Did you quote the right post?

Every morning when I shave I see me. "Delta pilot" is a job, not my core being.

Our competitive set? Sure, maybe domestically. We are global, the biggest carrier to every continent except south america. I see those trend lines. Additionally, if you break it out as domestic versus international, our domestic competitive set DEFINITELY includes SWA and our International competitive set includes AF/KLM, and some of those Chinese carriers paying $200k+ for embraer pilots.

Mesa's scope clause has no bearing on the issue. How many Mesa tickets are sold by Mesa? How's their frequent flier program? How many people woke up this morning and said "I'm gonna go hop on Mesa and go fly to..."

Ah, charts and graphs, maybe even statistics, pay relative to inflation over time, scope. Where do we anchor the origin on the graph, 2008 or say 1960 or 1970? The trend line can say just about anything depending on perspective and the argument you are putting forward.

Maybe I'll anchor mine on my new hire date and use that in my decision matrix.

TC

The company continues to have a surplus of qualified candidates. We aren't growing. They have no need to buy pilots. Will that be the case on Jan 1 2016? Are we entitling ourselves to a raise for no reason? Sounds unrealistic to me.

I'll take my money now and negotiate again when I have at least one straw to grasp come the start of the mass pilot exodus.

And if Delta is just a job, 3 years will fly by.

Like I said. Read Mesa's section 1 then tell me if you wish you had it.

Like I said, Mesa's section 1 doesn't matter. Our section 1 is what matters.

In case this has not already been posted.

/////
Delta Deal Could Change The Equation On Scope
By Andrew Compart [email protected]
Source: AWIN First

June 07, 2012
Delta Air Lines’ tentative collective bargaining agreement with its pilots union is worded to ensure that the carrier will have to cut its regional airline services if it reduces domestic mainline services, under a formula that could spread to union contracts at other carriers.

The tentative deal also could set other precedents. For example, the contract includes language to automatically ensure that Delta pilots retain an “appropriate percentage” of the flying in any new joint-venture agreement—an issue that the Delta Master Executive Council for the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) is referring to as “big scope” because it deals with international widebody flying, rather than “small scope” regional aircraft operations.

On “small scope” issues, some union contracts used to include limits on how much mainline operations could be cut, and sometimes those limits were not linked to the size of the regional operations. These airlines, however, usually negotiated elimination or loosening of these restrictions during Chapter 11 restructuring.

The proposed deal with Delta establishes a ratio between domestic mainline and regional flying block hours that Delta must maintain. The national ALPA office says some other agreements also include ratios—based on block hours or hulls—but adds that the Delta deal is “unique” because the ratio would change if Delta revises the composition of its regional fleet to include larger aircraft. The Delta ALPA unit says it initiated the ratio concept.

The agreement lets Delta add 70 more 76-seat aircraft to its regional fleet, if it adds 88 mainline narrowbody aircraft and cuts its 50-seat fleet by more than 200 aircraft. But as Delta adds more 76-seat aircraft, the minimum ratio rises.

For example, when Delta adds its first 76-seat aircraft, the ratio starts out as a requirement for Delta to provide 1.1 block hours of flying for every hour of block flying outsourced to Delta Connection carriers. But the ratio increases for every 10 additional 76-seaters that Delta adds to Delta Connection service, ending at a mandate for 1.56 hours of mainline block hours for every hour at Delta Connection if Delta adds at least 61 new 76-seaters to regional carrier operations. Once a new ratio is established, Delta cannot reduce it under most circumstances.

That guarantees mainline pilots at least 60.9% of the domestic block hours if Delta adds 61-70 of the 76-seaters, the Delta ALPA leadership says.

That means—unlike the big shift that U.S. airlines implemented during and after the recession in the early 2000s—Delta would not be able to move domestic services from mainline to regional. That has meaning, Delta union spokesman Buzz Hazzard says, because it would ensure “fairness through proportionality” if Delta were to downsize, and because “how we get paid and how we get employed is block hours.”

The contract includes a provision that allows Delta to go lower than the ratio for a “circumstance over which the company does not have control.” But the contract explicitly states that those allowable circumstances do not include the price of fuel or aircraft, the state of the economy, the company’s financial state or “the relative profitability or unprofitability of the company’s then-current operations.”

On the “big scope” issue, Delta and the union will try to reach individually tailored production accords on the pilot share of flying in any future joint venture (JV), such as the one Delta already has with Air France-KLM and Alitalia for sharing revenue and coordinating schedules across the Atlantic. But if management and the union cannot reach consensus on any particular joint venture, Delta’s share of revenue block hours flown will be at least 75% of the airline’s share of revenue.

“This makes sure that Delta has ‘skin in the game,’ that Delta must be an active operator in the JV, and the block hours it operates must be proportional to the revenue it derives from the JV,” says a union official.

In another notable provision, the tentative contract would require Delta to remove six seats from the 76-seat aircraft being operated by its regional partners if the carrier furloughs any mainline pilots currently on the seniority list—and forbid the carrier from reinstalling the seats until all the furloughed pilots have been offered recall. There are no “force majeure” provisions that would let Delta change this requirement, ALPA says.

Delta is declining comment on the tentative deal. The pilots union members will vote on the tentative agreement later this month.


Copyright © 2012, Aviation Week, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies.

All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

So, as I understand your post, we have no straws or leverage now but we will in 2016 because of the start of a mass pilot exodus?

I see just the opposite. If we vote this TA in as it reads today, we will lose most of all of our leverage going forward.

* DL has a 50 seat problem today


* DL has a debt /credit probelm today

DL has to fix the 50 seat probelm to lower their debt. They have to lower their debt to obtain more credit at favorable rates to shore up the network. Richard needs the credit to make a run at AMR assets and to protect the Pacific network which would entail either:

* Purchasing HAL

* JAL JV

* Purchasing ALK (to secure the feed)

Currently, with this TA, we are solving the 50 seat/debt issue with little return on our help unless you believe 4/8/3/3 is the best it will ever get for us.

If we say NO, it will not take a complete overhaul to fix the TA. Close the loop holes, fix the downside protection language, pay and scope and their will be a deal that can be ratified.

RA will be ready with his team right away first week of July. DALPA will be the hold up though as we should NOT send back the same NC and TO should be removed as well.

I don't know how you come up with Delta having a credit problem. S+P just said they are considering moving Delta up to an A rating. They are borrowing now around 5 or 6% when they are refinancing old debt. They have a lot of unencumbered assets. They have enough cash flow to pay cash for aircraft and also pay down debt. Delta could borrow whatever amount they need tomorrow to purchase some carrier. Their record of making the last merger pay off is undeniable.

So go invent some other reason to vote no, but don't kid yourself that Delta can't borrow money. They just have to go to Wall Street and tell them how much to write the check for.

It is funny how quickly the forum crowd turns on the negotiators. First they laud them and cry how there is some conspiracy to replace them, then they call for their heads on a pike. The mob is fickle. By the way, you were right to support them the first time around, they did a great job.

Ummmmmm......Mesa went bankrupt and continues to shrink. Might not make for a strong argument.

I did not say they have a credit problem. I said they have a debt/credit problem. But of course you are right! They can get all the credit they want, now. Question is how much are they going to pay for it?

Reduce the debt (50 seat issues) and they can get more $$$$$ at more favorable rates than they can with the 50 seat debt still on their balance sheets. Simple concept. RA needs billions.

Get your facts straight. I am not only calling on the NC's resignation but our MEC chairman as well. I did support them until they went of the reservation in regards to the end game of this TA.

The incredulous gasp that was heard around the system when the end game of the TA was exposed will translate into their removal. And to think that they thought their actions would be acceptable to the MEC and the pilot group while having the DPA waiting in the wings is beyond belief.

I am voting NO because we will be squandering our leverage if we do not fix this TA. Plain and simple. It is a D+ at best now. At first I gave it a C/C-. The loop holes and missing downside protection moved that grade though. Did not make the honor roll this time Alpha.

Should pay attention and actually read the course material.... the survey. Might help you raise your grade on the re-test.