History lesson...that pay rate was won when DAL got the 2000 United + 1 pay rate. The United pay rate was a straight out bribe to get the UAL pilots to accept the proposed UA/US merger that never got off the ground.

Its also the pay rate that put UA into bankruptcy after which DAL did a "Me, too!" filing the day before the law changed to keep airlines from unilaterally dumping pension plans.

One could make the argument that pay rate put you into bankruptcy court, too.

02-17-2013 | 08:09 AM

#123182

dalad

Line Holder

Joined: Nov 2009

Posts: 1,281

Likes: 0

From: C560XL/XLS/XLS+

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moby Dick

No, what put us in bankruptcy court would probably take me ten pages or more to write. Also add in the massive expansion of the LCC's with pilots willing to work for peanuts.

02-17-2013 | 08:29 AM

#123183

johnso29

Moderator

Joined: Oct 2006

Posts: 13,088

Likes: 0

From: B757/767

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

We can be shrunk below what we are now anyways, the ratio doesn't stop that, it just means they get jets proportionally parked. The ratio doesn't guarantee a minimum mainline number, nothing did.

But I don't think giving up the minimum fleet language from the old PWA was a concession on the part of the company. They can grow the 76 seat fleet now without growing us or growing us a fraction of what the old pwa required.

Hence, that ratio needs to come up.

True, but the BHR prevents mainline from shrinking while regionals grow. Isn't that what happned after 9/11? It prevents huge utilization of the jumbo RJs while parking mainline aircraft. Our old contract didn't provide that.

02-17-2013 | 09:27 AM

#123184

dalad

Line Holder

Joined: Nov 2009

Posts: 1,281

Likes: 0

From: C560XL/XLS/XLS+

Well, your negotiating committee chairman has been re-elected.

02-17-2013 | 09:35 AM

#123185

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun

Of course the prior contract allowed a greater number of CR9's then the current contract and with aircraft deliveries coming it would have been very simple to pump and dump to reach those numbers. Yes they would have had to reduce the CR7's some to accomplish that but they could have had more of the 9's everyone states are such great aircraft.
Keep one thing in mind. The people involved in the contract working for us modeled every possible option the company had with regard to long term fleet plans. They had airline experts to assist in that not keyboard cowboys. The company had many different options. The current plan was simply one choice among many. Several of the other plans would have been ugly for us but legal unfder the existing contract.

As line pilots, our ability to make gains will depend entirely on our ability to read this kind of absolute BS, half-truths and scare tactics and see it for what it is. This is the way management used to speak to us. Now it's the way our union leaders speak to us. Control opinion through scare tactics and propaganda. So far, we've shown them it works. I truly hope we soon show them that we only deal with the truth...and vote out the rest.

Carl

02-17-2013 | 09:38 AM

#123186

forgot to bid

veut gagner à la loterie

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 23,286

Likes: 0

From: Light Chop

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29

You're right, it absolutely would be an issue if the 50 seater was a threat, which it was post 9/11. It's not now. We had a cap on the airplanes that were the real threat and the 50 seaters were/are on their way out.

Quote:

EB, 24OCT12
"...we’ll be mindful of our frequency by market and that’s a key driver, and the 717 deal, particularly, gives us much better gauge and the second thing is, I don’t think customers want to fly 800, 900 miles on a 50-seater. Part of what we’re doing here is putting a better product in the market, better fuel efficiency, fewer airplanes in the air and our customers tell us they much prefer flying on mainline airplanes rather than 34-, 44-, and 50-seat airplanes.

I just don't think the 50 seater was a threat even if it had better CASM. It takes up slots and gates, it's small and it's uncomfortable. It's just not bi-winning.

02-17-2013 | 09:43 AM

#123187

forgot to bid

veut gagner à la loterie

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 23,286

Likes: 0

From: Light Chop

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29

Or we could go from 717 mainline jets plus 88 B717s for 805 jets. That would be 38 jets above the 767 base. 38 X 3=114 which would easily allow 255 76 seaters and 0 70 seaters.

Now 255 76 seaters is less then 325 76 seaters. But, the ratio is now in place. It wasn't before. And while you've calculated that we "could" maintain the 1.56 BHR without growing, that doesn't stop the fact that we could be shrunk below that ratio of block hours after they pump and dumped us. The 1.56 BHR is protection we didn't have before. Would it really be more expensive to just park the DC9s and 30+ 55XX series 757s. Or the 320s?

So I guess whether the BHR protection is worth 70 more jumbo RJs is where the difference lies. I voted NO becuase I couldn't stomach signing off on 70 more large RJs. But I think this contract is pointing us in the right direction.

The thing about a pump and dump, to get to 255/0 76/70-seaters under the old PWA from where we are now would've required going from 720 jets to 806 while parking 102 70-seaters and then dumping mainline back down.It seems an awfully laborious, capacity growing and expensive way to have 255 76-seaters instead of 153/102 as they have now. I'd hate to be on those investor calls.

The easier way would be to use the 717s you already were going to acquire as leverage to drop the 806 requirement and throw in a ratio set at status quo at mainline : DCI@450 jets.

Last edited by forgot to bid; 02-17-2013 at 09:56 AM.

02-17-2013 | 09:49 AM

#123188

TOGA LK

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Apr 2009

Posts: 710

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by SailorJerry

You should apply to become an airline analyst for ALPA then. Your prowess with Excel pivot tables makes you a shoe in for the job. Show us how it's done, so 62% of us can disagree with you, again.

FTB has talent. I have double checked his numbers on several occasions, they always add up. I would very much like to see a guy like FTB in such a position to shoot holes and play devils advocate, the reality is he would be bored. IMHO, there is not currently such an individual at Herndon or in Atlanta working for the MEC.

02-17-2013 | 10:00 AM

#123189

forgot to bid

veut gagner à la loterie

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 23,286

Likes: 0

From: Light Chop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Check Essential

ALPA's staff attorneys pictured at a recent symposium on writing an enforcable scope clause.

The title of this seminar was "Separate Operating Certificates. Who knew?"

(BTW, the gentleman 2nd from the right is our specialist in Joint Venture production balances)

Reminds me of Top Gun, what's the number to that trucking school?

Because while Slowplay PM's 80ktsclamp with the trucking school number, he continues to PM me with the Clown College number and a note "You'll be the valedictorian for the first time in your life!"

02-17-2013 | 10:39 AM

#123190

forgot to bid

veut gagner à la loterie

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 23,286

Likes: 0

From: Light Chop

j29, one last string of thoughts on the subject (maybe) and thanks for the cordial discussion.

Contract 2012

Delta:

50 seat RJs are unpopular with our passengers and their CASM is too high and their killing out balance sheet especially if they go into heavy maintenance.
We have too many RJs.
We have too many 50 seat RJs and not enough 70/76 seat RJs.
We want more 70/76 seaters beyond 255 but the PWA will not allow it.
We want more 76 seaters then we have now but the PWA will not allow it. Unless we grow from 720 jets which is a size we like up to 800+ mainline jets and even then we have to park relatively new 70 seaters on a 1:1 trade. To grow that much would be bad on our balance sheet, our partnerships and capacity discipline path.
We are going to acquire SWA's 717s and we're going to try and squeeze SWA as much as we can on the price. We want every 717 ever made. Scream bucking bar, long live McDonnell Douglas.
Must be no worse than cost neutral.
We want the TA done now.

NC:

We want DCI to shrink.
We want the size of DCI to be directly linked to the size of our domestic mainline operation in the only metric we think matters which is pilot block hours.
We want to include turboprops in size restrictions and caps, not just jets.
Everything is on the table.
We understand if there is something we want then we know what we are willing to give up to get it.
We want a pay raise.

End Result

In order to get the 717s, the pilot must vote YES immediately on the first TA and agree to the following:
DCI will shrink to an optimum size, but, the 255 cap must be lifted to 325. The PWA must add 70 more 76 seaters without having to park any 70-seaters and no more growth beyond the 767 mainline merger fleet size.
Change jets to aircraft so as to include turboprops that Delta in their right mind would never want anyways.
A BH ratio will ensure the size of DCI does not grow while mainline shrinks.
The BH ratio, however, will not force mainline to grow beyond what it is right now. If Delta sees the need to grow then that's their prerogative but the ratio will NOT have to increase as mainline grows.
IF mainline does shrink below the 1.56 ratio, DCI will be reduced but the 70-76 seaters do not have to be reduced. The cuts can come from the 50 seaters.

your mileage may vary, it's just my thought.

Last edited by forgot to bid; 02-17-2013 at 10:49 AM.