nu

Tsquare, if the DB pension plan was still around, I would agree with your posts 100%. Now that it's not, protecting low seniority jobs and pay rates are more important than the nest egg you're building for the junior pilots. If you had held the line, Delta would have been forced to buy even more narrow body jets for mainline because the 50 seaters don't cut it. The 70 seater is an alternative to buying those mainline jets. Does that make sense?

If it doesn't, think about this: Your last contract had unlimited 50 seaters and management was parking them in droves; Now, they just gave you a huge bonus so they can buy more 76 seaters.

It's been explained over and over and you still don't get it. :rolleyes:

I'm going to blame that on Steve Jobs!

Nu
Have you been to NTSB Air Safety School?

Rule 1: Blame the dead guy

(sorry if that's morbid)

(sorry if the above apology is a pun)

It's been explained over and over and you still don't get it. :rolleyes:

Thank you for saying it with many words fewer than I would have needed.

It's been explained over and over and you still don't get it. :rolleyes:
Nevermind.........

Have you been to NTSB Air Safety School?

Rule 1: Blame the dead guy

(sorry if that's morbid)

(sorry if the above apology is a pun)

Exactly. And let's not forget "nice sunset. yeah, its cool" at 9900 feet = careless and wreckless negligence and is a "contributing factor."

Thank you for saying it with many words fewer than I would have needed.

No problem. Since there is no fixing stupid, I'm sure you will have another opportunity to explain it to him next time he spouts off with his nonsense. I'm sure he isn't done showing off his ignorance. :cool:

Was that an actual NTSB finding? What incident?

All of the DAL pilots will have to agree to disagree because obviously we didn't all vote yes. Doesn't make one side right or wrong. If they would have held the 76 seater count and took half of the 200's they did I wouldn't have been upset. But all these guys have points and your position is NOT fact but an opinion on the scope issue. It all depends on what part of scope you are looking at. We didn't allow 325 - 76 seat a/c before and we do now.
It's ok though because I have over 30 years to fix this problem :rolleyes:

We didn't allow 325 - 76 seat a/c before and we do now.

Is that accurate?

Is that accurate?

Yes. The number of 76-seat aircraft that could be authorized actually went down from 255 to 223.

The number of 70-seat jets went up by 70 (with 223 76-seat aircraft on the property), but the total number of 70-seat aircraft, jets and large turbo props, went down from unlimited to 102. Also the number of 50-Seat jets went down from unlimited to 125 (340 currently on property). All in a reduction 15.5% of DCI seats.

Is that accurate?


C2012 Road Show - Part 3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wx7d93B9GM&feature=youtu.be)

redoing...

Is that accurate?

Sort of accurate.

hen Xtreme mentioned that 325 wasn't allowed before, what he means is before the PWA limited Delta to outsourcing 255 51+ seaters and now it's 325 51+ seaters.

It's not the whole picture obviously, so first a couple of points about the old PWA:

Under the old PWA, and current fleet, we have 153 76-seaters and 102 70-seaters for a total of 255 jets.
The 153 76-seaters was not a cap. It's a calculated number and it can be increased if mainline grows beyond what it was on Dec 31, 2008 post merger. However, the 255 limit stands, which means IF new 76-seaters were added then 70-seaters would be parked to make room, the 255 was a hard cap.
FWIW, if mainline shrunk after growing then there was no requirement to shrink the 76 seat fleet, that number was not contingent on a continuous number of mainline aircraft, also
A furlough clause required the 76 seat fleet be shrunk to 70 seats if there was a furlough of pilots hired prior to 9/11, and
If the flow was ended then the number of 76 seaters was knocked down to 85.


The new PWA changed that to say:

The overall 255 jumbo RJ hard cap does increase to 325,
The 153 76-seaters can be increased to 223 aircraft but none of the 102 70-seaters do not have to be parked this time to make room,
The new PWA does not make an increase in 76-seaters contingent on the total number of mainline aircraft but rather on the addition of new small narrowbody aircraft, or in particular 717s.
So whereas under the old PWA we'd have to grow from 714 mainline aircraft today to 767 before they could start swapping the 70-seaters for 76-seaters, they now just need to add 717s to mainline to be able to grow the 76-seat fleet.
If 717s are added then 76-seaters can be added but then 50-seaters have to be parked and a block hour ratio between DCI and mainline has to be met. The exact language and ratios are listed or tabled in the PWA but the final block hour ratio would require that mainline goes from 53% of however much flying there is to 61% of however much flying there is. There is no minimum consolidated block hours, just a ratio minimum.


In the end, we allow DCI to have:

450 aircraft,
325 51+seat aircraft of which up to 223 76-seaters and 102 70-seaters,
125 50 seaters, and
The language is changed that the limits pertain to all DCI aircraft and not just jets.

Yes. The number of 76-seat aircraft that could be authorized actually went down from 255 to 223.

Then it is NOT accurate. XtremeF150 wrote this: "We didn't allow 325 - 76 seat a/c before and we do now."

It looks like the accurate number of 76-seaters is 223, not 325.

Is THAT accurate?

Then it is NOT accurate. XtremeF150 wrote this: "We didn't allow 325 - 76 seat a/c before and we do now."

It looks like the accurate number of 76-seaters is 223, not 325.

Is THAT accurate?

Practically speaking, 325 is the new number of allowed over 70 seaters. The language is 51+ seaters. Two class, mainline replacement, economically viable, large rj's.

Then it is NOT accurate. XtremeF150 wrote this: "We didn't allow 325 - 76 seat a/c before and we do now."

It looks like the accurate number of 76-seaters is 223, not 325.

Is THAT accurate?

Yes, I'm sorry I got wound up but FTB did a great job of explaining it. Both sides see it differently and we will never know what might have been.

I'm in the camp that thinks if management wanted to park those 50 seaters they would have worked something out with or without us. I did really hate to see the 51+ seat cap on RJ's go up because those large RJ's give me heart burn. Where is that pepcid now. :rolleyes:

Thanks to those of you on both sides though that take the time to make such great posts about all this stuff. I love info as long as it isn't being sold.

Then it is NOT accurate. XtremeF150 wrote this: "We didn't allow 325 - 76 seat a/c before and we do now."

It looks like the accurate number of 76-seaters is 223, not 325.

Is THAT accurate?

Okay folks, as we can see, Karnak is wound up pretty tight about this. So let's not confuse a 76 seater for a 70 seater anymore, okay?

So let's just go over some simple aircraft identifications.

This is a 76-seater outsourced to the lowest bidder:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3194/2772228805_a1c7dee0ee.jpg

And this is a 70-seater outsourced to the lowest bidder:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3356/3495689443_47a6268420.jpg

Any questions? Everyone see the difference now?

Okay, so, let's all agree that there is a ginormous difference between a 76-seater and a 70-seater and let's stop accidentally referring to the 325+ outsourced jumbo jets as all 76-seaters. It's not all 76-seaters, it's 223 76-seaters and 102 tiny insignificant 70-seaters.

Okay folks, as we can see, Karnak is wound up pretty tight about this. So let's not confuse a 76 seater for a 70 seater anymore, okay?

Sounds good to me! Apparently, there is a difference between 70-seat jets and 76-seat jets. I've read a number of posts by you that make it clear we should be paying attention to the numbers. Now it looks like we shouldn't care about the actual size of the airplanes, but just be upset that they exist at all.

If I'm supposed to be upset that they exist at all, then maybe I should be happy that the total number allowed to exist at all is being reduced.

Just sayin'

Karnak's self convinced greatness helped him completely miss the sarcasm in that one...

It has been brought to my attention via PMs that I may have erred in my previous post when I posted a pic of a typical Delta Air Lines 70-seater.

So here, I have included the pictures of the two types of 76-seaters and two types of 70-seaters that Delta uses to transport Delta passengers.

I think the differences are so stark that it is not necessary for me to label which one is which, everyone cool with that?

So here you go, an CRJ-900, Embraer 170, CRJ-700, and Embraer 175 in random order:

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/ad230/ForgottoBid/temp10-13.png

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/ad230/ForgottoBid/temp9-11.png

Sounds good to me! Apparently, there is a difference between 70-seat jets and 76-seat jets. I've read a number of posts by you that make it clear we should be paying attention to the numbers. Now it looks like we shouldn't care about the actual size of the airplanes, but just be upset that they exist at all.

If I'm supposed to be upset that they exist at all, then maybe I should be happy that the total number allowed to exist at all is being reduced.

Just sayin'

Okay, I think in my post last night I might have confused some folks.

So let me review just real quick:


Currently right now Delta Air Lines currently has 255 76-seaters,
but now thanks to the new PWA Delta Air Lines will be forced to reduce to 223 76-seaters.

So Delta Air Lines will soon be limited to 223 jumbo regional jets.

Karnak's self convinced greatness helped him completely miss the sarcasm in that one...

Not at all. My self-convinced greatness gives me the ability to see others with the same affliction trying to spin numbers their way.

Okay, I think in my post last night I might have confused some folks.

So let me review just real quick:


Currently right now Delta Air Lines currently has 255 76-seaters,
but now thanks to the new PWA Delta Air Lines will be forced to reduce to 223 76-seaters.

So Delta Air Lines will soon be limited to 223 jumbo regional jets.

Folks, I think I goofed again.

Alright, let me see, if I can say this right.

Delta: We want more 76-seaters.

ALPA: How many?

Delta: 70.

ALPA: Deal. What are you going to give me?

Delta: Too late, you said deal.

ALPA: Well, give me something.

Delta: Alright, you know those 717s we're getting, you can tell your guys if we acquire the 717s, then they have to give us 70 more 76-seaters or no 717s.

ALPA: Deal, so 223 76-seaters and 255 jumbo RJs, and we get 717s.

Delta: No, 325 jumbo RJs, 223 are 76-seaters.

ALPA: Deal. So we allow you to have 325 jumbo RJs but we grow mainline to over 800 airplanes.

Delta: Uh, no. Drop the total fleet count requirement, we're going with just adding 717s. We don't want to be forced to grow mainline.

ALPA: Deal. But we need something more, after all, you're getting to grow your favorite group but we don't have to grow anymore. We need something.

Delta: Sure, tell your guys we'll get rid of our beloved, popular and economical CRJ-200s to make this happen.

ALPA: Deal. But I thought you were going to get rid of 9 of them between 2nd and 3rd quarter anyways? Is there anyway you can make it look like you're not getting rid of them anyways?

Delta: No.

ALPA: Deal. We'll tell them we tore them out of your hands and you were kicking and screaming.

Delta: No. You can't.

ALPA: Okay.

Delta: Tell them you forced us to agree to include turboprops in the total.

ALPA: YEAH! Because you could've gotten unlimited Dash 8-400Qs!!! RIGHT!?!

Delta: Uh, no. We're not stupid.

ALPA: Right.

Delta: So recap, we get you to give us more 82-seaters, we no longer have a mainline fleet growth requirement, we get those 717s we already bought and we get rid of the CRJ-200s we don't want.

ALPA: 717+++++ Wait wha? 82-seaters?

Delta: I meant 76-seaters, for now.

ALPA: 717+++++++

ALPA: Hey, I'm sorry to come back and ask for more, but, uh, can you do something about the Republic thingy?

Delta: uh, no.

ALPA: Okay, what if we let you do something screwy with the JV language?

Delta: Alright, deal. Write some language that says we can no longer use competitors as DCI carriers, okay?

ALPA: Okay!!!! Consider that done.

Delta: Then exempt Republic.

ALPA: Damm. Okay, fine, we didn't care about that anyways.

Delta: I know. Good luck on your ALPA drive.

ALPA: 717++++

It seems you've covered about 20 days of discussion in one hit... stop! No more ,you're cracking me up, please,I have a weak heart....

FTB,
While certainly humorous musings, you have don't have a clue what really transpired between the NC and management. If you really want to disparage the work they did, how about you do it to their faces. Otherwise, I'd suggest you stick with your strong points, underboob and cheerleader pics.

FTB,
While certainly humorous musings, you have don't have a clue what really transpired between the NC and management. If you really want to disparage the work they did, how about you do it to their faces. Otherwise, I'd suggest you stick with your strong points, underboob and cheerleader pics.

+1

Spot on!

Then it is NOT accurate. XtremeF150 wrote this: "We didn't allow 325 - 76 seat a/c before and we do now."

It looks like the accurate number of 76-seaters is 223, not 325.

Is THAT accurate?

Opps, you're right, my bad. I should have said No, it is not accurate, since in reality the number of 76-seat aircraft that could be authorized is far less than 325. As a matter of fact the number of large 76-seat aircraft that could have been authorized was actually reduced from 255-223.

Opps, you're right, my bad. I should have said No, it is not accurate, since in reality the number of 76-seat aircraft that could be authorized is far less than 325. As a matter of fact the number of large 76-seat aircraft that could have been authorized was actually reduced from 255-223.

It's just that we would have had to grow mainline to over 800 airplanes for them to get that 255... and they would have had to park 103 70 seaters. Whoopsie!

FTB,
While certainly humorous musings, you have don't have a clue what really transpired between the NC and management. If you really want to disparage the work they did, how about you do it to their faces. Otherwise, I'd suggest you stick with your strong points, underboob and cheerleader pics.

Actually I don't post underboob.

As to what transpired, I'm just looking at the results of the people we pay to negotiate for us and having fun with it.

If I have the energy maybe I'll make a pro TA conversation. Might be kind of hard.

A Pro TA NC vs Delta conversation...

ALPA: So you guys ready?

Delta: Wait, for what? The contract's not due to the end of the year and we were going to drag our feet for three or four years. What are you talking about now?

ALPA: UH, pardon me, but we said we want a contract now.

Delta: .... okay, okay... we can do something...

ALPA: Alright, now we're talking. First things first, we want a 19% pay raise over three years! And you go tell Gary Kelly, those 717s are ours. We want them and we want the whole deal based on whether we say yes or no. And you tell Bombardier, you're taking these 50 seaters back, damnit.

CUT!

http://kpbs.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/uploads/Tropic_03_t600.jpg?4326734cdb8e39baa3579048ef63ad7 b451e7676

Yeah, that's not working. Let me see if I can come up with something else.


Delta: So we really, really need to go ahead and take advantage of some opportunities and get a deal done.

ALPA: Need a deal done? Now? Opportunities? Alright, thanks for ceding to us the upper hand.

Delta: Okay, start with section 1, so what do you want?

ALPA: ..... what do you mean?

Delta: What do you want?

ALPA: What do you want?

Delta: You first. So what do you want? All the 76 seaters flown at mainline?

ALPA: No, our pilots cost too much. We've looked at that already.

Delta: Okay... but we were looking at the big picture costs including stuff like Comair and we

Delta 2: Shut up.

Delta: So yeah, okay, you're not economical. So do you want no more outsourcing then?

ALPA: Outsourcing is good for us.

Delta: I'm confused. So status quo? No more scope erosion?

ALPA: ....we're not going to say scope is not negotiable.

Delta: ... okay... so scope is negotiable?

ALPA: I didn't say that.

Delta: Yes you did. Remember, you're talking to us, not the pilots.

ALPA: Oh yeah, yeah, scope is negotiable, what do you got?

Delta: I guess more outsourcing?

ALPA: Damnit, no. You mean less outsourcing. We're not going to let you have as many 76-seaters as you could have!

Delta: Okay, that's fine, can we keep the 70-seaters? They're on long term contracts, that we just resigned, and they're new. And expensive.

ALPA: Damnit, you better not screw our profit sharing, which we don't mind having less of by the way. So you keep those airplanes. You're not wasting this company's money.

Delta: We're really confused now...

ALPA: You mean you're scared...


CUT!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JrkHoehqNMg/T96AYZ4ac3I/AAAAAAAABw0/K-m_q3h-vwM/s1600/film-director.jpg

This is hard.

http://www.geekologie.com/2007/07/26/homer-simpson-tonight-show.jpg

I guess, my biggest question here is that if these 717s are supposed to be all growth airframes then why did we strike out the language that tied the number of 76 seaters to the total number of mainline jets?

After all, if all growth is the plan then it wouldn't hurt anything to keep the language in there.

Now if I was the company, I'd want it struck too. Don't force me to do anything with the fleet but rather let me have the option to either grow big, grow small, not change or shrink without having my hands tied to fleet commitments. Unless you're a DCI carrier, then we will absolutely tie our hands for a decade or more. :)

But I'm not the company. I am a pilot who believes warts and all on our end, all the flying should be done by your own employees.

FTB,

You are hilarious.

It's just that we would have had to grow mainline to over 800 airplanes for them to get that 255... and they would have had to park 103 70 seaters. Whoopsie!
With over 200 mainline aircraft coming in the next few years I doubt they'd have a hard time pumping and then dumping the mainline fleet to meet their needs. And of course you know that they had the ability to operate an unlimited number of 70-seaters prior to this new contract.

Thankfully, we now have a contract that limits domestic outsourcing capacity and brings more of Delta's flying to Delta pilots.

The super bonus was getting large guage internation JV protection, but that seems to be of little importance to those who only have a very narrow view of scope issue.

Opps, you're right, my bad. I should have said No, it is not accurate, since in reality the number of 76-seat aircraft that could be authorized is far less than 325. As a matter of fact the number of large 76-seat aircraft that could have been authorized was actually reduced from 255-223.

Trueeeeee......

Technically.

But riddle me this:

What would DAL have had to do in order to get that 255 (pre-TA)?

hint: park a LOT of 70 seaters they don't have to park now and grow mainline to a much, much, much higher level.

Even if you want to consider this scope a net win in the RJ department, there were some massive give backs to get it.

With over 200 mainline aircraft coming in the next few years I doubt they'd have a hard time pumping and then dumping the mainline fleet to meet their needs. And of course you know that they had the ability to operate an unlimited number of 70-seaters prior to this new contract.

Thankfully, we now have a contract that limits domestic outsourcing capacity and brings more of Delta's flying to Delta pilots.

The super bonus was getting large guage internation JV protection, but that seems to be of little importance to those who only have a very narrow view of scope issue.

At least a pump and dump is an financially questionable exercise whereas the new TA's pump while you dump language is not.

And they'd still be limited to 255 of these:

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/ad230/ForgottoBid/temp10-13.png

It is also a dfr issue because one alpa unit destroyed another.
all legal issues aside....they will burn in hell when trying to explain to st. peter why they desearve more than the kids and families of a fellow union family. by the way, all the a/c in question are going to non-union carriers. Thanks alpa.....true colors are a *****. If you dont fly for your own flag......stay away from alpa....over and out

It is also a dfr issue because one alpa unit destroyed another.
all legal issues aside....they will burn in hell when trying to explain to st. peter why they desearve more than the kids and families of a fellow union family. by the way, all the a/c in question are going to non-union carriers. Thanks alpa.....true colors are a *****. If you dont fly for your own flag......stay away from alpa....over and out

No ALPA unit destroyed another. Comair was going from 180 jets to 44, with almost half of them the oldest 50 seaters anywhere, so likely down to 20 something planes in the near future one way or another no matter what. Its not a DFR issue because no union owes an airline flying for another airline, and even if they did, where's the DFR lawsuit for SKYW and the IBT carriers growing at ALPA regional's expense?

That said, people will sue, they will win, and they will get barely or even less than court costs for a settlement and call it a victory, just like TWA.

It is also a dfr issue because one alpa unit destroyed another.
all legal issues aside....they will burn in hell when trying to explain to st. peter why they desearve more than the kids and families of a fellow union family. by the way, all the a/c in question are going to non-union carriers. Thanks alpa.....true colors are a *****. If you dont fly for your own flag......stay away from alpa....over and out

crj;

This is not intended in any way shape or form as a Comair bash, because, as a mainline guy, I am unable to equivocate the logic of destroying a wholly owned versus outsourcing.

However, if you did not see the certain destruction of Comair coming for AT LEAST the last year, you were in serious denial.

crj;

This is not intended in any way shape or form as a Comair bash, because, as a mainline guy, I am unable to equivocate the logic of destroying a wholly owned versus outsourcing.

However, if you did not see the certain destruction of Comair coming for AT LEAST the last year, you were in serious denial.

More like the last 7 years...

crj;

This is not intended in any way shape or form as a Comair bash, because, as a mainline guy, I am unable to equivocate the logic of destroying a wholly owned versus outsourcing.

However, if you did not see the certain destruction of Comair coming for AT LEAST the last year, you were in serious denial.

I went looking for that pic of the strike vote from way back when, just to go along with 80s post of tracing this back.

Found this, thought it was kind of interesting:

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/03/28/comairdelta1200x2002.jpg

No commentary, just there it is.

Well one comment... 16 hours on a 3 day!?!? I wonder if any regional has worse schedules than ATL DC-9?

I think a lot of money could've been saved by not using 2 flight attendants on a 50 seater.

With over 200 mainline aircraft coming in the next few years I doubt they'd have a hard time pumping and then dumping the mainline fleet to meet their needs. And of course you know that they had the ability to operate an unlimited number of 70-seaters prior to this new contract.

Thankfully, we now have a contract that limits domestic outsourcing capacity and brings more of Delta's flying to Delta pilots.

The super bonus was getting large guage internation JV protection, but that seems to be of little importance to those who only have a very narrow view of scope issue.

Yes, aircraft not jets. Old language was 255 70-76 seat jets not aircraft. We conceeded 102 70 seat jets to. Get a hard cap on 70 seat aircraft.

I dont remember ever seeing an FO pay rate of 175 an hour for the 88. That trip must have had a heck of a rig on it?

I dont remember ever seeing an FO pay rate of 175 an hour for the 88. That trip must have had a heck of a rig on it?

That's because they compared an RJ FO to a Mainline Captain for more shock and awe ;-)

That's because they compared an RJ FO to a Mainline Captain for more shock and awe ;-)

Not to mention has anyone ever flown a 20 hr 4 day at a regional?

Not to mention has anyone ever flown a 20 hr 4 day at a regional?

We used to at ExpressJet all the time

We used to at ExpressJet all the time

Well then. ;)

and attention to detail isnt my thing... just saw that was captain, not FO on the 88. Great reporting!

Not to mention has anyone ever flown a 20 hr 4 day at a regional?

old 9e skeds were 28 hours in 4 days... you didn't have that?

We used to at ExpressJet all the time

And for well over a year we had 10 hour 4-days that were uncommutable with short overnights.

That takes effort.

old 9e skeds were 28 hours in 4 days... you didn't have that?

Thats my point...