I'm not sure if someone posted this, I'm trying to keep up with the thread but it's moving fast. It's an outsiders view of the contract:

Delta to Shrink Its Fleet of Small Jets, Significantly Improve Customer Experience with New Pilot Agreement - >> The Cranky Flier

 

I posted this in another thread, but I think it's important, so I am posting it here, also.

This is the first contract negotiated in the Internet Age. C2K was completed as the internet information age was in it's infancy. Now, this contract language is instantly available for all to review.

I think this is a game changer for everyone involved.

In a previous contract negotiation, the MEC would produce the highlights/talking points. We would all review them. We would go to the roadshow and listen to one side's interpretation of the contract. We didn't have the actual contract language available to us for review. We had to trust that the highlights/talking points were correct in their interpretation of the agreement. Many times the actual language hadn't even been written. We voted based on these general outlines. A lot of times these interpretations proved to be incorrect in the actual application.

Fast forward to business under the new agreement. With the final contract language in place, we have the opportuniy to review the actual agreement. 12,000 Lawyers at work 24/7. In some cases, the talking points don't correctly reflect the actual language of the TA.

The sick leave portion of the TA is a perfect example. While the talking point looks good and seems to be an improvement, the final sectin of the agreement essentially negates the previous improvements by the insertion of a vague phrase. This phrase essentially opens the door to the Company to monitor all sick occurances. It also waives your right of privacy under the HIPPA act.

This is only one of many examples of why you must read this agreement section by section in order to understand the TA. Only through this detailed understanding can you make an informed decision.

What is interesting about the process is that the NC and LEC may not have fully understood everything that they have agreed to in this TA. Only by us turning this thing inside out and upside down can everyone see if it a worthy work product.

Unfortunately, I'm seeing more and more of these loopholes. Economic issues aside, there is a lot of very sloppy language that needs mopping up.

 

You're still thinking airframes. It's about block hours (pilot jobs).

All I'm asking is that guys take the time to understand what the new section 1 proposal is all about. I was VERY skeptical, but after understanding all the details and asking a ton of questions, I am convinced that our new scope is a huge win.

There are some very strong downside protections and the entire idea is designed to bring flying/jobs back to mainline, and keep them here.

 

DALPA is provided this data and monitors an all of this already. The mechanism to monitor compliance is already in place. I know there is a lot of paranoia surround DALPA and that they are in collusion with the company. Take the time to call the MEC office and have all of your questions answered. There are guys fully briefed on all of this information sitting in the office waiting to answer your questions.

Especially if you can't attend a roadshow, I recommend you call and spend as much time as you want on the phone with one of these guys. I promise you, you will feel better by having factual information instead. THEN, you will have the tools you need to make an informed decision. Whatever that decision may be, at least it will be based in reality.

To answer your questions above, the company will not be required to park RJ's. That's the beauty of this agreement (stick with me, I can tell you're rolling your eyes already ). We obviously have been unable to tie mainline jobs successfully to airframes. Low end outsourcing (RJ's) is now completely tied to the domestic block hour ratio. If they use our new aircraft as replacement aircraft only, as FTB keeps suggesting, then they will have to maintain the block hour ratios, ie fly the RJ's less tool. Every time they get 10 76 seaters, that ratio increases in our favor, and cannot be decreased. Compliance is monitored based on the contract section I quoted above.

 

I read it....FTB is right. It is entirely possible to downgauge mainline and create the ratios that are our "protection." I understand block hours but do you really think they are going to just let some airframes sit around doing nothing? They are going to fly the crap out of every piece of metal here just like they should. Domestically it should be pretty close all around. So if I retire 767-300 and fill it's capacity with 737x3daily...I've just helped meet that ratio. Also if I then terminate some of the uneconomical routing to small communities, I further improve the protection ratio. So I want to know where this big movement is going to happen. I've never heard anyone say anything about "growth." We may hire a few prematurely but it will be more to flatten the hiring bubble at mainline. Overall it will be a permanent net loss as we are outsourcing more airframes permanently. If they don't have it, they won't use it. I just wonder how much then new work rules will really reduce the expanded mainline frequency manning requirements. I'm not saying there aren't merits to this TA...it's just that it ain't nearly as rosy as everyone is trying to sell me.

 

T,

1. If we increase the NB fleet then they can increase the number of 76 seaters on a 1.25 ratio per Section 1.B.46.F,
2. If they increase the number of 76 seaters then they have to reduce the number of 50 seaters per page 1-6 lines 24-37. Eventually they'd be down to 125 50 seaters when they hit 223 76-seaters.
3. If the number of 50-seaters exceeds the number permitted, then 50-seaters or 76-seaters need to be parked until the number is in compliance per page 1-6 lines 41-46.
4. Then per Section 1.D.9, we will have the MBH : DBH ratio. It only requires compliance with the required ratio for the number of 76-seaters. It says nothing with airplanes being returned or parked and I doubt a lessor would allow that anyways because DAL failed to keep a ratio compliance, it would be DAL's problem to fix the ratio.

Through it all, 1.B.46.G states: So IF.. BIG IF... I'm reading that right then I see the grow to shrink problem. We could add jets from 2013 and on but we don't necessarily have to grow, we could keep our current 1.9M block hours.

If they go to 223 76-seaters and cut to 125 50-seaters, then they drop their block hours to 1.2 million and be in compliance with the best case in our favor ratio of 1.56. They'd drop their total block hours flown but hey, capacity discipline reigns.

In either case, if unlike the CRJ-200, those new 70 CRJ-900s have mainline CASMs and are added to the consolidated fleet therein allowing the 717 to be a replacement instead of growth jet then that's easily 700-800 pilots lost.

Not saying we'll furlough at all, but what I am saying fixating on the 717 as growth would be incorrect, it looks like it could easily be as much a net pilot neutral aircraft increase as the 737-900s will be.

 

That is all I'm asking guys to do. Every pilot that I've seen take the time to get the real information, and answers to his questions, has softened his stance against this thing. Not everyone thinks it's a home run, but once they understand the details, at least they will be armed to make a rational decision.

You owe that to yourselves and your fellow pilots. Do not be lost in the rhetoric on here. Think for yourself based on what is really in the TA. If it's still untenable to you, then vote NO. At least you will have made an informed decision, intead of getting swept up in the negativity on here.

 

T,

This is the language I was referring to:

"once the number of 76-seat aircraft permitted 76-seat jetsunder Section 1 B. 40. f. is established, it willengaged in category A or C operations, such number of aircraft need not be reduced., so long as the then-current limit on the total number of 50-seat aircraft specified in Section 1 B. 40. f. Exception one is satisfied."

I may be reading it wrong and I understand there are block hour limitations, but I feel that once these aircraft are here that mgt will come back for block hour limit relief that would not be available to them if the jets were not here to begin with.

 

The more I look at Section 1, the more it looks like a loss. Why are we giving up more large RJs? Delta is the king of giving away scope. Outside of US Airways, there isn't a single carrier that allows CRJ900/E175s. Us giving up these large RJs allows UAL/CAL, AMR management to kill their scope also in negotiations.

Current Scope Limits (CR9/E175) aka jets with "only" 76 seats
ALK 0
AMR 0
CAL 0
DAL 255 (stuck at 153 unless they park 70s)
JBL 0
HAL 0
SWA 0
UAL 0
US - okay, their scope is worse than ours........

 

To start, my biggest hang up with this TA is scope. I have a few questions that may be unanswerable.

1. What's the hurry? I can't imagine that there is some kind of uber secret plan in the works that requires an immediate signing of the TA. Time is a very strong negotiating tool and it appears that we are allowing this to be used against us rather than in our favor.

2. Why 717? From the rumors this deal as been in the making for a long time. I am certain the official announcement was strategically timed to come out when it did. Plus, we're looking at 88 jets that are more than likely replacement aircraft. This isn't a fleet that lends much potential in organic growth. 88 jets isn't an effective replacement or addition and the only real way to gain any more is through a merger. We can't simply order more from Boeing.

3. Why 76 seat jets? Economically they are better than the 50 seat jet. They're better, but they aren't good. I don't think anyone would ever try to start a stand alone airline with a 76 seat jet. I don't know the exact metrics, but would imagine Delta is basically subsidizing these aircraft and reducing their losses by pitching the regionals against each other.

4. Why not a new 100 seat jet? If we really need a magical 100 seat jet, why don't we work a deal for the C series that relieves us of the 50 seat lease burdens?

There are always other options and I don't see why we have to concede scope. Some may look at Section 1 and say it is better, but we're still giving away jobs. Something about this TA just doesn't sit right with me.