Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-22-2012, 08:15 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Bill,
What do you see in the TA that has taken you from this:
And this:
To this:
What do you see in the TA that has taken you from this:
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
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
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
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.
05-22-2012, 08:17 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,836
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
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
05-22-2012, 08:19 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by Drone
My one post per year quota is complete
Drone
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...
Next thing you know you're FTB, resident *******:
05-22-2012, 08:21 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: SLC ERB
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by flyallnite
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.
Last edited by Dash8widget; 05-22-2012 at 08:24 PM. Reason: spelling an
05-22-2012, 08:25 PM
West Side
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: 320A
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
We know how this goes around here.
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...
Next thing you know you're FTB, resident *******:
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...
Next thing you know you're FTB, resident *******:
Wish I had a dime for every time I said that...
Damn, just did it again...
05-22-2012, 08:29 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
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
05-22-2012, 08:38 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,836
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
Best case: LESS TOTAL RJs. That would be this TA. There may be 102 70 seaters ontop of the 223 76 seaters, but they would obviously fly on current 50 seat routes that aren't as profitable. 32 fewer 76 seaters total is better, since they would be the ones flying current mainline routes vs Dothan, AL. It's your choice.
Besides, I enjoyed flying into Flint, Grand Rapids, Traverse City, Lansing, Omaha, Sioux Falls, Rapid City, Grand Forks, Saginaw, Fargo, Minot, Bismark, Regina, Saskatoon, Great Falls, Kalispell, Helena, Bozeman, Missoula, Winnipeg, Des Moines, Rochester (both NY and MN), Duluth, Albany, Harrisburg, and all of those other wonderful, NO HASSLE airports that we used to go to in the DC-9.
Sure beats the hell out of Florida turns from ATL, or going back and forth the NYC.
Nu
05-22-2012, 08:48 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: 320B
Posts: 781
Forgive me if this has been answered before, but how aircraft are currently being flown as DCI:
50 seaters
70 seaters
76 seaters
Just looking for actual numbers, I know what is allowed.
Thanks,
50 seaters
70 seaters
76 seaters
Just looking for actual numbers, I know what is allowed.
Thanks,
05-22-2012, 08:52 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 737n/FO
Posts: 667
Originally Posted by Flying Monkey
All of this, and it looks as if Wall St. is just as unimpressed as we are.
05-22-2012, 08:58 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by DAL73n
Actually, Wall Street being unimpressed means it wasn't a slam dunk on the cost side for the company. That is one of my third party criteria to try and evaluate this TA. Wall Street doesn't care about the pilots, they only care about how much more money (or more productivity) will this cost/save Delta Airlines to evaluate whether DAL will perform going forward as a stock to buy/sell. So Wall Street being "unimpressed" means it's not quite the slam dunk for DAL that most of us think it is. If all of a sudden a bunch of Wall Street analysts came out with a buy recommendation and better earnings forcasts going forward and DAL stock got a huge bump then I would be even more suspicious of this contract than I already am. Just a different perspective.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
