Would that be "ready....exercise, 1-2-3-ONE, 1-2-3 TWO..." If that's the case then yes very different.

@ NewKnow: Fair enough question. I didn’t mean to jump on the offensive. Ha Over the past two and a half decades, I have seen disappointment after disappointment stemming from failed so called enhancing PWA contracts. Maybe that is why I have voted “NO” almost every time. In spite of my militancy and dismay, the majority has always prevailed in voting everything in. I guess you could call me a “Contract Rebel,” and this really ticked me off. LOL

Unfortunately, I think this time is distinctly different from the past and so far I am a staunch “YES” vote. In my view, I see more pilots on this forum distorting the facts rather than embracing them. I understand and sympathize with the “Hard Line,” but most (not all) of their assessments seem to ignore the actual data presented. Understandably, there is Rankin file skepticism among the DALPA Pilots.

Many years ago I have been personally shafted by ALPA so there is no love lost there, but if we can’t trust their statements and recommendations regarding this TA, then whom should we trust? Should we just venture out on our own? Do the “NO” voters have info the rest of us desire? We are paying ALPA big bucks. Should we pay someone else to negotiate on our behalf? Should we expect a notably different outcome if we were to do so? At some point we must, no, we should, consider and possibly except the recommendations of our appointed ones. If not, what is the point of having them in the first place?

Let's get this straight. I don't have to accept (that is what you meant) a blessed thing from ALPA. Period.

What is the point of having them, indeed? I agree completely.

So what?

Have Delta pilots fly Delta pax and I'll vote yes instantly.

Your question indicates linear thinking that is not taking into account several things:

1. Delta doesn't pay for engine maintenance on non-Delta owned/obligated aircraft.
2. Delta doesn't pay for engine maintenance on aircraft that it doesn't want if it has no ownership obligations.
3. Delta has a path to get rid of a substantial number of 50 seat aircraft without this deal (contract renegotiations and subleasing). The TA/PWA gets no "credit" for cost savings that Delta can achieve on its own.
4. Delta can move "green engines" between aircraft that are currently parked, aircraft that will be parked and aircraft that are continuing to operate.
5. The 125 aircraft that Delta wants to retain are the aircraft that would receive Zero Time type overhauls. Everything else gets "necessary" treatment. Those overhauls run about $800K
6. Delta can do a substantial amount of the work in-house, saving the entire profit and risk margin mark-up.

Bottom line, the numbers I posted are accurate. They are the above run rate, ownership and contractual savings that Delta can achieve with us that they other wise would not be able to achieve without us during the term of this contract.

There is a plan B. Anderson talked about it in his employee Q&A today. While the whole thing is good (we closed on Trainer today) questions 7 and 8 directly reference pilots, our TA and fleet plan.

From the FAQ:

If the agreement is ratified, Delta will save approximately $184 million in above normal run rate CRJ-200 engine maintenance costs. In addition, Delta will save approximately $289 million in DCI contract and CRJ-200 ownership costs. This represents a total net savings of $473 million over the life of the agreement. These are one time savings that don’t continue into the future unlike the increases in pilot costs in this TA, which continue to accrue.

The acquisition costs of the B-717 and 76-seat jets are not public, but at current market prices can be estimated at approximately $2 billion. The savings generated by management not having to pay for the 50-seat RJ flying that they don’t want is more than offset by the acquisition costs of the B-717 and the 76-seat jets.

You are a sucker if you take numbers at face value supplied by those you are negotiating with. Kind of like taking the word of a rogue union quoting surveys they wont let us see.

I just really want to see the CRJ900 line closed.

I heard the number on the 717's is approximately 8.7 million per plane. That will include new delta interiors and paint. Planes will be delivered ready to produce revenue immediately. Sounds like a excellent deal regardless of TA.

Thanks for the info Slow.

I'll take your word on both the overall cost and all the ways they can reduce that cost. I think in an earlier post I had $800M based on airplanes that would be due up in the next 2-4 years (150 was my estimation) and that didn't take into account the issue of who is responsible for some of the aircraft's cost and shifting costs around to reduce costs. So I can buy a $400-500M cost.

Now, I have a fwiw type question for you or anyone who knows: How are they determining which 125 CR2s they'll keep? (give or take if we keep CHQ E145s)

Is it just the youngest like Pinnacles or some other determinant?