Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck416 (Post 1197325)

I cannot think of one occasion where management held an A/C order over the pilots heads IF a T/A is voted it, the pilots balked, and the management then followed thru with the threat. Can anyone else cite an example? The 50 seat a/c are loosing money every single departure. I think management wants this deal a lot worse than we do.

Where is this info cited?

I'll dig it up. As I recall, it's a direct quote from RA

Here is some of the info, but haven't found any of the 50 seat A/C...yet

(my apology, the link didn't "stick"...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1197314)

What the @/$! I'm on the road and don't have the TA in front of me. FTB, Bar, other non-MEC bureaucrats...is he right on this?

Carl

Carl,

He is absolutely correct on that. I have to admit though, when I read it I didn't think it was a problem because I "assumed" that the 7ER was a wide body because that is how it is paid (at least that is what the mantra was during the SLI negotiations).

There is no definition of narrow body, only new small narrow body.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1197314)

What the @/$! I'm on the road and don't have the TA in front of me. FTB, Bar, other non-MEC bureaucrats...is he right on this?

Carl

Narrowbody?

Well, keyword search NARROW in the entire TA. There were 7 references, all of them below. It's mentioned 4 times in section 1 and section 2 Definitions repeats the definitions. So really only 4 times.

Now I have to admit, it does make you wonder. Does NB for this ratio calculation include the 75ER? Scary crazy. <- that's for Slow.

2 times) Page 1-5 line 16-17 and again verbatim Section 2.A.167: “New small narrowbody aircraft” means a B-717 or an A-319 aircraft that is not in the Company’s fleet as of DOS.

4 times) Section 1.B.46.F: Exception one: If the Company establishes a fleet of new small narrowbody aircraft, the number of permitted 76-seat aircraft may increase on a one 76-seat aircraft for each one and one quarter new small narrowbody aircraft (1:1.25) ratio (rounded to the closest integer) up to a total of 223 76-seat aircraft. In the event more than 153 76-seat aircraft are in category A or C operations, then on January 1, 2014, and each succeeding January 1 thereafter, the Company will implement its plan to reduce the number of 50-seat aircraft in category A or C operations below Y (the number of 50-seat aircraft in category A or C operations as of [DOS]) rounded to the closest integer, as follows:

1 time) Section 1.D.9 (the ratios) and again verbatim in Section 2.A.195: The Company will maintain a minimum ratio of revenue block hours of Company flying on all narrowbody aircraft and all B-767-300 (non – ER) aircraft (MBH) to revenue block hours of flying in category A and C operations (DBH) under the following chart:

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1197287)

And in the past you've accused me of spin...:rolleyes:

Oh, why are they apending money on cockpit upgrades to the 88's...just to get rid of them in your spreadsheet?

1. I have not flown one yet
2. They might just be for the 90's as they are the ones with memory issues.
3. I haven't seen the press release on the cockpit mod contract execution.

That doesn't mean that you aren't correct. They MIGHT be done. There was a little emotion on his part. I'll have a chat with him:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheManager (Post 1197312)

Perspective of SEA Sec Treas.

Ron Morrell—Secretary-Treasurer’s Perspective
Just as a reminder, when elected in October 2010 to serve as the secretary-treasurer for the Seattle pilots, I specifically told the pilots who nominated me that I would be their voice, regardless of the fact that I did not have a vote within this body. I also stated that I would give you my honest perspective on the actions of the MEC and my opinion of how they were representing the will of the pilots. Even though I did not have a vote in whether or not this TA would be sent to the pilots for ratification, I attended every meeting, was involved in every MEC-level conversation, and was not shy about making my opinion known. This is my perspective of where we are and how we got here. I will also give you the reasons behind why I will vote no on this TA.
Where are we?
Everyone has had the opportunity to see the e-mails from the chairman and the negotiators. There will be plenty more communication pieces from the MEC Administration and the negotiators over the next 40 days. I recommend you read all of them! Just keep in mind that these communications come from the MEC Administration and the negotiators that brought this TA to the MEC with an enthusiastic “. . . fulfilled the fundamental aspirations of the 12,000 Delta line pilots that we represent.” I have no problem with them touting the accomplishments of an unprecedented early TA. I also understand the contention that this is the best deal management would give us from those who negotiated the transaction. No negotiators I have ever met would ever tell their constituents that the “best deal possible” may be improved if you say no! Our negotiators and the MEC Administration are fully invested in the agreement they brought to the MEC for consideration. You also need to consider that there are many members of the MEC that stated during deliberations that this agreement must stand on its own without any “selling” to the pilots . . . it should stand on its own! This will be a difficult standard to meet when the MEC Administration and the negotiators have staked their reputations and credibility on their statement that this was the best deal they could bring to the MEC! I hope there is no “selling” involved.
The rest of “where are we,” has to do with the guts of this agreement. This would be a long soliloquy if I went line-by-line or section-by-section, so I will let you judge for yourself. You will be given all that is fit to print by the MEC Administration and the negotiators. After reading this TA and listening to the negotiators and the other “experts” that were involved, I consider this agreement an improvement over our present contract. But, the MEC was not tasked with bringing you “an improvement;” they are tasked with bringing you the best agreement. My conclusion is that the present opportunity, as directed by management, should have resulted in a much better agreement. You must make your own decision by comparing what you put in the contract survey with the results! We are not in bankruptcy or the middle of a merger which each has their own unique time pressures; the only time pressure we have now is the one artificially created by management. It is a fact that, in accordance with the pilot survey, e-mails, phone calls, and other input I have received, the direction of the pilots’ number-one priority was NOT met! I could have felt comfortable supporting this agreement if even 80 percent of the number-one concern and request of our pilots was met! This was not the case.
How did we get here?
This past January, the MEC was floated a huge “trial balloon” concerning a business plan direction that the management team wanted to pursue. The MEC, in conjunction with the MEC Administration and the Negotiating Committee developed an opening position based on a full Section 6 contract opener with the intention to extract the best, most comprehensive and expedited agreement possible. Two months later, the MEC was handed a TA. Unfortunately for me, something is missing.
At this point, I believe the pilots must vote based on the content of the TA as you see it. There are no other alternatives except yes or no. I consider this a mistake due to the fact that the MEC was not given the opportunity to give further direction to the negotiators before they made a final decision. With the support of the MEC Administration, the negotiators announced a Tentative Agreement without meeting the direction of the MEC on the number-one priority, as stated by our pilots. The MEC had only one meeting and two conference calls during the duration of this negotiation. Conference calls are not official MEC meetings, and thus the MEC members are not in a position to give official direction to the MEC Administration or to the negotiators. There was never any request for further direction.
To quote our MEC chairman, who also stated that he was in full support of this agreement, “The TA should not be judged compared to the pilots’ aspirations as reflected in the contract survey . . . there is no context to their wishes.” I found this rather pretentious and out of touch with the direction that our pilots gave to our MEC. To be fair, the negotiators and the MEC Administration who declared to the MEC that this was the best deal possible must defend their decision—that is their only political choice. I have already heard a common phrase bantered about, which is used by some to justify just this type of situation, “I voted yes in order to let the pilots have a chance to vote on this agreement.” The problem with this is that your representatives were not elected to “pass the buck;” they are supposed to do the job of representing your direction and to get you the best possible agreement, then vote to send the agreement to you. I consider that statement a copout from those looking for political cover.
My final synopsis: I want our pilots to have the best possible background in order to consider this TA in context. The pilots gave the MEC their direction through a comprehensive survey, e-mails, phone calls, and face-to-face discussions; the MEC gave the negotiators their direction; and the TA does not meet these directions (with no convening redirection requested). After careful consideration, I would have voted against sending this TA to the pilots; I do not believe it meets the direction that the pilots gave us, nor do I believe it is the best product in this negotiating environment. I will back up that opinion by voting no when the polls open.
Epilogue
You and I will be receiving a great deal of information from the MEC Administration and the negotiators over the next 40 days. I encourage you to read, listen, and attend a road show if possible. Keep an open mind and create your own balance sheet to help you decide which way to vote. Remember, a vote against this TA will create a delay but the risk may be worth the reward. You will see very little “balanced” information that points out the downsides to the agreement or possible alternate paths if this is voted down. You will only hear about worst case scenarios. You need to ask yourself a pertinent question—does the management team want a long summer with an open contract and the financial uncertainty it creates over the next year when they are looking to “leap ahead of the competition”? Maybe the worst case scenario of three years of wrangling is not in their best interests.
I look forward to talking to as many of you as possible in the SEATAC pilot lounge over the next weeks. Feel free to call me for more in depth discussions. Whatever your decision—vote!

It's only fair you put up Pat's pro one too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1197344)

Yep, I did the same thing. This is kind of upsetting. I am thinking it really needs to be in reference to domestic block hours and not a fleet type because as we know, there are a lot of narrowbody's that are flying international.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1197344)

I think the 753 and is 224 seats are included too.

Quote:

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.

I tend to think the fleet projections were quite reasonable and plausible considering high time aircraft and aircraft that are the first to become obsolete. It really doesn't matter though...this was just to show a plausible scenario in which the desired hiring wouldn't take place. The "protections" are based on block hour ratios. Once all is completed there is no requirement to adjust DCI numbers either. While block hours do tend to drive hiring...I'll agree with that...it's not as simple as that to tag a hiring number to it. I foresee a different longer term hiring prognosis if we sell the scope. Some might not care as they'll be gone in 5 yrs. Its seems the only protection in our current contract that they have a problem with is the Republic carve out and 76 seat limit...our few scope items. I'm not sure we need to scope the Space shuttle fleet anymore...it's not economical either. So according to this example you can meet the block hour ratio and still have met the new TA limits...not a lot of extra bodies with this one.