Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-22-2012, 07:14 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: B737 FO
Posts: 165
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
What about the 717s with today's scope? If we turned down the TA and still added the 717s, MD90s, and 737-900s, wouldn't we hit that magic number that allows 3 new 76 seaters for every 1 new mainline plane? I think we are 30 short right now. So, if we turn down the TA, and negotiate for 3 more years slowly for a 45% immediate pay raise, wouldn't those 70 76 seaters come anyway? I think they would, and we would still be fighting for a pay raise.
I am not sure if this is a gain, a loss or even. I am looking forward to clarification from the notepads/roadshows. What I am concerned about is ALPA's willingness to enforce this language. The 153 settlement, RAH issue and "beyond the company's control" language doesnt give me 100%confidence if the company decides to start trying to play games.
05-22-2012, 07:16 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: 320B
Posts: 781
I don't understand the following (plus a lot more) page 1-7 lines 19-23 (quoted below without the strikethroughs).
While I am all for reducing permitted 76 seat aircraft, why is it tied to hiring and flow through agreaments at the DCI carriers? What am I missing?
Exception two: In the event the hiring or flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 or LOA 2006-14#24 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of permitted 76-seat aircraft in Section 1 B. 40. df. be reduced by 35..
While I am all for reducing permitted 76 seat aircraft, why is it tied to hiring and flow through agreaments at the DCI carriers? What am I missing?
05-22-2012, 07:18 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,512
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
A must read post. Should be printed and posted on the ALPA boards.
Carl
Carl
I was at Comair for a year before I ever heard of JC Lawson or RJDC, so I started paying attention every time Delta and ALPA got together to "improve my career"
Maybe you can send the TA back and have them put in "35% of new-hires come from ALPA DCI, and 1 Boomer because he learned his lesson from 9 years at Comair."
05-22-2012, 07:19 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by Ragtop Day
Yes, they would come, but for each new 76 seater a 70 seater needs to be parked. The 255 number of 70+76 seaters cannot be violated unless mainline pilots fly them. As I understand the TA the new 76 seaters would come (contingent on the 717's showing up), but the 70 seaters stay. Eventually 50 seaters would need to be parked and the ratios+the new total DCI airframe limit (450?) come into play.
I am not sure if this is a gain, a loss or even. I am looking forward to clarification from the notepads/roadshows. What I am concerned about is ALPA's willingness to enforce this language. The 153 settlement, RAH issue and "beyond the company's control" language doesnt give me 100%confidence if the company decides to start trying to play games.
I am not sure if this is a gain, a loss or even. I am looking forward to clarification from the notepads/roadshows. What I am concerned about is ALPA's willingness to enforce this language. The 153 settlement, RAH issue and "beyond the company's control" language doesnt give me 100%confidence if the company decides to start trying to play games.
Have you been on any of the older ASA or Comair 70 seaters? They are old and junky. I would think management would want to replace those too with newer 76 seaters and get them to the max of 255, which is 32 more than they could get with the TA. They could replace the 70 seaters with the money savings of NOT paying us our raises.
05-22-2012, 07:22 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by 1234
I don't understand the following (plus a lot more) page 1-7 lines 19-23 (quoted below without the strikethroughs).
While I am all for reducing permitted 76 seat aircraft, why is it tied to hiring and flow through agreaments at the DCI carriers? What am I missing?
While I am all for reducing permitted 76 seat aircraft, why is it tied to hiring and flow through agreaments at the DCI carriers? What am I missing?
That cost is why you don't see any such deal along with the 70 additional 76 seaters. There's language that they have to be parked, but they will never, ever, ever be parked. Ever. Guaranteed. The company will squeal "oh no, we just signed trillion dollar iron clad leases into infinity, we will liquidate if we dump leases!" just like they do now WRT the 50's they want us to buy them out from under for them.
05-22-2012, 07:23 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,922
ALPA is comparing apples to oranges when talking about our scope. The CEO said it himself in a memo today that we are increasing the cap on large regional jets from 255 to 325. That is selling scope, moving the line in the sand, or whatever you want to call it. It is a concession. There is no way to honestly spin it. DALPA will try though by leaving out facts like the current 255 number is 76 seaters + 70 seaters while the 223 new number is only 76 seaters. I read somewhere that United scope allows unlimited 70 seaters. Did you also know that United scope allows 0 76 seaters? That part is always left out. I keep getting told that our new scope is the strongest part of our contract. Does anyone here actually believe that?
05-22-2012, 07:25 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
Average time in mediation now is 29 months. Start mediation in March 2013 and we will see how generous the company feels in October 2015. (Side note, our amendable date will be December 2015 so we will be in negotiations anyway) I can wait no problem. Until then, we won't have JV protection, tightened restriction on Alaska, hard fleet cap on DCI, no limit on large turboprops, no block hour ratio, etc. Oh and we will all be about $100,000 poorer. But it sounds like a great plan to me.
Fear...a great reason to vote YES!
Cheers
George
05-22-2012, 07:29 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,512
Originally Posted by PropNWA
Note two: If on January 1, 2014, or any succeeding January 1 thereafter, the
42
number of 50-seat aircraft in category A or C operations exceeds the
43
maximum permitted number, the Company will require carriers that engage
44
in category A or C operations to suspend or cease operations on a sufficient
45
number of 50-seat aircraft or 76-seat aircraft to comply with these
46 requirements within 60 days and to remain in compliance thereafter.
46 requirements within 60 days and to remain in compliance thereafter.
OK, suspend some operations at DCI within 60 days. Thanks.
That's the kind of poison pill language you need to check on; none of this ALPA-standard "The company can do what they want but in three years they need to stop right away!" nonsense.
05-22-2012, 07:32 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
OK, vote no. At least have your facts straight before you vote. It is not that ALPA ignored your desires. There were over 300 proposals/counter proposals passed in this deal. It is just the company reached their limit and it was time to give the MEC and the pilots a chance to weigh in. I am sure the second try will be much better, it sure worked out that way for the Airtran pilots with Southwest management. In general, airline managements usually cave in to pilots.
Average time in mediation now is 29 months. Start mediation in March 2013 and we will see how generous the company feels in October 2015. (Side note, our amendable date will be December 2015 so we will be in negotiations anyway) I can wait no problem. Until then, we won't have JV protection, tightened restriction on Alaska, hard fleet cap on DCI, no limit on large turboprops, no block hour ratio, etc. Oh and we will all be about $100,000 poorer. But it sounds like a great plan to me.
Average time in mediation now is 29 months. Start mediation in March 2013 and we will see how generous the company feels in October 2015. (Side note, our amendable date will be December 2015 so we will be in negotiations anyway) I can wait no problem. Until then, we won't have JV protection, tightened restriction on Alaska, hard fleet cap on DCI, no limit on large turboprops, no block hour ratio, etc. Oh and we will all be about $100,000 poorer. But it sounds like a great plan to me.
F U D fear uncertainty doubt
This TA falls way short. "It does not represent the will of the pilots"
and that is not a quote from me , but my LEC rep. I completely agree.
05-22-2012, 07:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
Posts: 1,898
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
ALPA is comparing apples to oranges when talking about our scope. The CEO said it himself in a memo today that we are increasing the cap on large regional jets from 255 to 325. That is selling scope, moving the line in the sand, or whatever you want to call it. It is a concession. There is no way to honestly spin it. DALPA will try though by leaving out facts like the current 255 number is 76 seaters + 70 seaters while the 223 new number is only 76 seaters. I read somewhere that United scope allows unlimited 70 seaters. Did you also know that United scope allows 0 76 seaters? That part is always left out. I keep getting told that our new scope is the strongest part of our contract. Does anyone here actually believe that?
The 76 vs 70 seat size is huge because what is actually out there is the 65 seat CRJ 700, which seats 65, the ERJ 170 which seats 69, the CRJ 900 which seats 76 and the ERJ 175 which also seats 76. The addition of more first class and coach seats make the larger 76 seat jet an order of magnitude more efficient than the so called 70 seat jet, neither of which actually seat 70 passengers. This product is a job killer for us and DL knows it. The 50 AND the 70 seat RJ's are inefficient, and the company wants to dump them. This is really the only chance we have of restructuring domestic feed in the long run. If we allow the company to outsource flying by giving them an efficient platform to do so, we have only ourselves to blame.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
