Depends on implementation. .

 

Got to get this passed before they make any moves

 

Ok. THings are winding down and voting is right around the corner. But, this is one question I would like to see a straight-forward answer, without the artful dodge.

Can someone in the know tell me if this is a "zero cost" TA for the company? Thanks.

 

The company stated it was cost neutral in a press conference.

 

Here is Mike Campbell's quote, where the misinformation of "zero cost" originated:

"This tentative agreement represents an investment in our pilots and our company as it gives Delta significant fleet flexibility, the ability to continue running a reliable operation for our customers, and a profitable enterprise for shareholders and for all Delta people. The fleet changes provided by this agreement, coupled with the productivity and profit sharing changes, cover the investments in our employees."

It is not zero cost to the company. Management is counting on revenue produced by the fleet change (B717 and additional 76 seaters with 3 classes) in addition to DCI cost savings, CRJ-200 maintenance cost avoidance, and a small improvement in pilot productivity in order to cover the additional cost of the pilot contract.

 

slow,

Care to comment on Smisek's letter to his employees gloating over how our TA increases access to more jumbo RJs?

 

Here is what Smisek actually wrote:

I’m sure by now you know that Delta and its pilots’ union recently announced a tentative agreement which, among other things, provides significant pay increases, along with efficiencies for the carrier and scope changes permitting expanded use of larger regional jets. The new Delta TA raises the market pay for commercial airline pilots, and effectively sets a new competitive standard for pilot pay. We will be responsive to the impact of the new Delta TA in our negotiations and will need to adjust our current contract proposal to be competitive with the Delta TA. Our proposal will include significant pay rate increases that are competitive with the new Delta TA, as well as scope and work rules that are competitive with the new Delta TA and permit us to remain competitive in the airline business.

Where do you see gloating? I see a guy who admits he has to revise his position to put more money (about $700 million per year) on the table (The new Delta TA...sets a new competitive standard for pilot pay). UCAL would have to hire about 400 pilots if they were to operate their network with our TA workrules (CAL is way more efficient than us). He's saying that for pay and work rules similar to ours he wants scope similar to ours.

Oh, and he doesn't mention APA scope, or their agreement with USAirways to outsource 308 81 seat jets and 352 up to 70 seat jets.

 

So, you are saying there is a cost associated with the TA for the company. Do you have an idea of what it is?

 

Scope is the major sticking point of their contract, and we are allowing more jumbo RJs. He is absolutely rubbing that in their faces.

Agreed that it is a major pay bump for them to come up to our level, as well as a significant staffing increase for the CO side to staff for our work rules.


As far as APA scope, I have never seen any sort of details on the terms of how those jets are allowed. Care to provide? The devil is always in the details.

 

Smisek already has 70 seaters (actually 64 or 67 seaters with their first class added) flying through all of their hubs, even the FCAL hubs, when the CAL pilots swore that wouldn't happen. I'm not happy about that, but they were out smarted. Now they have a huge amount if ASA (ex Expressjet) E145s and ASA/SKW CRJs that are inefficient with high oil. So, they have major problems on the scope side, and the efficiency side (too many 50 seaters).

The UA/CAL contracts are a lot worse than DL's, in pay and work rules. It will cost Smisek an UNBELIEVABLE amount of money to bring that huge group up to our rates in this TA, and to change the work rules to ours in the TA. Huge. They have 100 "super premium" widebodies (70 777s and maybe 30 744s). Think of all of those Capts and FOs getting our TA pay? That would be great, but very very expensive. My friend over there flies the 320 in his 15th year as an FO and makes $94 an hour. What percentage raise would he have to get to get our TA's pay for 12th year 320 FO? Huge. I don't think Smisek is really smiling about a few extra seats on 100 or more RJs. They won't be able to pay for a monumentally huge pay increase for just one of their employee groups.