Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1196924)

You are really playing the fear card of FM??? Really Carl? And yet you come on here and tell everybody that since the company wanted an early agreement that if we vote this down we will get a speedy renegotiation? First of all, FM doesn't have to be written into anything. If there is another 9/11, even without the clause, the company can do whatever it needs to do to survive, and every single court in the land will back them up. It is a flat out misrepresentation of the facts for you to come on here and say otherwise. And it is a scare tactic to boot.

Item 2 above is nothing more than you pressing your donut agenda. yawn.

Item 3 is so out to lunch I have no idea where to begin.

Your ground is nothing but fearmongering.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1196931)

But all you junior guys be sure to ignore item 3... Carl will still be at the top of the food chain, looking down at you with smug satisfaction knowing that you are working for him to keep his place on the throne, because we have all read his arguments about how difficult and productive the 747 is, and all that rot...

Items 4-6 will be so far out in the future that the youngest guy on the property will be a 330 captain by the time they hit "A scale" rates..

Unbelievable that any of you give him any quarter.

Originally Posted by orvil (Post 1197032)

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.

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy (Post 1197246)

First, is this a legal type of hiring discrimination? Second, could this significantly screw the company and thus the pilot group going forward?

For example, fast forward 8 years down the road. Delta is hiring like crazy to replace retirements along with other airlines (I know I know ... the elusive hiring boom). In a few years, the pool of available "well qualified" ALPA DCI pilots is exhausted. But the language forces the company to keep hiring ALPA DCI carrier pilots. Ultimately, the company is forced to hire from a pool of pilots who may not have be as qualified as pilots from another pool.

Another example, what happens if the number of DCI carriers is reduced over time (bankruptcy, non-renewal of contracts). Then, 35% of pilots would be coming from a smaller pool of pilots which further cause qualified pilot shortages.

Do we as a pilot group want this?

Look, I know I was military trained and this isn't a military vs. regional rant. There are plenty of military pilots that shouldn't be working for DAL.

I'd rather DAL be able to pick the best from ALL sources of pilots ... not forcing them to pick 35% from an ALPA DCI carrier.

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 alfaromeo (Post 1196248)

Math Problem for the Day (I hope newk has recovered from his analysis of the staffing formula)

Delta currently flies about 3,600,000 domestic block hours per year (combined mainline + DCI).

1. Our current share of those block hours is 53.9%
2. Under the TA, if Delta purchases the extra 70 76 seat jets the minimum share of our block hours rises to 60.9%. Calculate the difference between our current share and our minimum new share.
3. Divide that difference by 12 to get the monthly block hours.
4. Multiply that number by 2 because we have two pilots per domestic cockpit.
5. Divide by 60 whcih is what our block hours per pilot will be in the future.
6. Tell me how many additional pilot jobs at mainline that this creates
7. Now contemplate that with a hard cap on DCI fleet, where does all additonal system capacity growth have to go after that.

Mr. JungleBus claims that they can buy the 76 seaters and then dump mainline aircraft. How can they do that and still increase the mainline share of block hours? That is why there is the ratio built in, and it is a very powerful ratio that you will never see again under a new negotiation. Management felt like we took their children when this was negotiated. Block hours are the core of pilot jobs, the number of aircraft required to create those block hours are basically fixed by the average daily ute rate of aircraft.

Bonus question: Under Delta's business plan our share of block hours will rise to 64% (remember DCI fleet is capped). Redo the above calculations and tell me how many jobs that creates at mainline.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1197089)

and i still standby the worse fear, what if dci 450 is the number network wants anyways?

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1197076)

Bar the RAH carve out is absolutely.... can't think of the word. I'm tired. It sucks. It's scary.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1196992)

It is a bad deal. And I know there are some pinky promises out there on this thing, but I won't give up things in writing for pinky promises.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1197276)

And you accuse ALPA of manipulating the numbers! Does that fleet you have listed make one lick of sense to you? Do you really think we are going to have 300 180+ seat aircraft between the 737-900's and 757's. It looks to me like you manipulated that spreadsheet until you found the most capacity with the least number of airframes. You tried to get rid of the smallest aircraft we had so you could produce more capacity with fewer block hours.

Even under your completely untenable fleet forecast, you show that the minimum ratio produces more mainline jobs and more mainline block hours. Now using whatever fleet assumptions you want, put in 1% system growth per year and then 2% and then show me the numbers.

Finally, list out for me the fleet protections that we have with our mainline fleet today. Couldn't they get rid of all those airplanes you noted above and then replace them with Q400's and Super Efficient 50 seat jets?

Listing numbers on a spreadsheet and actually having some logic behind those numbers are two different things.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1197089)

and i still standby the worse fear, what if dci 450 is the number network wants anyways?

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1197089)

are we being suckered?