Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

I love ya both, but let's think of RJ's as life threatening animals:
50 seat RJ's = scorpions with a short life span
50+seat RJ's = Alligators capable of swallowing your a$$ whole with a very long life span. Now let's do some math:

-----------------------------------------------------------

No TA + 717's = 255 Alligators and 345 Scorpions...600 life threatening animals
....TA + 717's = 325 Alligators and 125 Scorpions...450 life threatening animals

Sounds OK until you realize that scorpions die off in no time, but alligators live longer than humans. Then you realize you just let 70 more freakin alligators live in your house because you were so overjoyed at getting rid of 150 scorpions. Good grief.

Oh well, back to watching Swamp People.

Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

What the hell! Does this mean you're working?

Carl

Originally Posted by TheManager

Very interesting prespective;



To say I'm less than enamored with this TA should be obvious to anyone who knows me. I'll start by apologizing to the North pilots about some of the references I'll be making because my experience is as a former LEC Chairman in CVG who served during to the run-up to and during all but the last month of our C2K. Even that MEC had factions that were relatively more or less aggressive in dealing with management. While that contract resulted in what was probably the gold standard of all time in terms non-cargo compensation and work rules, many of us felt strongly that money was left on the table. Consider that within weeks of the ink drying on the signature blocks, Delta went out and spent millions on hundreds of new plasma tvs(expensive new tech at the time) to put in gatehouses around the system. Proves nothing, right?

Shortly after that TA, I was contacted be a friend still on the MEC, one of four NO voters, to help write the CON Paper, a requirement of the Policy Manual at the time. The resulting product was completed and turned over to the MEC Communications Committee. Despite content that included clearly delineated fact and supposition, and without our approval, the teeth of that paper was edited out and released to the pilot group. Shortly thereafter, the requirement for a CON Paper disappeared from MEC practice. I illustrate the example to make the following point: Your dues money is being used to communicate only a positive message about this agreement, and opinions, like those of the DTW LEC, will reach a limited number of us. It is also my opinion that those on the MEC that have implied that they voted on an agreement they disagreed with in principle to pass it on to their pilots, are symptomatic of this pilot group as a whole. Not all, but plenty of those who will vote for this TA are way too comfortable being pushed around, and, in my opinion, unaware of what value our unique skill set deserves.

I'm a relatively junior DTW 777A (though still a CVG Council 108 member) so my nest is pretty well feathered compared to those fighting the various quirks unique to more junior pilots. But we have several things in common too, like our hatred for flying being farmed out to those not on our seniority list. Coming from Cincinnati, the original nesting ground for 50 seat RJs, nobody is more aware of the folly of that POS. Did you know that a CRJ was never designed to make money? That it was only created to lose less money on thin, high revenue feeder routes to hubs than an available mainline A/C? Ever see an airline flying 50-seaters standing on its own without a code share, and profitable? No! They need the voodoo accounting practices of Fee-for-Departure invented by Delta's own Ron Allen back in the early 90's. This realization is all too apparent to today's management that really feel the pain under the current price of fuel. The cost of continuing their operation is real leverage in negotiations, and the move to profitable 76-seaters is a no-brainer for management. The cost of bags and pax left behind on poorly designed a/c is significant.

But there are scope issues that affect my end of the seniority list also. Taxi into CDG and see the dozens of 747s,777s,330s, and the occasional 380 sitting there at any given time, and you have to ask yourself why we, as one of the largest airlines in the world, have less than 30 combined 777s and 747s. (No slight to our 330 brethren, just trying to make a point.) At the beginning of this process, I was assured by our MEC Chairman that two contract comparisons would be published this time. One with our domestic competitors, and one for international. They did go talk to our amis in Europe but decided they couldn't publish those stats, due to privacy concerns agreed to. My suspicion is that our brothers and sisters overseas, with their lifetime medical and retirements, with their shorter flying months, with their annual strikes that add to their vacation time, probably cost their respective companies considerably more than we cost ours. But rather than stating proof for or against this supposition in general terms, our leaders didn't think we'd need that information. So if my supposition has any validity, why does Delta continue to farm out as much Int'l flying as they do? They won't when they have this agreement. There will be 777-300 order shortly after we agree to this agreement. Yes, this is a good thing. But is it worth accepting a TA that everyone's first reaction to is 'That'll never pass' or 'that'll be the end of ALPA on the property!?'

The combined concessions of the Delta south pilots in SLA 46 and Bankruptcy SLA 51 cut the annual cost of that pilot group from about $2.9 billion to about $1.5, if my memory serves me. (I don't know the cost of concessions to the north pilots, but I think we can assume similar percentages.) In the years since those were inked, that's over $8 billion we voted this company. Think about that the next time you taxi by Concourse F in ATL or into the Ramp at JFK. Think about that when we strap on a 737-900 in a few years, or read about the corporate debt being paid down, or the $7+billion cash on hand. I do. These are all good things for us as part of the Delta family. Is there no room for better payback for pilot groups that helped navigate bankruptcy, fought off a unnatural takeover bid, and whose merger was as seamless as any in the industry? The pay rates that came out of this TA are the result of crossing a line of becoming way to cozy with management in our joint interests mentioned above. Add in the pattern bargaining pressure National uses to make their job easier and less threatening to their bottom line and you have just put yourself in an uncomfortable position of being told the requirement to press-to-test has disappeared. Hence, another TA presented with a we'll get 'em next time sentiment. Fool me once.....

Lastly, the work rules and quality of life issues are lost in a rushed to agreement. The 3:15 vacation bank is still well short of the 3:40 to 3:45 the company first valued it at when we lost touching trips around 1990. And that was with a sixth and sometimes a seventh week of annual vacation. There are no real seniority rights on reserve when we don't recover our previous 'low-yellow.' This would have been a further balancing of the new gains and concessions in reserve scheduling. This list could go on, but we now know that surveying the pilots is only a square to fill.

In conclusion, this for me is an easy albeit expected No vote. We used to ignore SWA pay rates in the past because they didn't compare well, them not having nearly our pension plan. Now they have similar ones (or better,) and any agreement must start with equaling or exceeding their 737 rates. We are still in the dark on how our code share partners value and reward their pilots. we have not achieved nearly enough quality of life improvements. We have not improved our retirement enough. Let's go back and do this right, even if it means sacrificing the security being offered. The pressures on managements business plan are probably such that there's more on the table.

(Name deleted)
777A-DTW

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Originally Posted by tsquare

Wait a minute... are you saying that guys would fly that for $50/hour in the left seat??? Really????

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

No TA + 717s = 600 rjs, 200 of which they've told us they'd gladly park if they could.

TA + 717s = 450 rjs of which over 28% more, and 70% total, are the size of a DC-9.

Originally Posted by rvr350

Carl, your analogy cracks me up. Better than my chess analogy: trading a few pawns for a knight/rook. Its hard for people to visualize, or put a price on scope, but that's why the company is so giddy about this trade. Wait, why are we even trading pieces these days? Shouldnt we be recapturing or stopping scope erosion?

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

If we shrink necessitating DCI to shrink, they can park 50's to get in compliance correct? They are not required to park the new 76 seaters, as long as they are in the compliance with the ratio, correct?

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

First, there is a natural protection against pump and dump. What kind of lessor or creditor is going to let you play that kind of a stupid game just to screw over your pilots? If they went down that road we have a lot more to worry about then scope.

Second, when does the company have to park 76 seaters under this TA?

Originally Posted by vprMatrix

First, I think we are being wrongfully sold on the idea that we (the pilots) have any control here. The one thing we can control is passing the TA which would limit the number of 76 jets to a number less than 255 but we are grandfathering in 102 other aircraft that are about the same size so the math for most of us is coming out that we are allowing 325 vs 255 >50 seat aircraft.

The 50 seaters are not in our control. Delta will still have to negotiate the departure of these aircraft and if we don't pass the TA Delta will still find a way to get the fleet to where they want it. Delta has successfully destroyed
several of their regional carriers already.

You claim that voting no will ensure that we will have more 76 seaters than this TA would allow and this is not true. It is an assumption that you are making that Delta would use a pump and dump scenario to do this which would cost a huge amount to Delta thanks to the grievance settlement from a few years ago requiring airplanes needing to be on the property to be counted.

Delta already said that the 717 deal is dependent on this TA so without it there are no 717s to take us over 767 mainline aircraft, therefore the 76 seaters stay at 153 and Delta keeps working at parking 50 seats at every possible opportunity. If this is just a bluff by Delta they could by the 717s anyway but they must take delivery of every one of them with out parking any mainline aircraft for the time it take to get all of the 70 seat aircraft traded/sold and new 76 seat aircraft bought. This means that Delta would have one huge surplus of aircraft including DC9s they really want to park if they really did intend to "pump and dump." It makes no financial sense for Delta to do this as it would require several years of a huge surplus in the fleet.