Originally Posted by Waves (Post 1216458)

@Phuz: I didn't think the manning formula was that low (8-10 per aircraft), but even if it is, thats still between 704 to 880 additional pilot slots created by the 717's for junior DAL pilots. Hopefully when I get a free hour I will read Express Jet's post as well. I haven't pulled the handle yet, but I'm very close.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1216512)

4. The 50 seat aircraft are operating at a loss.

False. [COLOR=red]While they aren't profitable, in aggregate they are breaking even.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1216512)

It's an incredible work...of fiction!

1. The company has Capacity Purchase Agreements (CPA) with "contract carriers". These agreements extend well past 2020.

True

2. Delta has to honor these agreements as they are contractual.

True.

3. Delta has to absorb the costs of these contracts, and if the aircraft operating or maintenance costs increase, Delta has to absorb these costs in addition.

True

4. The 50 seat aircraft are operating at a loss.

False. While they aren't profitable, in aggregate they are breaking even. Management wants to keep 125 that are very profitable. Lower oil prices make them more viable.

5. The 50 seat aircraft are coming up for mandatory engine maintenance/replacement costs very soon.

True.

6. The costs to re-engine these 50 seat aircraft is between 2-2 1/2 BILLION dollars over the next 3 to 4 years. Unavoidable costs. (there are statements of 1billion on this web, those are wrong. The company has stated to me, through a person who knows, that the actual cost is 2-2 1/2 BILLION)

False. Read the latest Negotiator Notepad...engine savings are less than $200 million. The original writer was challenged to produce his company source and he refused to do so.

7. The company can replace these aircraft and avoid the 2-2 1/2 BILLION by letting the "contract carriers" fly 76 seat aircraft. These "contract carriers" would then allow the CPA agreements to be unhinged. The total deal is a deal between the Canadair and the "contract carriers", and Delta.

Partially True. The company can exchange 76 seaters for 50 seaters under DCI contract. The total cost savings for this portion of the deal is less than $300 million.

8. The 50 seat -76 seat agreement gives the company a one time savings of the hundreds of millions of dollars.

FALSE: The total savings are $473 million over the term of this contract. But that excludes the cost to purchase and operate 88 B717 and 70 76 seat jets that will run well over $2 billion.

9. Canadair only has 11 76 seat aircraft to build and it closes down the line. There is a time crunch on Delta to get this deal done before that line is closed. This was a Canadair corporate decision.

False. Bombardier has a 52 jet public backlog for 700/900/1000 series CRJ's. The CRJ-900 line is not in imminent danger of closure.

10. The profit sharing cost savings to the company (going from 15% to 10%) was equal to a 2 1/2% pay "raise".

Partially true. That was the modeled number at $2.5 billion PTIX. Any PTIX less than $2.5 billion adds additional value to pilots in permanent pay.

11. Efficiencies included in the contract were equal to a 3 1/2% pay "raise".

False and misleading. The net reduction in pilot jobs is about 125, which is just over 1.25%. This does not include the offset of the RMA program pilot retirements.

(are you seeing how Vice President of Labor Relations and Human Resources Mike Campbell might have been being very conservative when he said the pilot TA was cost neutral?)

False. Campbell said that refleeting, efficiencies and changes to profit sharing would cover the investment. He never said it was cost neutral.
Pilot pay alone will increase by over $1billion during the term of this agreement, and that doesn't include the costs to acquire the new mainline SNB fleet.

12. AFTER re-engining the 50 seat aircraft, they still would operate at a revenue loss.

False. Mangement wants to retain 125 of the CRJ-200 because they are highly profitable. They want to get rid of those that aren't. The RJ fleet is not operating at a loss.

Originally Posted by Pro Fessional (Post 1216522)

From the Scope Negotiators' Notepad:

Under the minimum block hour ratio in this TA, Delta pilots will fly no less than 61% of the total Delta domestic system block hours once the last group of 76-seat aircraft are added. In other words, any reduction of domestic mainline block hours below a 1.56 ratio will trigger a mandatory reduction in DCI block hours in order to maintain the 1.56 ratio. Any future growth of Delta aircraft, will, by definition, be mainline growth. Even if Delta does not fully execute its business plan, we will have in place guarantees for our share of the domestic system flying, guarantees that do not exist under the current contract.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1216523)

We staff narrow body aircraft at Delta at around 12.5 pilots per airframe. I think the point in the other posts is that the DCI carriers get by with substantially fewer pilots. They are as mentioned in the 8 to 10 range. That is another reason for the large cost difference in the operations.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1216542)

This is totally FALSE. The Negotiator's Notepads notwithstanding, this TA says nothing about a "mandatory trigger". The language says that the ratios are measured for the FIRST time in July of 2014...two years from now. Then if the ratios are found to be out of balance, the company has until January 2015 to "implement their plan" to rebalance the ratios. That's the actual language folks. No mandatory, and no trigger.

Words mean things.

Carl

Originally Posted by Waves (Post 1216544)

We should probably challenge our Reps on this one.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1216558)

So if we say NO to this 6 months early TA, Delta will go to the nuclear option?

So does even the threat of this happening prove constructive engagement was a farce? Because if you're not allowed to say no to a TA on principled grounds, why do we even get to vote? As long as the company and the union agree on it you have to accept it.

That's not constructive engagement, it's constructive infringement.

Originally Posted by Pro Fessional (Post 1216306)

OTOH, under the TA, if they took the 717s and the 76-seaters then started shrinking the mainline fleet, the block hour ratio protection would require them to further shrink the DCI fleet (below the 450 airframe hard cap) concurrently. We have no such protection now.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1216413)

Do they have to reduce the DCI fleet if Delta is found to be in non-compliance with the ratio?

Originally Posted by Pro Fessional (Post 1216522)

From the Scope Negotiators' Notepad:

Under the minimum block hour ratio in this TA, Delta pilots will fly no less than 61% of the total Delta domestic system block hours once the last group of 76-seat aircraft are added. In other words, any reduction of domestic mainline block hours below a 1.56 ratio will trigger a mandatory reduction in DCI block hours in order to maintain the 1.56 ratio. Any future growth of Delta aircraft, will, by definition, be mainline growth. Even if Delta does not fully execute its business plan, we will have in place guarantees for our share of the domestic system flying, guarantees that do not exist under the current contract.