Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

If I read slow's posts correctly, we are adding enough airplanes to trigger 3 to 1 language to get the 76 seat fleet to the same point we are in this contract TA. Same either way.

So then the play is the management of the 50 and 70 seat fleet which has some older airplanes which are coming off capital leases, operating leases and capacity purchase agreements. Some have big maintenance bills coming. ALPA and management have published that those airplanes start to go away in 2015. However, with this TA, some 50 seaters go away sooner and it is likely the 70 seaters will go away or be modified when their contracts expire.

The 70 seater is still economically relevant. Mostly it is being flown in a 66 seat capacity and it typically makes 40% more revenue on a 15% or so operating cost premium to the CRj200. However, the sector costs (gate leases, ground servicing, etc) work out better for a 76 seater or 717. I am not particularly fearful of the maintenance of the 70 seat fleet.

A no vote probably means management gets to the same point in their fleet management plan, just two and a half years later, with a slightly higher and less efficient DCI fleet mix.

The gray area is how much money management possibly can avoid paying by trading in the CRJ200's and flipping new aircraft as an inducement to modify capacity purchase agreements? How much money can Delta save by getting the contracts re-written to make the operators the Lessee's of the airplanes? The goal is clearly stated. Management wants Delta's debt below 10 Billion.

Seems like a good idea to me. Debt is risk. As a Delta employee I prefer my employer reduce its debt level.

I remain unsure why those who do not support this agreement don't. It is an improvement from current book. In some ways it is a very big improvement.

If you are frustrated by the lack of scope recapture, I share your disappointment. But, taken in isolation, does this agreement get us closer to our goal? More Delta flying performed by Delta pilots.