Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-22-2012, 10:19 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by slowplay
b
Using your logic, if the 717's are coming anyway, then we get well above the trigger for 3-1 exchange for 76 seat RJ's. Management would be able to go all the way up to 255 76 seaters. The contracts for the 70 seaters begin expiring in 2014 and are essentially ended in 2019. This deal allows them to retain 70 CRJ-700 that they'd have to park, and add 76 seaters early. The number of permitted 76 seaters goes down from 255 to 223. At the same time those 76/70 seaters get management out of contracts for 186 50 seaters by the end of 2015.
Management has three choices as I see it:
1. Do this deal. Also do a deal with the DCI companies. Save 50 seat RJ costs (contract and maintenance) and improve revenue by swapping 76/70 seaters for 50 seaters, Upgauge mainline to backfill DCI seating cuts shifiting block hours from a ratio of about 1.2 mainline -DCI to 1.75 mainline-DCI.
2. Don't do the deal. Spend money on 50 seat engine maintenance and fly the aircraft they are financially committed to.
3. Dont do the deal. Don't spend money on 50 seat maintenance and park the aircraft, paying the a/c financing and contractual penalties to DCI carriers that they are committed to.
They'll do a math problem. They've already done choice 3 on some Comair aircraft.
Small narrowbodies have to come if they get 76 seaters. DCI has to shrink if they get 76 seaters. Block hour ratios protect us on the downside if they get 76 seaters. No more we shrink/stagnate, DCI growing circumstances.
Using your logic, if the 717's are coming anyway, then we get well above the trigger for 3-1 exchange for 76 seat RJ's. Management would be able to go all the way up to 255 76 seaters. The contracts for the 70 seaters begin expiring in 2014 and are essentially ended in 2019. This deal allows them to retain 70 CRJ-700 that they'd have to park, and add 76 seaters early. The number of permitted 76 seaters goes down from 255 to 223. At the same time those 76/70 seaters get management out of contracts for 186 50 seaters by the end of 2015.
Management has three choices as I see it:
1. Do this deal. Also do a deal with the DCI companies. Save 50 seat RJ costs (contract and maintenance) and improve revenue by swapping 76/70 seaters for 50 seaters, Upgauge mainline to backfill DCI seating cuts shifiting block hours from a ratio of about 1.2 mainline -DCI to 1.75 mainline-DCI.
2. Don't do the deal. Spend money on 50 seat engine maintenance and fly the aircraft they are financially committed to.
3. Dont do the deal. Don't spend money on 50 seat maintenance and park the aircraft, paying the a/c financing and contractual penalties to DCI carriers that they are committed to.
They'll do a math problem. They've already done choice 3 on some Comair aircraft.
Small narrowbodies have to come if they get 76 seaters. DCI has to shrink if they get 76 seaters. Block hour ratios protect us on the downside if they get 76 seaters. No more we shrink/stagnate, DCI growing circumstances.
05-22-2012, 10:22 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
Slow- care to address the exemption on page 1-7, lines 1-3 (note 2)?
05-22-2012, 10:23 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Originally Posted by slowplay
b
Using your logic, if the 717's are coming anyway, then we get well above the trigger for 3-1 exchange for 76 seat RJ's. Management would be able to go all the way up to 255 76 seaters. The contracts for the 70 seaters begin expiring in 2014 and are essentially ended in 2019. This deal allows them to retain 70 CRJ-700 that they'd have to park, and add 76 seaters early. The number of permitted 76 seaters goes down from 255 to 223. At the same time those 76/70 seaters get management out of contracts for 186 50 seaters by the end of 2015.
Management has three choices as I see it:
1. Do this deal. Also do a deal with the DCI companies. Save 50 seat RJ costs (contract and maintenance) and improve revenue by swapping 76/70 seaters for 50 seaters, Upgauge mainline to backfill DCI seating cuts shifiting block hours from a ratio of about 1.2 mainline -DCI to 1.75 mainline-DCI.
2. Don't do the deal. Spend money on 50 seat engine maintenance and fly the aircraft they are financially committed to. Burn lots of cash due to the fact they negotiated to pay fuel on these 50 seaters which are quickly eating into the bottom line.
3. Dont do the deal. Don't spend money on 50 seat maintenance and park the aircraft, paying the a/c financing and contractual penalties to DCI carriers that they are committed to.
They'll do a math problem. They've already done choice 3 on some Comair aircraft.
Small narrowbodies have to come if they get 76 seaters. DCI has to shrink if they get 76 seaters. Block hour ratios protect us on the downside if they get 76 seaters. No more we shrink/stagnate, DCI growing circumstances.
Using your logic, if the 717's are coming anyway, then we get well above the trigger for 3-1 exchange for 76 seat RJ's. Management would be able to go all the way up to 255 76 seaters. The contracts for the 70 seaters begin expiring in 2014 and are essentially ended in 2019. This deal allows them to retain 70 CRJ-700 that they'd have to park, and add 76 seaters early. The number of permitted 76 seaters goes down from 255 to 223. At the same time those 76/70 seaters get management out of contracts for 186 50 seaters by the end of 2015.
Management has three choices as I see it:
1. Do this deal. Also do a deal with the DCI companies. Save 50 seat RJ costs (contract and maintenance) and improve revenue by swapping 76/70 seaters for 50 seaters, Upgauge mainline to backfill DCI seating cuts shifiting block hours from a ratio of about 1.2 mainline -DCI to 1.75 mainline-DCI.
2. Don't do the deal. Spend money on 50 seat engine maintenance and fly the aircraft they are financially committed to. Burn lots of cash due to the fact they negotiated to pay fuel on these 50 seaters which are quickly eating into the bottom line.
3. Dont do the deal. Don't spend money on 50 seat maintenance and park the aircraft, paying the a/c financing and contractual penalties to DCI carriers that they are committed to.
They'll do a math problem. They've already done choice 3 on some Comair aircraft.
Small narrowbodies have to come if they get 76 seaters. DCI has to shrink if they get 76 seaters. Block hour ratios protect us on the downside if they get 76 seaters. No more we shrink/stagnate, DCI growing circumstances.
05-22-2012, 10:25 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by tsquare
When does the block hour ratio snapshot occur? I know the answer, I want to see if you will answer it publicly.
05-22-2012, 10:36 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Lots of great analysis here folks and I really appreciate it. Special shout out to tsquare who has had some great thoughts on this. I know, I know, hell just froze over.
I've been hesitant to post this because I didn’t want to jinx what I was really hoping would happen. But now what I was really hoping for has happened so here goes:
Negotiations that lead to an actual agreement (tentative or not) unmasks both sides’ real agendas. That is one of the vulnerabilities that both sides understand going in. Management has completely unmasked themselves by agreeing to this TA, and as such has provided us with tremendous leverage going forward. It is quite clear now that the “opportunity” that management sees is not a new aircraft order (that will be done based on the economics of the hull in question). It is also not a merger or asset acquisition, again because nothing in our current contract would prevent that. The “opportunity” that management is so desperate to grab ASAP is the removal of our current contract. And for once, the RLA and the NMB will work hugely to our advantage if we vote this TA down. Allow me to explain:
Our current contract has a hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. Management says they can only get rid of those leases by getting more 76 seat RJ’s. This is of course wrong, because they can also be rid by bankruptcy…which will happen to the RJ airlines who continue to fly these 50 seaters. Bankruptcy will only be prevented if we increase our hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. If we keep our current contract, the hard cap of 255 remains and RJ airlines go bankrupt allowing Delta to get out of the 50 seat leases that they were dumb enough to sign. What happens to that lift then? Delta will be forced to put over 50 seat RJ’s on those routes they still want flown. But what will replace those over 50 seat RJ’s? – mainline aircraft IF we keep our 255 hard cap. If we sign off on this new TA, there will be no incentive whatsoever by management to use mainline aircraft.
Our current contract allows for a much higher portion of profit sharing by pilots. Our very meager pay increases are actually being “funded” (the MEC’s words not mine) by the reduction in our profit sharing. By keeping our current contract, we will be very close to a wash on pay given the enormous profits that are in Delta’s future.
Keeping our current contract forces outsourcing to be reduced due to the reality of 50 seat RJ’s vanishing and our hard cap of 255 remaining. Keeping our current contract allows us to gain more in pay (my bet) through profit sharing. Keeping our current contract does not insert into our scope language the ridiculous new provision of the company being excused for damn near everything for things that are “out of their control”. We are the ones that need to drag our feet until management screams for relief…and they will scream for relief. Once they tire of sending out HUGE checks for profit sharing (that are indexed for inflation where multi-year pay raises are not), and paying for leases of parked 50 seat RJ’s, they will come begging. That’s when we can sit down and bargain.
Absolutely none of this is possible if we vote this TA in.
Carl
I've been hesitant to post this because I didn’t want to jinx what I was really hoping would happen. But now what I was really hoping for has happened so here goes:
Negotiations that lead to an actual agreement (tentative or not) unmasks both sides’ real agendas. That is one of the vulnerabilities that both sides understand going in. Management has completely unmasked themselves by agreeing to this TA, and as such has provided us with tremendous leverage going forward. It is quite clear now that the “opportunity” that management sees is not a new aircraft order (that will be done based on the economics of the hull in question). It is also not a merger or asset acquisition, again because nothing in our current contract would prevent that. The “opportunity” that management is so desperate to grab ASAP is the removal of our current contract. And for once, the RLA and the NMB will work hugely to our advantage if we vote this TA down. Allow me to explain:
Our current contract has a hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. Management says they can only get rid of those leases by getting more 76 seat RJ’s. This is of course wrong, because they can also be rid by bankruptcy…which will happen to the RJ airlines who continue to fly these 50 seaters. Bankruptcy will only be prevented if we increase our hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. If we keep our current contract, the hard cap of 255 remains and RJ airlines go bankrupt allowing Delta to get out of the 50 seat leases that they were dumb enough to sign. What happens to that lift then? Delta will be forced to put over 50 seat RJ’s on those routes they still want flown. But what will replace those over 50 seat RJ’s? – mainline aircraft IF we keep our 255 hard cap. If we sign off on this new TA, there will be no incentive whatsoever by management to use mainline aircraft.
Our current contract allows for a much higher portion of profit sharing by pilots. Our very meager pay increases are actually being “funded” (the MEC’s words not mine) by the reduction in our profit sharing. By keeping our current contract, we will be very close to a wash on pay given the enormous profits that are in Delta’s future.
Keeping our current contract forces outsourcing to be reduced due to the reality of 50 seat RJ’s vanishing and our hard cap of 255 remaining. Keeping our current contract allows us to gain more in pay (my bet) through profit sharing. Keeping our current contract does not insert into our scope language the ridiculous new provision of the company being excused for damn near everything for things that are “out of their control”. We are the ones that need to drag our feet until management screams for relief…and they will scream for relief. Once they tire of sending out HUGE checks for profit sharing (that are indexed for inflation where multi-year pay raises are not), and paying for leases of parked 50 seat RJ’s, they will come begging. That’s when we can sit down and bargain.
Absolutely none of this is possible if we vote this TA in.
Carl
05-22-2012, 10:41 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
[QUOTE=Carl Spackler;1194156]
Our current contract allows for a much higher portion of profit sharing by pilots. Our very meager pay increases are actually being “funded” (the MEC’s words not mine) by the reduction in our profit sharing. By keeping our current contract, we will be very close to a wash on pay given the enormous profits that are in Delta’s future.
... Once they tire of sending out HUGE checks for profit sharing (that are indexed for inflation where multi-year pay raises are not), [/QUOTE]
Hey Carl, can you do that math problem for me?
Show me what our February 2014 pay and profit sharing would look like under 3 scenarios:
1. 3 billion PTIX (very profitable)
2. 1.5 billion PTIX ( just like last year)
3. No profit.
Thanks!
Our current contract allows for a much higher portion of profit sharing by pilots. Our very meager pay increases are actually being “funded” (the MEC’s words not mine) by the reduction in our profit sharing. By keeping our current contract, we will be very close to a wash on pay given the enormous profits that are in Delta’s future.
... Once they tire of sending out HUGE checks for profit sharing (that are indexed for inflation where multi-year pay raises are not), [/QUOTE]
Hey Carl, can you do that math problem for me?
Show me what our February 2014 pay and profit sharing would look like under 3 scenarios:
1. 3 billion PTIX (very profitable)
2. 1.5 billion PTIX ( just like last year)
3. No profit.
Thanks!
05-22-2012, 10:44 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Lots of great analysis here folks and I really appreciate it. Special shout out to tsquare who has had some great thoughts on this. I know, I know, hell just froze over.
I've been hesitant to post this because I didn’t want to jinx what I was really hoping would happen. But now what I was really hoping for has happened so here goes:
Negotiations that lead to an actual agreement (tentative or not) unmasks both sides’ real agendas. That is one of the vulnerabilities that both sides understand going in. Management has completely unmasked themselves by agreeing to this TA, and as such has provided us with tremendous leverage going forward. It is quite clear now that the “opportunity” that management sees is not a new aircraft order (that will be done based on the economics of the hull in question). It is also not a merger or asset acquisition, again because nothing in our current contract would prevent that. The “opportunity” that management is so desperate to grab ASAP is the removal of our current contract. And for once, the RLA and the NMB will work hugely to our advantage if we vote this TA down. Allow me to explain:
Our current contract has a hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. Management says they can only get rid of those leases by getting more 76 seat RJ’s. This is of course wrong, because they can also be rid by bankruptcy…which will happen to the RJ airlines who continue to fly these 50 seaters. Bankruptcy will only be prevented if we increase our hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. If we keep our current contract, the hard cap of 255 remains and RJ airlines go bankrupt allowing Delta to get out of the 50 seat leases that they were dumb enough to sign. What happens to that lift then? Delta will be forced to put over 50 seat RJ’s on those routes they still want flown. But what will replace those over 50 seat RJ’s? – mainline aircraft IF we keep our 255 hard cap. If we sign off on this new TA, there will be no incentive whatsoever by management to use mainline aircraft.
Our current contract allows for a much higher portion of profit sharing by pilots. Our very meager pay increases are actually being “funded” (the MEC’s words not mine) by the reduction in our profit sharing. By keeping our current contract, we will be very close to a wash on pay given the enormous profits that are in Delta’s future.
Keeping our current contract forces outsourcing to be reduced due to the reality of 50 seat RJ’s vanishing and our hard cap of 255 remaining. Keeping our current contract allows us to gain more in pay (my bet) through profit sharing. Keeping our current contract does not insert into our scope language the ridiculous new provision of the company being excused for damn near everything for things that are “out of their control”. We are the ones that need to drag our feet until management screams for relief…and they will scream for relief. Once they tire of sending out HUGE checks for profit sharing (that are indexed for inflation where multi-year pay raises are not), and paying for leases of parked 50 seat RJ’s, they will come begging. That’s when we can sit down and bargain.
Absolutely none of this is possible if we vote this TA in.
Carl
I've been hesitant to post this because I didn’t want to jinx what I was really hoping would happen. But now what I was really hoping for has happened so here goes:
Negotiations that lead to an actual agreement (tentative or not) unmasks both sides’ real agendas. That is one of the vulnerabilities that both sides understand going in. Management has completely unmasked themselves by agreeing to this TA, and as such has provided us with tremendous leverage going forward. It is quite clear now that the “opportunity” that management sees is not a new aircraft order (that will be done based on the economics of the hull in question). It is also not a merger or asset acquisition, again because nothing in our current contract would prevent that. The “opportunity” that management is so desperate to grab ASAP is the removal of our current contract. And for once, the RLA and the NMB will work hugely to our advantage if we vote this TA down. Allow me to explain:
Our current contract has a hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. Management says they can only get rid of those leases by getting more 76 seat RJ’s. This is of course wrong, because they can also be rid by bankruptcy…which will happen to the RJ airlines who continue to fly these 50 seaters. Bankruptcy will only be prevented if we increase our hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. If we keep our current contract, the hard cap of 255 remains and RJ airlines go bankrupt allowing Delta to get out of the 50 seat leases that they were dumb enough to sign. What happens to that lift then? Delta will be forced to put over 50 seat RJ’s on those routes they still want flown. But what will replace those over 50 seat RJ’s? – mainline aircraft IF we keep our 255 hard cap. If we sign off on this new TA, there will be no incentive whatsoever by management to use mainline aircraft.
Our current contract allows for a much higher portion of profit sharing by pilots. Our very meager pay increases are actually being “funded” (the MEC’s words not mine) by the reduction in our profit sharing. By keeping our current contract, we will be very close to a wash on pay given the enormous profits that are in Delta’s future.
Keeping our current contract forces outsourcing to be reduced due to the reality of 50 seat RJ’s vanishing and our hard cap of 255 remaining. Keeping our current contract allows us to gain more in pay (my bet) through profit sharing. Keeping our current contract does not insert into our scope language the ridiculous new provision of the company being excused for damn near everything for things that are “out of their control”. We are the ones that need to drag our feet until management screams for relief…and they will scream for relief. Once they tire of sending out HUGE checks for profit sharing (that are indexed for inflation where multi-year pay raises are not), and paying for leases of parked 50 seat RJ’s, they will come begging. That’s when we can sit down and bargain.
Absolutely none of this is possible if we vote this TA in.
Carl
05-22-2012, 10:50 AM
Kerbal Rocket Surgeon
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DTW 717A
Posts: 1,099
How much more of a subsidy goes to Frontier when Shuttle America gets more 76 seaters now?
05-22-2012, 10:53 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Lots of great analysis here folks and I really appreciate it. Special shout out to tsquare who has had some great thoughts on this. I know, I know, hell just froze over.
I've been hesitant to post this because I didn’t want to jinx what I was really hoping would happen. But now what I was really hoping for has happened so here goes:
Negotiations that lead to an actual agreement (tentative or not) unmasks both sides’ real agendas. That is one of the vulnerabilities that both sides understand going in. Management has completely unmasked themselves by agreeing to this TA, and as such has provided us with tremendous leverage going forward. It is quite clear now that the “opportunity” that management sees is not a new aircraft order (that will be done based on the economics of the hull in question). It is also not a merger or asset acquisition, again because nothing in our current contract would prevent that. The “opportunity” that management is so desperate to grab ASAP is the removal of our current contract. And for once, the RLA and the NMB will work hugely to our advantage if we vote this TA down. Allow me to explain:
Our current contract has a hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. Management says they can only get rid of those leases by getting more 76 seat RJ’s. This is of course wrong, because they can also be rid by bankruptcy…which will happen to the RJ airlines who continue to fly these 50 seaters. Bankruptcy will only be prevented if we increase our hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. If we keep our current contract, the hard cap of 255 remains and RJ airlines go bankrupt allowing Delta to get out of the 50 seat leases that they were dumb enough to sign. What happens to that lift then? Delta will be forced to put over 50 seat RJ’s on those routes they still want flown. But what will replace those over 50 seat RJ’s? – mainline aircraft IF we keep our 255 hard cap. If we sign off on this new TA, there will be no incentive whatsoever by management to use mainline aircraft.
Our current contract allows for a much higher portion of profit sharing by pilots. Our very meager pay increases are actually being “funded” (the MEC’s words not mine) by the reduction in our profit sharing. By keeping our current contract, we will be very close to a wash on pay given the enormous profits that are in Delta’s future.
Keeping our current contract forces outsourcing to be reduced due to the reality of 50 seat RJ’s vanishing and our hard cap of 255 remaining. Keeping our current contract allows us to gain more in pay (my bet) through profit sharing. Keeping our current contract does not insert into our scope language the ridiculous new provision of the company being excused for damn near everything for things that are “out of their control”. We are the ones that need to drag our feet until management screams for relief…and they will scream for relief. Once they tire of sending out HUGE checks for profit sharing (that are indexed for inflation where multi-year pay raises are not), and paying for leases of parked 50 seat RJ’s, they will come begging. That’s when we can sit down and bargain.
Absolutely none of this is possible if we vote this TA in.
Carl
I've been hesitant to post this because I didn’t want to jinx what I was really hoping would happen. But now what I was really hoping for has happened so here goes:
Negotiations that lead to an actual agreement (tentative or not) unmasks both sides’ real agendas. That is one of the vulnerabilities that both sides understand going in. Management has completely unmasked themselves by agreeing to this TA, and as such has provided us with tremendous leverage going forward. It is quite clear now that the “opportunity” that management sees is not a new aircraft order (that will be done based on the economics of the hull in question). It is also not a merger or asset acquisition, again because nothing in our current contract would prevent that. The “opportunity” that management is so desperate to grab ASAP is the removal of our current contract. And for once, the RLA and the NMB will work hugely to our advantage if we vote this TA down. Allow me to explain:
Our current contract has a hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. Management says they can only get rid of those leases by getting more 76 seat RJ’s. This is of course wrong, because they can also be rid by bankruptcy…which will happen to the RJ airlines who continue to fly these 50 seaters. Bankruptcy will only be prevented if we increase our hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. If we keep our current contract, the hard cap of 255 remains and RJ airlines go bankrupt allowing Delta to get out of the 50 seat leases that they were dumb enough to sign. What happens to that lift then? Delta will be forced to put over 50 seat RJ’s on those routes they still want flown. But what will replace those over 50 seat RJ’s? – mainline aircraft IF we keep our 255 hard cap. If we sign off on this new TA, there will be no incentive whatsoever by management to use mainline aircraft.
Our current contract allows for a much higher portion of profit sharing by pilots. Our very meager pay increases are actually being “funded” (the MEC’s words not mine) by the reduction in our profit sharing. By keeping our current contract, we will be very close to a wash on pay given the enormous profits that are in Delta’s future.
Keeping our current contract forces outsourcing to be reduced due to the reality of 50 seat RJ’s vanishing and our hard cap of 255 remaining. Keeping our current contract allows us to gain more in pay (my bet) through profit sharing. Keeping our current contract does not insert into our scope language the ridiculous new provision of the company being excused for damn near everything for things that are “out of their control”. We are the ones that need to drag our feet until management screams for relief…and they will scream for relief. Once they tire of sending out HUGE checks for profit sharing (that are indexed for inflation where multi-year pay raises are not), and paying for leases of parked 50 seat RJ’s, they will come begging. That’s when we can sit down and bargain.
Absolutely none of this is possible if we vote this TA in.
Carl
I'm on the outside looking in but this makes a lot of sense to me.
05-22-2012, 11:01 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,227
Wow a post from Carl that I actually enjoyed reading. Glad I read it.
I do think that what happened in this accelerated negotiation was the company sat down said this is what we want, what we will give, take it or leave it, and we need it done by July 1st.
I do think that what happened in this accelerated negotiation was the company sat down said this is what we want, what we will give, take it or leave it, and we need it done by July 1st.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
