Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1218157)

...Many do not like giving up more large RJ's; myself included, but could possibly see it as a win if there was a road map with checkpoints in the future that forced further DCI reductions, and reductions in large RJ's. This is a single faceted change that does not have multiple steps included down the road to solve the larger DCI outsourcing issue. It is sorta a one time hit and there needs to be some sort of "sunset". If this, and a one way check valve on the ratios over a two year rolling average, with a tighter cure period, I could see supporting the language.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1217192)

From RA's own keyboard:

Q7. What is the latest with Delta’s fleet strategy? How do we plan to address our future fleet needs?
A. We continue to pursue an opportunistic fleet strategy that features acquisition and deployment of the most efficient aircraft available to meet the needs of our customers. We have employed this strategy to acquire both new and used aircraft to replace mainline (DC9s, older 757s) and regional (50-seat jets, Saab turboprops) aircraft. On the new side, we finalized a deal last summer with Boeing to purchase 100 new 737-900ER jets, which will begin delivery next year. On the used side, we have been buying MD-90s and will have 65 of these flexible, cost-efficient planes in service by the end of next year. You have probably also heard that the recent announcement of Delta’s tentative agreement with our pilots could provide the opportunity to accelerate the fleet strategy with the addition of 88 Boeing 717 aircraft to the mainline fleet, subject to pilot ratification of the agreement.

I'm sure the "cost neutral" (which was never said by management and only said by the C20 rep, btw) guys will now claim what used to be their burning bush is inaccurate...:D

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1218164)

I'd say no matter where you stand on the TA, it's a matter of placing value on things.

In my opinion my fellow Delta pilots are a fine bunch of aviators.
Sharp, intelligent the majority are even funny.
I wouldn't want to be associated with a finer bunch of people.

And yet you'll find division in the ranks.
Slam click or stay out late.
Water beer or wine.
Navy, Air Force or god forbid civilian.

Where some see a big reduction in DCI,
other see an increase in large RJs.

Where some see a gain from the speedier retirement of the 50-seater,
other see a tired unwanted jet that was due to go away on its own.

Where some see the benefit of making Delta's DCI operation more profitable,
other see a lifeline thrown to an industry segment in decline.

Where some see the pilot positions gained by introducing a new fleet type,
other lament the loss of pilot positions by work rule changes.

Where some see their captain seat finally arriving,
other see a downward shift in pay and career expectations.

Where some see industry leading pay-rates,
other see pay parity with our peers current pay reached years from now.

Where some see the ratios as ensuring flying will transfer from DCI to mainline,
other say not so fast only if DCI doesn't shrink and then just a little.

Where some see a gain in protection for future JV agreements,
other see a lower negotiating floor.

Where some see a gain for reserves,
others see a concession.

Depending on your perspective, you'll find your truth somewhere between all of that...

Apart from a select few "extremists", I haven't spoken with many that unequivocally value the TA as good or bad.

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by Wingnutdal (Post 1218168)

ACL, where did you get the 1.76-1 number? The numbers I got when I asked were company business plan we would do 64% of the flying, up from 54%. The floor would be 61%, so while there would be some accumulator action, it wouldn't be as large an amount as your numbers show.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1218170)

I'm completely with you that the ratio could be a little tighter. You have to get a ratio provision first. This happens now, we tighten it in 2.75 years on our next opener (or sooner if any "other" things happen before then).

I would absolutely LOVE to see sun-setting on all DCI.

There is NO WAY a company like SKYW, XJT, or CHQ would agree to amend and "help" DAL out of the 50 seater problem if it was already apparent that they would have future business relationship knowingly destroyed by a Delta Pilot scope clause.

Once the swaps are done (say 2.5 years from now....), we will be reopening our negotiations with DAL Inc.

Once the DCI's have already reduced size and are feeling safe, it will be easier to put sunset language into our scope clause because the DCI carrier CEO's won't have any leverage left. Once time starts to come up on agreements, easy to start reducing them further, allowing DAL to regain leverage over outsourced players, who currently hold a pretty strong hand at the table.

I remember hearing/reading over and over that "restoration will take more than one contract cycle."

DAL can't come and admit they will chop off the DCI airlines in 3-6 years, NOBODY would be willing to make a deal in this critical interim.

The leverage for DAL to amend these CPA's would be shot to hell if the company agreed to a sunset right now. I'm trying to take the long view on DAL pilot scope and DAL Inc.'s control of the product.

Originally Posted by Waves (Post 1218147)

Unless you are a DCI pilot, would someone please splain to me why less DCI RJ's, less DCI Pilots, less DCI ASM's, a lower DCI aircraft cap, a stricter block hour ratio, etc. accompanied with 88 new mainline aircraft is a bad thing, cause I’m just not getting it? What is it that I'm missing?

Originally Posted by Wingnutdal (Post 1218168)

ACL, where did you get the 1.76-1 number? The numbers I got when I asked were company business plan we would do 64% of the flying, up from 54%. The floor would be 61%, so while there would be some accumulator action, it wouldn't be as large an amount as your numbers show.

Originally Posted by buzzpat (Post 1218174)

I, for one, am sick and tired of the innuendo and attacks. I've made my decision based on all that I've read, asked, and understood. I have my vote. I'm really dismayed by what I've read here and on other forums. Frankly, it's depressing. I know that we're better than this. Emotion is a troubling thing. In a week, it won't matter thankfully.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1218188)

If the company said we don't want any more than 715 mainline jets but we want more 76 seaters, the TA gives them that. It tosses the mainline growth requirement and allows a 70 airframe increase in 76 seaters. It is now their option to grow the mainline fleet or use 717s as replacement aircraft.

And we said no worries on parking 70 seaters, keep them and we'll move the cap on jumbo RJ DCI fleet from 255 to 325.


In exchange:

• we get 717s that are probably coming anyways unless Gary Kelly has lost his mind,
• we cap DCI at 450/325 in 2016 when DCI would’ve been 478/255 if no CR2/E45 contracts were renewed,
• we get to celebrate capping DCI at 450 and 325, even though we just made it clear caps are negotiable,
• we assist in getting rid of 50 seaters the company doesn’t want and increase the size of the most mainline substitutive and profitable jet DCI has by 27% and therein increase it from 43% of the DCI fleet to 72%,
• and not to be missed, Bill maybe maybe gets to take the ? off his avatar and gets to become a 717A.

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1218172)

Bingo.
I don't really care about block-hours at DCI, I care about pilot positions at Delta. It would have been nice to finally say 12500 is the floor set in the merger, you can't go below that level of staffing without reducing DCI.

Instead we gained ratios that at-best provide protection of the current level of mainline block-hours on Jan 1, 2016 after all 88 717s have been added to the fleet. I would have hoped our block hours would be significantly up at that date with all the new 717s added, that we could put in writing protections at a higher more realistic level.

If DCI is reduced (measured as Waves put it) by at least 25%, we would need a 1.92 ratio just to maintain our current level of block-hours.

Too much horse trading watered down this deal and made ALPAs effort to gain pilot ratification that much more difficult.

Had the deal been for 777s instead of 717s, one memo would have been sufficient, and it would have passed.

Cheers
George