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 slowplay (Post 1199789)

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.

Nice response, slow.

I don't think I'm going to be able to get over the amount of large RJ's allowed (re: long term viable) and the poor pay bumps... but I do think we're barking up the right tree.

It's funny, if the CRJ-900 isn't that big of a deal to the company or us then why is our scope language wrapped around it's axle?

Add 717s then they can add CRJ-900s. If they add CRJ-900s then they have to park 50 seaters and abide by a ratio.

Why not just add the 717s, sounds like they're a good deal? Well because the CRJ-200 maintenance, CASM and stuff, too expensive, can't afford both. The only solution is to trade CRJ-200s in for new, expensive, big RJs with first class, wifi and low mainline type casms. Then you can have the 717.

So what that tells you right there is that mainline aircraft do indeed compete against regional aircraft.

After all, if the smallest RJ can keep you from having the smallest mainline aircraft, what can a big fleet of large RJs keep mainline from having? or keeping?

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1199797)

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

Well since you are full of figures, how much would you say our mortgage is on 200 CRJ-200s? I would actually like to know the answer, but you are right ownership has responsibilities or as they say, a contract is a contract, however Delta seems better than most at getting around theirs.

Quote:

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.

Why will Delta spend money on a product it doesn't want? Do you think that's their only other option to this TA?

ALPA is saying that Delta will start spending money on heavy checks and just keep all the gas guzzling 50 seats that our passengers dislike around. Delta is up against a wall with the >50 seat aircraft and is not likely to park CRJ-700s in order to buy CRJ-900s. Even if they did there can only be 255 total not 325 and mainline aircraft would have to actually grow a lot thanks to our grievance settlement. They are however, likely to park 50 seats at every opportunity they make available. Delta has already proven that it can play hard ball with its regional carriers and is in full control of shaping Pinnacle's restructuring which it helped bring about.

If Delta reinvest in the CRJ-200s they are committing to poor service with a crappy airplane for another decade. Our management team is much smarter than that and this is not just an A or B scenario but that is what we (the pilots) are being told by ALPA. (IMO)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1199762)

I start a 3 day tomorrow.

I think I'm going to start off on the right foot and right after we say hi, start talking about what a great deal this TA and how generous RA was to agree to 4/8.5/3/3 plus 1% DC!!! :D

Ooh! You should probably also say you're glad they cut the profit sharing since everyone knows you can't make a profit in this business anyways! :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1199644)

Step 1...vote down this TA.

Carl

Like I figured, that's all you got.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1199655)

How do you think an arbitrator will define the word "Established".

Carl

I don't care about that. The definition of "Fleet" in the TA: means aircraft in service, undergoing maintenance and operational spares. " Fleet" is the important word here, and it's meaning wrt this TA is crystal clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1199675)

Alfaromeo seems to indicate our MEC has no plan B in the event we vote this down. He's said a number of times: 'you better have another plan to get us back to the table if you vote NO on this'.

Could this be one of the reasons all MEC communications end with: "We urge everyone to vote YES on this TA.

Carl

I don't presume to speak for alfa nor the MEC for that matter, but my guess referring to the company (whom I do not speak for either) But I can pretty much guarantee you that they are not gonna sit around wringing their hands waoting on us to join the party. They will move on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1234 (Post 1199785)

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?

I'd put the chances of Carl honestly answering that at slightly less than the congress passing a budget in Obama's first term..

Nice try though.

I have not been reading the forums over the holiday weekend but would like to through something into the pot. In my extended family, I have some people on the management side of labor, big business and not applebees. I showed them parts of the TA and the change from our old contract. They laughed at how little we receive with the leverage we had. They had been casually reading about the Delta news for awhile, because I am a pilot with Delta.

Before all of the YES voters go running to the polls. Talk to people who are not in aviation, both in management and labor. They will give you the correct reality check. Management wins BIG with this one and we, as Mongo would say,” are just pawns in where choo choo go”

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1199767)

My Vice chair says it was an average of 38/month for last year

60 hrs average doesn't protect from the new higher ALV+15 max.
(BTW max LCW would have been fair in my opinion)

60/month average x12 = 720 annual max

Let's say a reserve gets close to the max in the 3 busy summer months

90hrs/month x 3 = 270

720 annual - 270 summer months = 450 remaining for the year

450/9 remaining months = 50hrs/month

No relief from the staffing formula for that.

Cheers
George

And sense reserves are staffed for the summer months, reserve head count (and thus overall head count) decreases. Having a hard time understanding why people can't see this!