I get what you are saying, now. Good point. However, for the company to enter in an agreement with LUV and not have a solid plan (that does not include their pilots), would be really, really stupid. We'd have huge grounds for a big lawsuit. LUV (according the the AT FO we had on the JS yesterday) said that they are not furloughing and they will assimilate 717 pilot into LUV (I don't know if I'd trust LUV on that). Interesting point #29. Ultimately, I don't think it is an issue.

 

Because this deal hinges on economics.

You do not address the fact this hinges on Re - fleeting Delta Connection through a much larger investment in that product for a much more economically relevant jet.

 

I'm TIC most of the time...I think... or am I....?

 

I too believe that RA would not negotiate a transaction that included AT pilots. He's lucky the NWA/DAL SLI went as smooth as it did. It'd just be nice to have written reassurance.

 

You haven't been keeping up. The airtran pilots arent assimilated until jan 2015. Today, they are still alpa represented.

IOW the Airtran pilots are NOT SWA pilots yet.

 

Those CMR fleet changes resulted in substantial charges to Delta for early termination...the same type of charges Delta hopes to avoid while shifting flying back to mainline. And, it was done at the only wholly owned subsidiary, where there's more flexibility to park those aircraft. CMR only has 30 left flying.

As to PCL, you may want to reread the DIP financing documents from the bankruptcy court. They are rejecting a CPA for 16 CRJ-900's under the DCI banner and all their turboprop flying as unprofitable. They are affirming their 141 CRJ-200 contract as profitable.

If they (PCL) liquidate, Delta has the financial obligations for those 141 CRJ-200's, they don't just go away.

You are right, there is a natural attrition to CRJ-200's. Without contract renegotiations with the DCI carriers it lasts 5 years longer than contemplated in this TA. Management has alternatives to get to many of the 50 seaters, but it takes longer and is much more expensive. The excess DCI capacity (above the business plan) caused by too many 50 seaters is flying that would not return to mainline.

 

Slowplay, I don't see you defending/spinning the Republic cutout on the other threads.

This could be the biggest loophole permitted in DALPA's loophole-laden history. I'm curious to see how they spin it.

 

You and I have clearly had our back and forth in the past, but I hope you'll really listen to what I'm about to say:

I've been you alfa. I've been up to my eyeballs in data without having any time to interract with line pilots for a while. You can easily fall into a bunker mentality. That's where you and the rest of the MEC is right now. Not an insult, I just recognize it when I see it.

What you've stated in your entire post above (especially with what I've bolded) is that MEMRAT is really just a rubber stamp that's almost not worth the wasted time. I know you don't think that's what you've said, but you have. Here's why:

It does NOT matter if the NC has had 350 back and forths or 3,500. The NC and even the MEC are NOT the decision makers...the members are. It's not my opinion, it's the ALPA CBL's written language. O'Malley and all the reps have stated this over and over again. The decision makers have gotten this for the FIRST time. If we vote NO on this and send it back to the MEC, that will be the FIRST back and forth...not the 351st.

For you to state that we're kidding ourselves if we think management will move in any fashion to our NO vote, then why have MEMRAT? Do you not see by this statement that you're devaluing MEMRAT to the point of a membership rubber stamp of the MEC's actions? This is how a top-down organization behaves...not a bottom-up one?

Seriously alfa, you have to consider the damage of what you've just said here. Your position dictates that you revise these comments.

Carl

 

Heyas,

It's clear from Alfa's in depth knowledge and claims that he's NOT and ordinary line pilot, but a MEC committee member (or chairman?) that has intimate details.

Keep this in mind...he doesnt work for the line pilots, nor the rep. We can't directly fire him, NOR can the reps.

The word is that after the initial presentation, the vote was 9 against, including at least one in ATL. Those 9 represented a MAJORITY of the roll call votes, which would have sunk the TA.

To think there were not political machinations that occured to switch those 4 votes is being naive.

Nu

 

Ahh, I think I get it now.

The DCI refleeting option is a less expensive option than eating the sunk costs, engine maintenance and aircraft overhaul expense associated with management's option of going without us. That was the opportunity that created this deal. Delta will invest in DCI one way or another, the question is whether or not Delta pilots will benefit from that investment.

Is that what you're looking for?