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 alfaromeo (Post 1198250)

Well, Carl, thanks for "helping" me by making up a bunch of stuff I didn't say. Memrat is important, you have a vote, please exercise it. I only want people to vote based on data.

Buzzpat says we accepted their first offer. I simply corrected him by saying we had multiple offers. Not only did we have multiple offers but the issues narrowed down until we were fighting over small sums of money in relation to a $2.5 billion contract.

Now your opinion is that if we say no then management will open up the treasury and start pouring out money. Using your logic, we should do away with Memrat because Carl knows the answer and Carl's opinion rules.

My opinion is that if we say no, management will execute their business plan, a plan they have been moving on for months now. We will get pushed off into a corner and at some point we will negotiate again. Once they spend all that money on RJ maintenance they will keep those jets around. They also won't spend it on us.

We started prepping for this negotiation 18 months ago. We had numerous strategic planning sessions with the MEC, we put out an enormous amount of information to the pilots. We had a 100+ question survey that had 6,000+ responses. We carefully analyzed those results and worked with the MEC to refine their direction to meet the priorities of the pilots. We assembled a large negotiating team including four professional negotiators with over a hundred years combined negotiating experience. We had a trained economist, a brilliant guy, helping with costing and analysis. We went through expedited but comprehensive negotiations over a period of months, with thousands of hours of analysis and discussion in between proposals. In the end we were fighting over 1/5 % of our contract.

After going through this extensive process with professionals that are highly regarded throughout the country, my opinion is that if you vote no on the hope that there will be some rapid turnaround of a new contract with lots of extra benefits for us, you are mistaken. The scope language in this contract is a huge win for Delta pilots (in my opinion) and it was taken dearly with major heartburn from management. The chance that it will improve on the second go is quite low (in my opinion).

If your deal is the 76 seat issue then vote no, that is what memrat is for. I still don't understand what this issue is with Republic and Skyteam, I haven't yet heard one description of this that makes a lick of sense to me. Why would Delta try to make Frontier grow and prosper? They can't put any Delta passengers on Frontier or some C-Series jet whenever that paper airplane actually flies. They can't revenue share with them. But, hey if that is your issue, then vote no.

If you think a Delta 747 Captain making $85,000 a year more than a United 747 Captain is a personal affront, then vote no. Everyone can come up with a great reason to vote no.

The hard part is finding a path to vote no and then up with more scratch in your pocket. The negotiating committee worked their tails off and used an expanded team of professionals. They didn't just decide one day to quit negotiating and send out the results. This was a careful process that was carefully executed. If you vote no, then you better have a plan that gets us more money.

Hope is not a strategy. Wishing is not a strategy. Anger is not a strategy. You have a vote and you should exercise it. But if you vote no, I better end up with more money in my pocket in three years than this TA provides. Tell me how that happens and I will vote no too.

+1 Well said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1199556)

My guess is that they are preparing for plan B in the event the TA does not pass... Those airplanes are gonna be deployed somewhere. BTW, where did you find this article? I had read it somewhere, and I could not find it again.

Pinnacle’s bankruptcy underlies growing weakness of US regional carriers | CAPA

I just don't see why they would finance and extend the contracts of 142 inefficient CRJ200's. Perhaps to hold it over our head as a scope win when they are traded out for larger RJ's?

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1199373)

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.

*That is unless
Definitions "permitted aircraft type"

1 46.7F Note Two

The Company will be excused from compliance with the provisions of this Note in
2 the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control is the
3 cause of such non-compliance.

Wouldn't those same reasons that are out of their control also be items in which they pulled capacity and would want to do it non-uniformly?

Repost:

Alfa and Slow:

Wrt to the ratios in DCI and the 717:

Are the ratios based upon known retirements and deliveries?

Do the ratios include adding the 717?

Do the ratios guarantee growth or just no more stagnation?

If the company gets all 88 717's and exercises all options for the 76 seat platform, what will mainlines fleet count be? DCI?

If you are unwilling or unable to answer the above question; given the ratios and known fleet plan at mainline, how many growth 717's would we be getting over current mainline jet count?

A follow on:
What is the expected ratio of mainline growth to newly allowed 76 seat jets. Less than 1:1 in favor of DCI? Better than 1:1? If so by how much?

What these ratios seems to imply is one "growth" snb to every newly allowed large 76 seat jet. The numbers guys are saying best case we see a fleet of about 770 or about where we were at SOC.

Please show your work. I am curious about this and what real growth if any this will result in with the work rule changes.

Thanks,

Want to make an informed vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1199772)

Those circumstances are defined in the contract.

Circumstance over which the Company does not have control,” for the purposes of
33

Section 1, means a circumstance that includes, but is not limited to, a natural disaster;
34 labor dispute; grounding of a substantial number of the Company’s aircraft by a
35 government agency; reduction in flying operations because of a decrease in available fuel
36 supply or other critical materials due to either governmental action or commercial
37 suppliers being unable to provide sufficient fuel or other critical materials for the
38 Company’s operations; revocation of the Company’s operating certificate(s); war
39 emergency; owner’s delay in delivery of aircraft scheduled for delivery; manufacturer’s
40 delay in delivery of new aircraft scheduled for delivery. The term “circumstance over
41 which the Company does not have control” will not include the price of fuel or other
42 supplies, the price of aircraft, the state of the economy, the financial state of the
43 Company, or the relative profitability or unprofitability of the Company’s then-current

44 operations.

So no, they wouldn't be the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1199332)

I've never once stated I've been harmed. I'm simply saying I was not a good example for the questioner to use since the premise of his question was my pay and my 40,000+ per year dc. I'm not getting that dc, so I simply wanted the questioner to know that so he could use another pilot as an example for his thesis.

Why do I feel like you're on a ledge getting ready to jump? :confused:

Carl

I am sorry Carl, but you will get that DC beginning in 2014, so there is only one more year that you will not be getting the DC due to the fact that we "saved the pension" and you were full. Just out of curiousity, how much is your frozen pension per year and how much of a lump sum benefit do you have?

Quote:

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1199776)

I answered this exact same post from Johnso in a different thread two days ago...maybe you guys should coordinate better!;)

The ratios ensure that Delta executes at a minimum level on their business plan, and that if it doesn't that Delta mainline isn't the only hydraulic accumulator in the system.

There are no mainline fleet counts in this agreement other than the delivery of small narrow bodies (B717)...there are block hour ratios. There is a DCI fleet count in this agreement. As DCI takes delivery of 76 seaters which is only enabled by mainline receiving SNB's, DCI must shrink according to a table in the PWA.

In order for DCI to access 35 70 seat aircraft Delta must first take delivery of 44 B717/A319. They must also park 97 50 seat jets.

There is no guarantee of growth in this agreement. This agreement protects us if there's not growth and serves as a backstop to business plan failure. If management accepts delivery of all 88 B717's, then they get access to up to 70 76 seat jets AND they must reduce the DCI fleet to 450 by the end of 2015. 125 of those can be 50 seat jets. As described before, Delta currently has obligations to 311 of those aircraft at the end of 2015. They will also be capped at 223 76 seat aircraft and 102 70 seat aircraft. If they shrink mainline block hours below the minimum ratio, then for every hour mainline shrinks DCI will shrink more due to the requirement to maintain a 1.56-1 minimum ratio. If mainline grows, DCI will still be capped by the 450 aircraft limit and their physical ability to utilize the aircraft. Remember that DCI's fleet seating capacity is being reduced by 15-16% over time and they are currently (depending on month) 46-48% of domestic equivlent block hours. While the math isn't pure due to differences in aircraft utilization rates, if Delta stayed static whle DCI shrank there would be a significant capacity reduction going on in our domestic system, and almost all of it would be borne by DCI. That means that something else is going on that is negatively affecting Delta. Compare the contractual result in that case under the TA with our current scope, where management is unfettered except for furlough protections in downsizing mainline in favor of DCI.

Oh, and the planned ratio (not guaranteed) of flying is about 1.76-1. That number and even the backstop number of 1.56 are a far cry from today's 1.19-1.

The profit/loss definition was an expansion designed to capture any form of JV flying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1199726)

You lose credibility when you make stuff up. I did not say the data was shared among competing carriers. I said that they (E&FA) get to look at 37 different carriers and contracts. They can quickly tell if a management team is operating outside the norm and ask appropriate questions within the bounds of the confidentiality agreements (as I posted) that they signed.

Here is what you said:

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by slowplay
One of the advantages of working for a large union is that your E&FA department gets to look at 37 different airlines and their internal numbers. While they are bound by confidentiality agreements they can quickly tell which carriers are out of the norm. ALPA also has copies of all the DCI (and many other regionals)ASA agreements and can match the numbers from the agreements with data provided by management. Lastly, most of the regionals are publicly traded companies (Trans States excepted) and have SEC reporting requirements. Those are yet another crosscheck.

And here is what I said (Please let's not get into a Carl argument)

Quote:

It is good that the non-disclosure / confidentiality agreements that all the airlines have with all the ALPA carriers allows them to freely share that info among competing carriers.

You said that E&FA looks at internal numbers from 37 different carriers or is that not what you meant to say? I'm hardly trying to take words out of your mouth buy quoting your entire post.

Quote:

We are cutting the legs? Perhaps you didn't note the APA deal, which allows 308 81 seat aircraft and 352 70 seat aircraft...
Oh, and I do look at how well they are doing. CAL has been negotiating for 4 years. UAL for 3 years. Merger equity has passed them by. $700 million dollars and 400 pilot jobs would have to be added by them if they came to our TA. What's the purpose of scope again? If UAL/CAL was so good, why did both furlough during the last downturn? UAL still has 1400 out and they have that little Aer Lingus issue.

First, I am quite happy to work at Delta and overall am quite happy with what ALPA has done here. If it were not for all of what is wrong with section 1 I would be voting yes for this TA even though there are items in it that didn't get fixed or meet my expectations. Overall the product is better.

Second, I would love to have parts of CAL's scope and it appears that UAL is intent on keeping the best parts and improving everything else. They have rightly determined that Scope is the foundation of restoring the airline pilot profession going forward. It is a hard fight and Delta's TA, if past, will make it harder to achieve. As you point out they have even bigger loopholes than we do and a management willing to exploit them. UAL argues that there furloughs are a result of the scope giveaways and they want to stop it. UAL is approaching a turning point with their petition to the NLRB and their success would also help us.

Quote:

It's not hard at all to quantify costs when you have the ASAs and utilization data. You just don't like the result.

It's actually way more than you believe, about 33% more.

How do you know what I believe. It's pretty easy to add up the cost per hour and compare it to mainline since we have published rates for our largest outsourced aircraft. My own number is actualy a little higher than yours but the point is not that some DCI pilots and FAs will work for 33% less than us replacing our jobs which makes Delta money but not its pilots. The point is that the CRJ-900 and above aircraft can be flown at mainline at a crew cost less than a 737-700, A319, and the much touted 717.

I am quite sure that we could convince DCI to operate the A320 and MD88 fleet at a 33% savings. I am also sure Delta would be willing to let those of us left have a little of that savings in our paycheck. We can keep doing it and justifying it until no one is left, the point is I want Delta pilots to fly Delta planes whenever possible. Delta is already paying all the cost directly or indirectly to operate the >76 seaters and according to the most resent 10K report our most profitable sector (I believe) was the regional segment.

A 33% increase in crew cost is not impossible when your are outsourcing the flying and undercutting your own crew cost by 33%. (obviously the % increase and decreases are different I'm just making the point) The CRJ-900 has the same or better crew cost on a per seat basis than many of our own aircraft the CRJ-1000 will be even better.

Quote:

Just curious, have you noted the error in your analysis regarding ownership costs, not just DCI costs in Delta's path to reduce DCI hull count?

I am working on some numbers now. I'm not sure it's an error or if it's just a red herring that Delta needs to get it's debt under 10B. With the pace we are paying off debt right now and the forecast profit for the next few years I'm not convinced that this deal matters much in the grand scheme of things.

I do understand that Delta wants to reduce debt from 218 50 seaters that they still own some amount on buy buying 70 much more expensive brand new airplanes. If it's a matter of shell games I am sure there are ways to fly these aircraft on another certificate but in the end I'm confident that Delta skilled financial team will make this work one way or the other I am just not willing to vote to give away more that directly replace Delta jobs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vprMatrix (Post 1199793)

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1198970)

One of the advantages of working for a large union is that your E&FA department gets to look at 37 different airlines and their internal numbers. While they are bound by confidentiality agreements they can quickly tell which carriers are out of the norm...

And here is what I said (Please let's not get into a Carl argument)

Quote:

Originally Posted by vprMatrix (Post 1199568)

It is good that the non-disclosure / confidentiality agreements that all the airlines have with all the ALPA carriers allows them to freely share that info among competing carriers.

You said that E&FA looks at internal numbers from 37 different carriers or is that not what you meant to say? I'm hardly trying to take words out of your mouth buy quoting your entire post.

The highlighted portion (again) is what you misrepresented in my post. The information isn't shared among competing carriers due to confidentiality. The information allows ALPA E&FA to ask the right questions of a management team when their numbers/plans are outside the norm. That's a benefit that other unions do not have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vprMatrix (Post 1199793)

I am working on some numbers now. I'm not sure it's an error or if it's just a red herring that Delta needs to get it's debt under 10B. With the pace we are paying off debt right now and the forecast profit for the next few years I'm not convinced that this deal matters much in the grand scheme of things. .

Really? Is your mortgage just an error or is it a red herring?:rolleyes: Last time I checked ownership had some responsibilities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vprMatrix (Post 1199793)

I do understand that Delta wants to reduce debt from 218 50 seaters that they still own some amount on buy buying 70 much more expensive brand new airplanes. If it's a matter of shell games I am sure there are ways to fly these aircraft on another certificate but in the end I'm confident that Delta skilled financial team will make this work one way or the other I am just not willing to vote to give away more that directly replace Delta jobs.

I've said all along that Delta will find a way to make this work one way or the other. While there's loads of possiblities it really boils down to doing it with us or without us. Delta is going to spend money on DCI, the question is whether or not Delta pilots benefit from that expenditure. Oh, and the shell game is pretty straightforward...it's a trade-in.