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 georgetg (Post 1198129)

Would Delta and Delta pilots benefit from a similar deal exchanging the C-Series for removal of lease obligation on 50-seat jets?

I've been an avid proponent of the 717 deal for the past few months.
The ratios are better than I thought.

My trepidation is that we are not purchasing the 717 but subleasing them from SWA.

The CRJ-900 is around 20M.
The 717 runs about 12.5M

If we had bought the 717 I would be more amicable to the deal.

Leasing the cheaper plane, to buy the more expensive plane and putting that jet at DCI is what worries me. To top it off it will increase the super-premium DCI pilot jets by nearly 50%, while it will add the lowest paying jet to the Delta pilots.

Add in the exemption from holding company language for Republic (Chautauqua Shuttle America) and Brian Bedfords stated plans of flying the C-Series for SkyTeam, outside of any "production balance" or "block hour ratio" and I can't see how this is supposed to be good.

Cheers
George

And when do those SWA lease obligations end? 2017?

Is this just a gap fill?

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1198093)

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.

Excellent! Slowly but surely, the truth is coming out here. Just as I've been saying, the "opportunity" was the company's huge desire to get out from under our CURRENT contract. Ergo, we have significant leverage...if we understand how much our CURRENT contract is damaging Delta. Ironically, they are now against the very contract items they fought so hard to insert. There RJ dream has turned into a nightmare, and we are being asked to save their experiment from death, by further gutting our conract. Such a deal I have for you!!

Our CURRENT contract puts them in a hell of a position. With our hard 255 cap on large RJ's, their only alternative is to invest (via maintenance, re-engining) in a money losing and dying airframe. Again, who has the leverage?

Despite what our MEC salesman are saying, Delta WILL renegotiate this deal if we say NO. Guaranteed. The SEA S/T has it right however when he states how personally and professionally invested our MEC is in THIS product. It is impossible for them to be objective now. Understand that with the road shows, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1198093)

Delta will invest in DCI one way or another,

Then let them. And let them explain that to the board and shareholders. I'll wait.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1198093)

the question is whether or not Delta pilots will benefit from that investment.

That's already been answered by the LEC NO votes. Delta pilots willl not benefit from that investment with this TA.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1198101)

Summary:

Our PWA has language to prohibit a DCI carrier to fly large jets.
Republic aquires Frontier and operates A320s, orders the C-Series.
Many Delta pilot call their reps and say it violates the PWA.
The DALPA lawyer responds that the PWA language isn't enforceable as written.
My rep promises to make sure the next contract is better.
New language in TA prohibits operations like Republic from operating larger jets.
Exemption added to TA specifically permits Republic (Chautaqua, Shuttle America) to operate large jets contrary to news language.

Really? This alone in context of BBs plans should be a NO vote.

Eeeeeee-Yup!

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1198101)

Nothing. Brian Bedford is planning on doing just that.

Even better, the TA gives Republic a specific exemption to perform large jet flying by exempting Chautaqua and Shuttle America (wholly owned subsidiaries of Republic) to be exempt from the improved holding company language:

Summary:

Our PWA has language to prohibit a DCI carrier to fly large jets.
Republic aquires Frontier and operates A320s, orders the C-Series.
Many Delta pilot call their reps and say it violates the PWA.
The DALPA lawyer responds that the PWA language isn't enforceable as written.
My rep promises to make sure the next contract is better.
New language in TA prohibits operations like Republic from operating larger jets.
Exemption added to TA specifically permits Republic (Chautaqua, Shuttle America) to operate large jets contrary to news language.

Really? This alone in context of BBs plans should be a NO vote!

Cheers
George

I realize you weren't around when AMR Eagle or Mesa (flying as USAirways Express) operated as DCI carriers, but here's some history. Both of those airlines were owned by companies that had other subsidiaries that operated non-permitted aircraft. None of those subsidiaries with non-permitted aircraft could carry Delta passengers, code or revenue. That's exactly the same with RAH and Frontier. No Delta passengers or revenue can fly on Frontier. As I pointed out in another thread, Delta used RAH operated DCI carriers to compete directly with Frontier. Bedford said his 50 seat DCI flying wasn't profitable, and DCI made Frontier less profitable. Sucks to be Bedford.

Now Bedford's in a circumstance where he can't dump Frontier and he has large debt payments due. What's his path out? What plans has Bedford successfully executed on since he started his branded strategy?

Why would Delta (a founding SkyTeam and its largest member) allow Bedford to take money out of Delta's pockets by flying SkyTeam member code under the SkyTeam banner on its RAH's own branded operation? There's no logic to that position as I see it. Bedford certainly can't fly Delta or Atlantaic JV code with his branded carrier certificate using other than permitted aicraft under our current arrangements.

What am I missing that is causing you concern?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1198136)

That's already been answered by the LEC NO votes. Delta pilots willl not benefit from that investment with this TA.

Carl

Really? The 5 are so much smarter than the 14 in your book...

You still can't handle the truth...;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy (Post 1198111)

Engineless 747 Attempts Takeoff ...

Carl??

Engines are for pussies.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1198130)

we aren't acquiring it though are we?
subleasing 717s from SWA isn't exactly "acquiring" more like "renting"

Cheers
George

I didn't know you were privy to the components of a multi-party deal! Tell me, who has the residual risk on those aircraft...?:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1198131)

Japan had just concluded a peaceful negotiation with the United States when they bombed Pearl Harbor.

You can choose to believe whatever you want, but you poison the (reasoning) pool if you put your hope and theory out there as fact.

How are things in that bomb proof bunker in Omaha?:p

Couldn't agree more with your second paragraph.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1198139)

IMO, it furthers the whipsaw, but in the case of RAH, it affects regionals AND mainline equally.

How anyone can possibly defend the RAH carveout, especially a union official, is utterly mindboggling.

It's like saying noone can kick us in the nutz, except johnny.

With your statement (above), am I safe to assume that you favor the US gov't sending welfare payments to Mexicans (living in Mexico) who were once illegal aliens in the US?

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1198149)

How are things in that bomb proof bunker in Omaha?:p

Couldn't agree more with your second paragraph.

With guys like you flying topcover, I have to add 6 more feet of re-inforced concrete to the roof.