Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1198452)

First, this forum and the ALPA forum are in no way indicative of the pilot group. On this forum Scope is by far the biggest issue and in the contract survey it was far behind pay. So reading this forum will not give you an accurate view of the pilot group.

It's not just money, it's all the rest. Please tell me how a negotiation will end where only one side wins. We won concessions from Delta even in bankruptcy with a gun to our head. So if you are waiting for some negotiation where only one side's issues are addressed then you better get used to this contract because you will retire under it. If you walk into the NMB and demand only concessions from the company, they will pat you on the head and tell you to come back when you are serious. Please go see the experience of the APA and USAPA for excellent examples of this type of demand bargaining.

Our reserve system is industry leading, our sick leave is industry leading. Our pay is industry leading. Our scope is ground breaking in the control we have over the DCI operation and its relation to mainline. Look at what you demand and what the company is offering in the TA from the perspective of an outside observer (the NMB) and not from the perspective of a pilot that is shooting for the perfect contract. We are already far ahead of our major competitors and about to lap the field. Do you think the NMB will support us moving even further out or will they put us on ice?

No one can guarantee you some growth or upward movement. We have laid the foundation to ensure mainline growth in a neutral or even slightly down economic environment. Past that, you will never have a guarantee. You don't have it now and you won't ever in the future. You will never convince a neutral third party that you have to have that either.

So you are trying to gauge this in light of some perfect contract you imagine. I say you should gauge it in light of how you could force that perfect contract. That will only happen if the NMB allows us to strike. Even if you believe they would allow a strike, they have shown time and again that the type of contract you seek is unavailable until the fiery end of humanity. How many years of watching pilots getting put in the naughty corner will it take for people to learn how to not go to the naughty corner. Airways 7, American 6, Continental 4, United 3. That's twenty years of experience right there.

Go back and read the NMB presentation on the ALPA website. She was giving you a road map to contract success and warning you how to stay out of the naughty corner. Negotiate, zone of reasonableness, listen to your professionals, 29 months in mediation. The railroads consolidated like the airlines are now except it was in the 1990's. Since then, no strikes multiple PEB's. Why would she take the time to point that out to us? Just interesting fun facts or a warning of what's to come?

It seems to me that most on this board think she was joking. She has no agenda to lower your expectations, she is giving advice and has the hammer to make you follow her advice. Maybe we really do need four years on ice to learn our lesson. Expensive lesson, in money, scope, and everything else. Maybe you are right and it's just our turn to touch that stove and see how hot it is.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1198458)

Okay Carl, let's go at this another way. If a fellow 747 Captain tells you he is going to recurrent training do you expect he will pass or fail? What percentages would place on each outcome.

For me, I would put it 99+% that he is going to pass. Why?

1. Because being a 747 Captain is so easy even an idiot could pass recurrent.
2. Delta's training and checking program is just a sham and they will pass anyone
3. This is a pilot who has passed numerous processes of winnowing to get where he is today. He has a vast amount of experience, has undergone a rigorous review during his hiring at a major airline, he has survived 15, 20, 25+ years of flying and checking at a major airline, he has been highly trained both in the simulator and in line operations, he has well thought out procedures and checklists, and a highly trained first officer with the same qualifications to ensure backup and cross checking.

I choose 3. You seem to think that because I have that same confidence in the pilots and professionals conducting our negotiations that I am spitting on the choices of pilots. That is not the case. I believe only one thing: educate pilots as much as possible and then the decision they make will be the right decision.

I know that you want to bully me and others that disagree with your position into silence. You think that somehow you should control the flow of information. I refuse to get pushed around by you or the other bullies on this board.

Nice try though.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1198464)

See my response to Carl above. Unless you own this board, don't pretend to tell me what to say here.

Originally Posted by boog123 (Post 1198445)

NO, No, no. It wasn't NWA telling us they were not going to park DC-9's, it was our union.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1198452)

First, this forum and the ALPA forum are in no way indicative of the pilot group. On this forum Scope is by far the biggest issue and in the contract survey it was far behind pay. So reading this forum will not give you an accurate view of the pilot group...

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1198446)

This part is true but incomplete. They can park them, maintain them, or renegotiate them. Each one of those options is different for each airframe/operator in terms of cost and opportunity. Also, why have they slowed down the parking rate? It's becaue they've already gotten to the "low hanging fruit" that they could easily and inexpensively park. There's still 30 CMR CRJ-100/200 that they're getting rid of (no ASA savings as they're a wholly owned, but still have some financial obligations to those a/c) because they're old and the easiest to dump. After that, everything is under contract.



Not all of the DCI carriers are willing to do that. Witness PCL, which just asked the court to assume the ASA on its 141 CRJ-200's and rejected the ASA on 16 CRJ-900. It depends on the terms of each contract. Oh, the PCL CRJ-200's also were extended until their lease expiration (part of management's other option).



If these clauses were as you state, why did PCL assume the 50 seat contract and reject one of their two 76 seat contracts in bankruptcy? In court filings they said the Mesaba CRJ-900 and PCL CRJ-200 ASAs were both profitable. Those were renegotiated with the sale of Mesaba to PCL. It appears you are operating from obsolete information. The ASA's have been modified multiple times since the bankruptcies of NWA and DAL.



Again, see the PCL court docs. What you state above is not factual regarding PCL. The ASA's throughout DCI have changed (Compass and Mesaba sales, plus SKYW acquisition of former Horizon aircraft and turboprop parking) and are not as you represent. There are risk sharing and performance components in the agreeements, and they make profitability more difficult in certain contracts. The breakeven and unprofitable contracts are the ones that are the most ripe for renegotiation, but they don't take away ownership costs. The renegotiations as you describe only take away the DCI services agreement costs.


Your statement above was not correct. Also, can you point to any 3-1 or 4-1 swapouts at DCI? I can point to some 2-1 swapouts (Horizon CRJ-700's at ASA)



The 28 CMR aircraft are ones for which Delta has a financial responsibility. The 16 PCL CRJ-900's are PCL owned and along with the DCI ASA they fly under are being rejected by PCL. They may or may not be available for Delta's use depending on the bankruptcy court, but they are not Delta's to place.



The part I've copied here is partially accurate. Delta will be able to renegoatiate some of the 50 seat contracts. Some (much less than assumed here) 50 seat flying is unprofitable both for mainline and DCI partners, and those are the contracts that are ripe for consenual termination. But Delta still eats the ownership costs of parked airplanes in that scenario, they only avoid the ASA costs and penalties. Also, there will be need for 50 seat lift to backfill UAL's loss of Q400's from PCL, and AMR for their rejection of EMB-135/140 37 and 44 seat aircraft and I'm quite sure Delta would encourage current DCI partners to bid on that flying. Also, the maintenance cycles at current utilization rates is about every 7 years for payback, not 10. Again, the renegotiation gets Delta out of the DCI side of the costs, but not ownership costs for the aircraft.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1198480)

Although this is mildly interesting, these "facts" would have resulted in this response from me as the NC: "So, are you saying you want a provision in our contract forcing senior level management to be smarter businessmen?"

So freaking what! How does this affect a section 6 negotiations? Oh, you say you need our help in easing the financial burden that your mistakes have laid upon us? OK. Here is a list from our pilot survey that we MUST have in order to help the airline unload your mistake. What's that? You can only offer us a cost neutral contract? I understand. Expedited negotiations are now complete. At least we tried.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1198484)

You've been given the answer before, groundskeeper. Delta is going to spend money on DCI, either through refleeting or maintenance/grounding/renegotiation. The question before you is do you want Delta pilots to benefit from that expenditure or not?

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1198190)

Slow, its not a question of what they will do?, The question is; Can they do it? That is the question every lawyer asks; Can I get around this language legally?

...Makes me scratch my head and wonder why it is so vague. I want a great contact, but it needs to be vetted line by line...

Where we need vague language we have defined language like the "proft/loss" definition, and where we need tighter language its vague.