Originally Posted by Elvis90 (Post 1197122)

Thinking about the oil refinery deal just reminded me that RA is a really smart guy. Delta pilots respect how smart RA is; I hope RA respects the intelligence of the Delta pilot group as well, especially as we evaluate this TA.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1197136)

I just got off the phone asking these exact questions of one of the reps. He is on his way to the ATL lounge so anyone there can ask themselves.
Basically the work rule changes in the contract will be neutral to minus a few jobs. Less then 300. Its hard to place a exact number. The two biggest drivers are ALV plus 15 and 84 hours. Both are offset in other areas to a extant. The max threshold value in PBS can only go up 1 hour and the ALV is offset by 6 more X days per year and counting vacation, training and mil leave against the reserve max.
The 717's are planned as growth airframes. The remaining DC9's will be offset by MD90's still to come online. He also had some interesting comments on the purchase and choice. Delta looked at the A319 but would get caught in the same thing they did with the MD90. We paid triple the price for the last MD90 verses the first ones. Once the market realizes you want a airframe the prices rises rapidly. The A319's were in small buckets and would have faced the same issues as the 90's. The 717 got the nod because it was one complete package. We were also not the only party looking at the 717's which may explain partly why managment wants such as quick deal.
If we lose 300 jobs to workrules the 717's will add just over 1000 jobs. The ER program should offset the 300 work rule losses and 300 is the number they are targeting. The problem is the ER gains are very temporary since they would have retired anyway at some point.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1197067)

I agree.

According to alpha's number there is 3.6M block hours and we have 53.9%.

IF THIS IS RIGHT... we could add airplanes but have a net reduction of mainline while reducing DCI to the 450 number, still have the same ASMs, near block hours for mainline, etc and be in compliance with the 1.56 ratio.

The left column is now, the right column is after we take 717s and exercise 739 options and the like to get the ASMs up. Sure I made the fleet numbers up on the right, but I just wanted to show we could buy new mainline jets and replace old ones with the help of the 76 seaters and keep that 1.9M block hours and with the reduction in 50-seaters you could still hit the 1.56 ratio:

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...d/Temp5-28.png

Originally Posted by cni187 (Post 1197144)

What say you Elvis being a fellow newer guy? I'm all about the raise.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1197136)

I just got off the phone asking these exact questions of one of the reps. He is on his way to the ATL lounge so anyone there can ask themselves.
Basically the work rule changes in the contract will be neutral to minus a few jobs. Less then 300. Its hard to place a exact number. The two biggest drivers are ALV plus 15 and 84 hours. Both are offset in other areas to a extant. The max threshold value in PBS can only go up 1 hour and the ALV is offset by 6 more X days per year and counting vacation, training and mil leave against the reserve max.
The 717's are planned as growth airframes. The remaining DC9's will be offset by MD90's still to come online. He also had some interesting comments on the purchase and choice. Delta looked at the A319 but would get caught in the same thing they did with the MD90. We paid triple the price for the last MD90 verses the first ones. Once the market realizes you want a airframe the prices rises rapidly. The A319's were in small buckets and would have faced the same issues as the 90's. The 717 got the nod because it was one complete package. We were also not the only party looking at the 717's which may explain partly why managment wants such as quick deal.
If we lose 300 jobs to workrules the 717's will add just over 1000 jobs. The ER program should offset the 300 work rule losses and 300 is the number they are targeting. The problem is the ER gains are very temporary since they would have retired anyway at some point.

Originally Posted by cni187 (Post 1197144)

What say you Elvis being a fellow newer guy? I'm all about the raise.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1196920)

That's how I understand it.

Just to be a devils advocate for a second; those jets fly large Dal corporate contacts which bring a lots of revenue. We did just allow something we filed a grievance over though.

Originally Posted by Elvis90 (Post 1197152)

I think we can do better in pay & scope. The profit sharing cut bugs me, and I don't see any need to give 35% preferential hiring to ALPA DCI carriers.

Originally Posted by LeineLodge (Post 1196812)

I agree. I would love to see that. Unfortunately, I haven't heard a solid plan of how to do that.

I have to admit that I am intrigued by the idea of a block hour ratio that sets a falling (only) floor of how much we can outsource.

Currently DCI does nearly half of our domestic lift. This proposal will significantly shift flying to mainline. That shift will be permanent. Additionally, we will have gained JV protection and many other incremental gains. None of it is sexy, but when you take the whole package, it is something that needs to be considered very carefully.

Anyone that is dismissing this agreement without a serious look is doing themselves a disservice. If we ultimately decide as a group to shoot this thing down, then great. As long as the decision is made on facts and logical analysis of the TA I'm fine with it. Let's just make sure we are making the best decision we can, without letting our pride or emotions getting mixed in.

Originally Posted by Avgwhitemale (Post 1197155)

I wonder how the RJ dudes would feel if we wrote in "35% preferential hiring to Military pilots"? Holy cow....the fight would be on.:cool: