|
|
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1194710)
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.
I like alot about the new section 1. The top end stuff seems pretty good, but we all know language is extremely important. A misplaced comma or a single wrong word could be trouble. I like the total airframe limit and block hour ratios. In fact I would be wholeheartedly praising this section if it wasn't for the increased number of 70+ seaters. Keep the limit at 255. As it stands the new limit will be somewhere around 325. Kind of feels like the new rest rules--the goal is to rest more, so they increase the max number of flight hours??? Better scope is not attained by increasing the number of large RJ's. They Try to address this with the ratios and airframe limit, but at the end of the day there are many more large RJ's. That just doesn't sit well wit me. Like I said before, in totality small jet scope in this TA may be viewed as a win or a loss, but personally I do not like having to trade for protections when we are making money and should be clawing our way out of a bankruptcy contract. There should not be any trading on these levels, only gains. |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1194728)
That's true, and if we keep the current contract for a few more years fighting it out for a 25% immediate raise, and still add the 717s and MD90s, we will get an extra 32 76 seaters to the max of 255, not 223 that is in the current TA. Those extra 76 seaters are nicer, and will eat away at even more of our premium routes. They will get them one way or the other, and may not pay us any raises in the meantime. All they have to do is add planes and keep us at our current payrates for a couple more years, and they are paid off.
Current PWA: 255 76 seaters Or...vs C2012 TA: 325 65-76 seaters which includes 223 76 seaters and 102 E170s/CRJ700s. PWA now for 51+ seat jets: 19,380 seats vs C2012 TA now for 51+ seat jets: 23,658 seats |
Originally Posted by flyallnite
(Post 1194734)
I suspect it's for future bargaining bait. The company is probably thinking two contracts ahead of us.
At this point, why would it? |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1194156)
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 Mostly a lurker here for the last 2 years. I normally do not post as my thoughts to words are not up to my speaking skills; however, this post by Carl is my favorite view yet. Listening is 90 percent of communication and I believe trying to understand motives partly satisfies this listening component. I have not decided on how I will vote, but this thought by Carl will be on my conciseness when I do. I am not opposed to helping mgt with their goals as I truly believe they are more aligned with mine than not, but a TA should provide protections for us Pilots when those goals conflict. I will continue to read APC, DALPA forum, and attend roadshows so I can make an informed vote. I hope some of you will be in NRT during June so I can continue to Listen as you are all a lot more able to decipher TA language than me. My one post per year quota is complete Drone |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1194728)
That's true, and if we keep the current contract for a few more years fighting it out for a 25% immediate raise, and still add the 717s and MD90s, we will get an extra 32 76 seaters to the max of 255, not 223 that is in the current TA. Those extra 76 seaters are nicer, and will eat away at even more of our premium routes. They will get them one way or the other, and may not pay us any raises in the meantime. All they have to do is add planes and keep us at our current payrates for a couple more years, and they are paid off.
I'll vote no because of section 1, not because of section 3 and even if section 3 was upped I'd still vote no if section 1 didn't change because scope is not for sale. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1194737)
Worse case:
Current PWA: 255 76 seaters Or...vs C2012 TA: 325 65-76 seaters which includes 223 76 seaters and 102 E170s/CRJ700s. PWA now for 51+ seat jets: 19,380 seats vs C2012 TA now for 51+ seat jets: 23,658 seats |
Bill,
What do you see in the TA that has taken you from this:
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1191692)
Time value of money will be ALPA's spin. What is the lowest you would go personally, using the time value of money theory? If it is 12/12/4/4 like you stated, then that might be acceptable. I just don't like that time value money spin. Obviously management wants something. If it really took only 2 days to agree on payrates, and it only comes out to 4/8/3/3, then they should have continued negotiating for 2 more months. There is a reason this was done quickly, and the pay should be a lot more than 4/8/3/3. Leverage lost if so.
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1191693)
Absolutely. If the MEC doesn't turn down a turd TA, and then it is voted down after the "time value of money" spin, then the DPA will have another chance. This had better not be a "cost neutral" contract for the company, with us giving concessions to pay for other things. We gave enough in BK. I will be the top recruiter for the DPA if that happens. No pressure DALPA!
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1194728)
That's true, and if we keep the current contract for a few more years fighting it out for a 25% immediate raise, and still add the 717s and MD90s, we will get an extra 32 76 seaters to the max of 255, not 223 that is in the current TA. Those extra 76 seaters are nicer, and will eat away at even more of our premium routes. They will get them one way or the other, and may not pay us any raises in the meantime. All they have to do is add planes and keep us at our current payrates for a couple more years, and they are paid off.
|
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1194694)
The key is that the company can trade away 70 seaters for NEW 76 seaters up to 255 in the current contract, if they get new airplanes over a set amount. The 255 number is a hard number, but they can add 76 seaters up to that number, and trade away older 70 seaters and 50 seaters anyway. They get 3 new 76 seaters for every new mainline plane, and the RJ manufacturers are wanting to let them out of leases for those new planes. Expensive? Yes. But they can pay for it with the money we WOULD have gotten in our pay raises. COST NEUTRAL. They end up with 255 (not 223 like we would have had with the TA) 76 seaters, and we continue along with bad scope, bad pay, etc for a few more years.
You must of missed that day in the 1st grade where they did addition: If they take the 717s, you get: Current Book: 255 76 seat RJs, which are REALLY 90 seat aircraft, with the range and load to carry 76 people somewhere. and a bunch of 50 seat RJs that cost the company millions. AND THE COMPANY HAS TO SPEND MONEY TO REPLACE THE 70 SEATERS WITH 76 SEATERS! 2012 TA: 223 76 seat RJs, PLUS 102 70 seat RJs. That's 325 LARGE RJs, minus the 50 seaters that they are getting rid of anyway (I'm sure they have a plan to dump them no matter what). 50 SEATERS DON'T MATTER. LARGE RJs DO MATTER. 325 > 255 = FAIL. Is ANYONE remembering the NYC Slot debacle? ANYONE? Nu |
Originally Posted by Drone
(Post 1194743)
My one post per year quota is complete
Drone See, you were planning on going to Home Depot tomorrow, buy some wallpaper, maybe get some flooring. Stuff like that. Maybe Bed, Bath and Beyond, you don't know yet. You don't know if you'll have enough time to even read what's going on here much less post. Much less come back for a follow up. You know what? Give me that thing. I'll do one... http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...ankTheTank.gif Next thing you know you're FTB, resident *******: http://diztopia.typepad.com/diztopia...DrunkHomer.gif :D |
Originally Posted by flyallnite
(Post 1194722)
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.
The 50 seat RJ is being killed by economics - sure, theyre not ALL going away, but they will be leaving in significant numbers (new contract or not). And in doing so, they are taking their regional airline operators down with them. This TA is in essence a bailout for the regional airline industry - achieved not just by the changing of the DCI contracts but by setting a new bar that will then be followed by the other major carriers. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:20 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands