Originally Posted by CAAC ATP (Post 1197063)

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.

Originally Posted by FIIGMO (Post 1197091)

Many know my views on the whole DPAv. ALPA conflicts. Mainly, until DPA is on the property I have to support ALPA. Of course with this TA out and being analyzed, I have to ask the question. Where is DPA? Time to sieze an opportunity.

What I am clearly looking for is the promised competent lawyers of "several successful" negotiations etc. Not a flame at all. But since we do have real time contract language to sift through before a vote, where is the DPA evidence where we are (yes US as in DALPA, facts are facts every DAL pilot is represented by ALPA).

I cannot think of a better time for DPA to prove to all the pilots in the ranks where they would do a better job for us with specific proof and examples of very dangerous language that DPA's lawyers would never allow. What would DPA's language say. If DPA has a lawyer looking at this share it! It may be the best way to move forward.


Just asking!

Originally Posted by roadie85 (Post 1197094)

i agree, there's a lot that doesn't sit right with this ta. We can help delta save over 2 billion dollars by not agreeing to 70 $30+million dollar rj's. How many times can a company lose billions of dollars chasing money wasting commuter jets. there is a reason we are in negotiations 7 months early, and it's not to benefit the pilot group.

Originally Posted by FIIGMO (Post 1197091)

Many know my views on the whole DPAv. ALPA conflicts. Mainly, until DPA is on the property I have to support ALPA. Of course with this TA out and being analyzed, I have to ask the question. Where is DPA? Time to sieze an opportunity.

What I am clearly looking for is the promised competent lawyers of "several successful" negotiations etc. Not a flame at all. But since we do have real time contract language to sift through before a vote, where is the DPA evidence where we are (yes US as in DALPA, facts are facts every DAL pilot is represented by ALPA).

I cannot think of a better time for DPA to prove to all the pilots in the ranks where they would do a better job for us with specific proof and examples of very dangerous language that DPA's lawyers would never allow. What would DPA's language say. If DPA has a lawyer looking at this share it! It may be the best way to move forward.

Just asking!

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy (Post 1197104)

Wow ... RA gets toasted in this article.

Is Delta Staring Down A Money Pit With Its Refinery Deal? - Seeking Alpha

Originally Posted by Elvis90 (Post 1197105)

The author is a tool, resorting to personal attacks of the CEO. I read the same article in SKY magazine a while ago and I was impressed. Oil is a place to put money in during a decline in the $ and the €, hence speculation. Richard simply said that people & companies that actually use the oil should be the ones buying it. I place this article on the same level as the tools at Forbes.