Couldn't they improve the ratio to meet the new TA limits by maintaining mainline status quo and shrinking DCI (ie loose 50 seaters)?
I am a fence sitter with lots of questions building up for my reps. This just happens to be the one I am really concerned about. I fear the company can show compliance without the need to grow mainline.

To many "ifs" and variables in my opinion to make such a statement. Loopholes have been discovered in the contract. There are likely others yet to be discovered given the fact the more obvious ones went unchecked.

I shouldn't have to repeat this but I will anyway. 76 seat jets are long term replacements for 50 seat jets that are a drag on Delta's bottom line.

It is foolish to pry the door of long time outsourcing further open by filling uneconomical jet slots with economical ones that will replace mainline flying. Even Mr. Swelbar, who routinely leans way over on airline managements side gets this:

Tipping Point

"From my perspective this next round of pilot negotiations could be the tipping point for scope: the critical juncture in an evolving situation that leads to a new and irreversible development. What if mainline pilots again treat the relaxation of scope as trading currency to make improvements in the collective bargaining agreement? Wouldn’t they ultimately be ceding mainline narrowbody flying in the US domestic market? I think so."

- March 10, 2010

Mainline Pilot Scope: Will Regional Carriers Be Permitted to Fly 90+ Seat Aircraft? - Aviation Articles and Commentary - Swelblog / Swelbar on Airlines

Okay, what are the loopholes in the block hour ratio? It will eventually be 1 to 1.56. Is that not better than the current 1 to 1.19? By "larger airplane outsourcing" do you mean more 70 to 76 seaters or aircraft larger than this?

They already have pushed for and gotten more 70 to 76 seaters via the TA and no, I don't like this development, but under the current contract the company has the capability to eventually get 255 76 seaters and getting the 88 717's would allow them to do this. All they need to do is keep the DC-9's, new 737-9,s for a couple of years and, voila!, 255 is reached rather easily by 2015. Then the dump comes......Yes, it would cost the company money to do this but I can definitely see them doing it absent the TA.

So, with the TA, we can now limit 76 seaters to less than the 255 and have 102 70 seaters. In my mind, we are really talking about 70 seaters because our current contract does allow up to 255 76ers if certain conditions are met ie. more mainline aircraft above 767.

You all might think I have made up my mind but I haven't. I just want to look at this from all aspects.

Denny

How would we get rid of the 50s without this compromise? Delta has leases, and they need to have something to swap for them. If not, they have do do SOMETHING with them until those leases run out..

What else could you forsee that would give the company that potential?

Slow, are you saying the current MBH to DBH ratio is 1.19 MBH to 1 DBH?

Wouldn't the current ratio between mainline and DCI block hours be the baseline, with continuous improvement as we add 76-seat jets?

Also, I'm probably mistaken, but when I look the chart in 1 D. 9.b. it shows a ratio of 1.1 MBH to 1 DBH after the first 10 76-seat RJs are added. Why would we make the BH-ratio 8% lower than the current balance; after we add the first ten 76-set RJs?

Cheers
George

There is no "growth" requirement in this agreement. There is a requirement that Delta pilots fly an increased share of Delta code. If Delta stays static, DCI must shrink to comply with the block hour ratio. That means the Delta network would be smaller by the equivalent percentage of seats/seatmiles/block hours and airframes that DCI reduces. It also means unlike our current circumstance that Delta can't shrink the mainline until DCI first shrinks, and then DCI must shrink at a greater rate than mainline to remain in compliance. Again, growth is not a requirement, but the business plan does suppose growth. Downside protections are provided by the block hour ratios.

Well hell, that doesn't allay any concerns now at all. Since we're not demanding the removal of airframes and just a reduction of block hours, they can make up those lost hours with other carriers or their own flying...with modern profitable aircraft. So we incentivize them to grow with the most modern and efficient 90 seat mainline aircraft (configured for 76 seats), instead of leaving them with costly airframes that can't make money if they try to gain additional flying outside of us. How the heck can this be wise?

Holy sh!t. That's amazing. :eek:

Carl

We could get the larger RJ's here at mainline...

That is all that can be asked.

My 2 cents.

I see little downside here for the majority of our pilots. (This really does nothing for the top (probably half )of the list.. Carl especially) Ratios are captured which funnel more flying to mainline. The 50s go away faster but we have to give up a few 76s. It is a good trade at this time. If one's time horizon is longer, then one could wait out the natural death of those 50s. The problem there is that it will continue stagnation, and it is obvious that guys are tired of that already. But if keeping those 76s off the property, and allowing the 50s to die naturally via a long timeline is concomitant with our ability to accept that stagnation for a longer time, then voting no is a no brainer. Personally, I think it foolish to scuttle a good deal over this. I think there are a lot of junior captains seats at stake.

What is the current block hour ratio provided in our PWA?

None. The block hour ratio shifts throughout the year. In the wintertime DCI block hours as a percentage of mainline flying tend to go up. The 1.10 is a backstop to normal execution of the business plan should things go poorly for Delta.

And they can't add 10 76 seat RJ until they've added 13 B717.