Latest threat from SD regarding failure to pass the TA:

"However, as Richard mentioned in a memo to all Delta employees today, it would be irresponsible for the company to not have an alternative plan prepared and in place to achieve our goals absent this agreement. Without the near-term opportunities provided by the TA, Delta would remain committed to its business plan and continue to distance itself from the competition but time constraints would force us into a different strategy, including slowly reducing small RJ flying as contracts on those aircraft expire."

On the contrary: we should view what they are saying with a healthy dose of skepticism.

dalpa wants this ta to pass, and as such is involved in a sales job. TO himself said he encourages a yes vote.

Like any salesperson trying to sell me something, I hold everything they say with some suspicion.

Combine the sales job with past history is important as well. alpa history has too many instances of "we never envisioned" "we did not anticipate" "we did not believe" "line in the sand" "we might have lost" "High-time flying does not affect staffing" "these loa's giving relief to the contractual provision of not allowing flexing-up with pilots on furlough is a good opportunity for the company to.." for my liking to give them any unconditional trust.

Their use of early retirements as one of the mitigating factors in the loss of 300 pilot positions due to work rule changes shows me they are playing the same games. They have no idea how many, if any, will take an early out. Not to mention the early retirement is a one-time event. The work rule changes provide a loss of jobs for years to come. Hasn't alpa always said it is important to retain work rules as pay can come back??

Past alpa history on furlough protection causes skepticism from me as well. Nwalpa had a furlough-type protection clause that said the company would not be allowed to flex-up any category (dal rough equivilant: increase the alv) while pilots were on furlough. alpa gave that protection away via loa's. I have no reason to believe it won't happen again with this ta's furlough protections.

Exactly. Which really calls into question the wisdom of negotiating negatives for gains elsewhere in an already significantly concessionary book. If the gains can vaporize but the negatives will stay and even be added to, are we really starting from a stronger position if/when things get bad?

Typically the hardest things to get back ever, even in good times, are work rules and scope. We are giving up 100Klbs jets to non union, won't hire DL pilots on furlough DPJ (for no reason and for no gain...we JUST won the grievance over that!) so those will be gone forever. If "its only 5" is OK during record profits, in a concessionary environment then another 5 or 20 must also be OK too, right? The 325 large RJ's will always be more than 255. While they will never even want a max all coach 90 seats in them, if we're really giving them even more jets that would be more efficient and profitable configed to 78, 80 or 82, and they have 223 of them already, imagine how hard it will be to keep that in a heavy concessionary environment. Parking 50's by allowing more 90's absolutely makes DCI leaner, meaner and much more viable.

Typically artificial restrictions on allowable outsourcing are among the first things to go in concessionary bargaining. One of the strengths of the TA is "closing the republic loophole" [except for republic?!?!?!] which theoretically does have some good value in it. Take for example egotistical SkyWest, who 100% will try to play with the big boys eventually one day, and there are some rumblings that day will be sooner than many would like to admit. The TA fixes that, right?

But how do we enforce it? Maybe in record profits we could force the company to eat contracts like that (not that we would, right?) but what about under heavy concessionary pressure? Are we really going to pursue, much less win, that grievance? If we do win, like DPJ, won't we just gift it right back to them to show how constructive we are or to get a "bargaining credit" to apply to reduce concessions elsewhere?

You're absolutely right, we don't know what's around the corner in this industry, and it could be really bad. That's exactly why giving up significant things which will be gone forever to get the level of gains in the TA that would be rolled back the instant a true crisis hits is being called into question.

Well, this is a hunch on my part but I bet if the bean counters added it up the savings from DCI over mainline are simply not there.

It's the big picture folks who see the value in the whipsaw as justifying the lust for outsourcing and billions in write downs. As Boomer once said, we spent billions buying Comair, billions fixing it up, and billions liquidating it.

Good grief. Is that even a serious question??


Ok, I'll bite: because it holds the key to basically everything, provides clues as to how certain things in this ta may come back to bite us (as past history shows), 'cause it is management that is sitting at the other side of the negotiating table, 'cause....... I'm sure others can chime in here.


Bwa ha ha ha. "Family?" The days of any large corporation acting like a "family" are long gone.

And all so the genius middle managers can claim they are mitigating the 0.00001% chance of a strike at some point many years down the road. We can add them to the long list of wastful capital outlays.

How much do you want for that post so I can tell everyone its mine?

I'd just take out the JT8D part, not because I disagree but because I just don't know. Are those things underperforming their expected reliability all the sudden or something?

What infrastructure do they need to operate a 717 over a CRJ-900?

They have hangars and mechanics and can outsource heavy and engine maintenance just as well as we would. Training? Outsource it to Alteon like we will initially and just like they do with FlightSafety.

We'll provide the gates and gate agents and passengers. And we'll provide the fuel.

And we'll pay them a profit.

So how are they not capable of operating 717s again? I mean when AirTran was doing maintenance at the end of the concourses out in the open, how were they any better than XJT/Skywest, Comair, Pinnacle, GoJet, Republic, Compass/TransStates would be?

Especially Republic. If they can operate E170s, E175s, E190s and A319s, how can they not operate a 717?

Say what?

^^^^ This (emphasis mine)

The whole "bad economic stuff is around the corner" arguement to me is a good reason to not give some of this stuff away right now. Especially work rules and more 76 seaters that result in the outsourcing of our flying to dci to become more profitable for the company.

I had a MX Fed on the JS about a year or so ago on his way to DTW and then to HKG to check out a heavy maintenance facility.

We had a discussion about the 88 engines as it was something of interest to them. I won't write what he said, but, the impression I came away with was the JT8Ds work well despite working very... very... very hard.

That was before we instituted flaps 5 takeoffs to allow higher derates and the whole point was to reduce stress on those engines. So maybe its not the case anymore? Don't know. But surely someone around here knows if they achieved the objective.

I do love flaps 5.