What is the timeframe for required compliance on this? If they have all 70 sparkling new 76-seaters on their way to DCI on 2 Jul 12, by when must they increase the mainline fleet by 88, and for how long must they keep them? By when must they cut the 50 seaters to 125?

Thank you. Bar's source is himself, DOT data and a calculator. Figure out the numbers and you know where management's looking. In any defense play, watch the eyes.

Don't get me started on 777-300's once we get our balance sheet fixed by flipping leases and capacity purchase contract modifications. I have not finished that homework yet.

Delta had nothing to lose by wording it that way. If we don't take the TA, Southwest gets to keep a plane they don't want, and that will cost them money if they just park them. If we did take it, then we get a cheap plane to replace planes passengers don't want to fly in places like LGA, which would love those 717s. Those planes are the perfect fit for that demographic. We all know the 50 seaters are cramped and old, and this TA gives Delta a way out and a cheap replacement in a bigger plane.

Bill,

Something is happening in that space (120 seats) with, or without, passage of this TA. The difference is whether we want to go forward under our current contract with 3 to 1 language. The addition of 88 jets if done tomorrow would be close to a wash on new CRJ900's. The TA makes it less painful to restructure DCI, but it will happen regardless... perhaps slower and with more debt which stalls financing of other needed replacements for mainline.

Today's announcement should have been last Thursday at the Bank America presentation. Do not know why the timing has been so awkward.

Just some thoughts about scope-- that by allowing more 76 seat jets on the property, we are doing several detrimental things to ourselves.

#1. We are giving away our jobs, and once they are gone, they aren't ever coming back.

#2. We are permitting the creation and perpetuation of a sub-class of professionals who will do the same job for much less compensation and contractual protections.

#3. We are allowing, once again, the line to be drawn further down the field, keeping momentum on the side of outsourcing.

#4. We are permitting to exist an airline within an airline that is possibly going to be over half the size of SWA-- flying our pax.

#5. We are telling the company, the other airlines, and the world that we will sell our own jobs for a few bucks today, that we are for sale, and we can be had.

#6. We are turning our backs on what is very likely the only chance we will ever collectively have industry wide to put the scope genie back in the bottle.

Well said. The whole thing, but the last two points are so important.

Folks are talking about positives and tiny miniscule changes that might make this pass.

It should NEVER NEVER EVER pass. It should NEVER HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED BY DALPA!!!

I know we're taking care of the 744s and modifying them, but I'd like assurances 773s are not the 747 killers they've been elsewhere.

I like our whales. Fun to look at it. Still can't figure out why we don't use real video of them taking off in commercials.

I think it's become pretty clear by now (the UAL Chairman's memo, the 717 purchase, the non-contract employee raises) that this TA is the spearhead of an industry wide effort to contain labor costs, with DALPA, knowingly or not, facilitating the effort. C'mon, does anybody think the non-contract employees will get anything other than 4-8-3-3? A 10 cent per diem increase with a corresponding reduction in profit sharing?! Why must we be tied to FA compensation? To regional airline fleet plans? To ALPA member hiring quotas? To having to pay for re-fleeting mainline?

... and what about retro pay? All this talk of time value of money... Is DALPA basically saying that they will break with past precedent and NOT demand retro pay from amendable date?? Even if you retire, you still get a retro check if the pay rate increase for the hours you flew... do you not?

First NNP is out, thoughts?