Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-29-2012 | 02:08 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,105
Likes: 100
That is a very small deal. I'll bet they have NOTHING to do with the reason for the accelerated contract. I'll even go further and say that if this goes down, that we will not see all 88 717s either. There will be no need because the DCI lift will be the same as it is before the TA. ANd for those of you that don;t like the additional 76 seaters, you had better read our current contract, because when those 717 DO show up and the fleet goes above 767.. and it will... those 70s can be converted to 76s.. management wins either way. SO control the number.. or don't.. it's up to you.
I prefer to control the number, and get a nice pay raise to boot, TO each his own I guess....
I prefer to control the number, and get a nice pay raise to boot, TO each his own I guess....
No TA + 717s = 255 70+ seaters
TA + 717s = 325 70+ seaters
Nu
05-29-2012 | 02:19 PM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Nu, the apparent environment is one of acceptance of more large rjs. OK, then one needs to look at the downside language in the agreement.
-Look at the definition of: "profit loss" and what that may or may not include,
-Look at the RJET Holding Company cutout and what they may allow; not if the company would do it,
-Look at the DCI ratios and the non compliance clause; which is the same term/phrase that has been used before, but has not been modified for the purpose of this domestic ratio agreement, and
-Look at the Delta Private Jets cutout that allows these large biz jets that DALPA filed a grievance for, and from what I heard the company agreed to stop flying them, but we had no official result of the grievance process, but now will be allowed.
These items are what concern me in section 1. A MOU clarifying these parts would go along way in easing many pilots' concerns over the whole section.
I think we all by now get that the ratios do not guarantee growth, just protect from a downturn event that is within the company's control, or not one of the items listed in the non-compliance clause.
Still a fence sitter, but for section 1, these are my concerns. (I still do not like giving up more large jets, not at all, but for now, it appears that for the merits of this debate we need to accept what is in the agreement)
05-29-2012 | 02:29 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
The extra short call won't start until the rest and duty rule changes start, meaning for the international categories it will go from 24 to 14 hour short calls. That saves 60 hours of short call that we are on the hook for currently every month. Then subtract the 14 hours for the additional short call and we will be sitting 46 fewer short call hours every month.
But, what did we get for that 7th short call? At minimum an extra 5 hours of pay, whether you sit 0 or 7 short calls. How many reserve pilots do we have? Every one will get that extra 5 hours. How many guys will sit an extra short call? I can say for sure not every reserve pilot will sit 7 short calls. Some will, but I would be willing to bet it won't happen to more than 10% of reserve pilots a month.
Any thoughts?
Last edited by Wingnutdal; 05-29-2012 at 02:30 PM. Reason: Can't do public math
05-29-2012 | 02:29 PM
Bus driver
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Likes: 10
Long time lurker...first post
I am soon to be a five year fo with the company. At my previous employer, Flight Options, we were able to bring the Teamsters into our company, Local 284, representing Fractional providers. I got my job with Delta before the union was voted in (thankfully). During that process, we were warned about the companies potential use of FUD. They used fud, in great amounts, during the process. Fast forward to present day, and again I am dealing with FUD...only this time, I am getting it from my Union...***? If we dont vote this very humble TA in, we will be stuck with our current contract for God knows how long via the traditional section six process. I am confused, isnt the company supposed to be the one trying to influence me via FUD? Instead, I am getting a healthy dose of vote this fairly weak TA in, or else? I admit this is my first section six in the airline business...but my elected union using the FUD angle to influence my yes vote is so confusing! What am I missing?
New, and confused!
New, and confused!
05-29-2012 | 02:30 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,105
Likes: 100
Nu, the apparent environment is one of acceptance of more large rjs. OK, then one needs to look at the downside language in the agreement.
-Look at the definition of: "profit loss" and what that may or may not include,
-Look at the RJET Holding Company cutout and what they may allow; not if the company would do it,
-Look at the DCI ratios and the non compliance clause; which is the same term/phrase that has been used before, but has not been modified for the purpose of this domestic ratio agreement, and
-Look at the Delta Private Jets cutout that allows these large biz jets that DALPA filed a grievance for, and from what I heard the company agreed to stop flying them, but we had no official result of the grievance process, but now will be allowed.
These items are what concern me in section 1. A MOU clarifying these parts would go along way in easing many pilots' concerns over the whole section.
I think we all by now get that the ratios do not guarantee growth, just protect from a downturn event that is within the company's control, or not one of the items listed in the non-compliance clause.
Still a fence sitter, but for section 1, these are my concerns. (I still do not like giving up more large jets, not at all, but for now, it appears that for the merits of this debate we need to accept what is in the agreement)
-Look at the definition of: "profit loss" and what that may or may not include,
-Look at the RJET Holding Company cutout and what they may allow; not if the company would do it,
-Look at the DCI ratios and the non compliance clause; which is the same term/phrase that has been used before, but has not been modified for the purpose of this domestic ratio agreement, and
-Look at the Delta Private Jets cutout that allows these large biz jets that DALPA filed a grievance for, and from what I heard the company agreed to stop flying them, but we had no official result of the grievance process, but now will be allowed.
These items are what concern me in section 1. A MOU clarifying these parts would go along way in easing many pilots' concerns over the whole section.
I think we all by now get that the ratios do not guarantee growth, just protect from a downturn event that is within the company's control, or not one of the items listed in the non-compliance clause.
Still a fence sitter, but for section 1, these are my concerns. (I still do not like giving up more large jets, not at all, but for now, it appears that for the merits of this debate we need to accept what is in the agreement)
Have you gotten anything in writing about that?
Me either....
Nu
05-29-2012 | 02:38 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
05-29-2012 | 02:56 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
05-29-2012 | 03:01 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
Sort of. 70 additional 90 seater "RJ's" plus 5 additional jets larger (over 10,000 lbs heavier) than the largest allowable "RJ" to be placed at non union Delta Private Jets and oh by the way they require seniority resignation to fly for them if you are on furlough (I guess we are cool with that now?)
So I'd say 75 more is a very fair number to use.
So I'd say 75 more is a very fair number to use.
05-29-2012 | 03:01 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
I have to say, I do love taking off 9L full length with flaps 5 on an MD-88. Eating up that entire runway and rotating past the guys waiting at N13 reminds me of flying the ER to Zurich... except now I'm only going to Florida. 
05-29-2012 | 03:10 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
From: 737n/FO
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.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
