You are ignoring the fact a host of the RJ contracts are coming up and would not need to be renewed (this also was part of the "time limited opportunity" along with engine overhaul requirements). Management needed to quickly implement a program to switch out and renew contracts before heaven forbid someone from the union fought against outsourced C-scale pilots performing Delta flying....

Management and you fail to bring that up though. Your response is so management groupthink ingrained you completely overlooked the obvious answer to your own question..."Oh, and tell me what Delta would have looked like with the loss of 1/3 of DCI over the summer...I think they were about 8% of our domestic network."

The answer: A transition program implemented well ahead of time to keep the planes flying.....By DELTA MAINLINE PILOTS!

So you're going to change your argument now that your original one is discredited.

The expiration dates of the RJ CPA's and the cost of engine and airframe maintenance during the term of the agreement were published during the ratification process. They shouldn't be a surprise to you. The CPA extended in decreasing numbers to 2024. PCL's bankruptcy and our PWA choices were in 2012. Your argument isn't valid.

And tell me again how Delta was going to implement a transition program "well ahead of time" for aircraft that were under contract to a company in bankruptcy and other DCI carriers? They couldn't pull the aircraft...

08-31-2013 | 06:33 PM

#138442

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay

My only point to the historical revisionists (not you) is that Delta had a financial and contractual obligation for almost all the RJ lift at PCL whether they liquidated or reorganized. And that obligation had a significant input into the Delta network.

And this is exactly why DALPA's reputation is waning. With the leverage we had as stated by you above, we got COLA pay raises fully funded by productivity concessions and profit sharing reductions. 5 LEC reps agreed and stated it was why they weren't voting yes for C2012. Yet DALPA still defends the actions to the hilt, calls a competing organization a "scourge" and complains about everyone misunderstanding their use of the term "our fair share of the flying."

This is just part of DALPA's current disconnect with its members.

Carl

08-31-2013 | 07:01 PM

#138443

alfaromeo

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 1,619

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoop

As to your first question, yes the recalls for the first group of furloughs started in July 2004. The Gulf War furloughs (2nd group) were already back on the property with back-pay by this time.

As to your second question, I do not know. Perhaps Slowplay, or another of the more in the know guys, can answer that one.

Scoop

This is where you are just factually wrong. There was a short period of time when green slips went out to the categories they were furloughing from mainly because guys were burning through their sick leave before getting furloughed. Then there was a long period of time with virtually no green slips. In 2005, while waiting for PBS and the new scheduling system to be implemented there were a lot of green slips. This was to avoid a double furlough. If pilots were recalled to fill summer 2005, they faced a second furlough when the efficiencies were implemented. The decision was made to stay short staffed for the summer to avoid this. Other than these two brief period there were almost no green slips.

08-31-2013 | 07:01 PM

#138444

buzzpat

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Feb 2008

Posts: 6,070

Likes: 1

From: Urban chicken rancher.

My head hurts............

08-31-2013 | 07:01 PM

#138445

forgot to bid

veut gagner à la loterie

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 23,286

Likes: 0

From: Light Chop

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

The question is whether they could happily squeeze another 2 rows into a CR9? If so then the argument for allowing it is under constructive engagement.... they're not ordering new planes... makes them more profitable which goes right back into your pocket (same reason to allow more 76ers last year)...you're not losing mainline pilot seats because of it you're just allowing airplanes already being flown to be more profitable...

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay

That wasn't the reason.

Management wanted out of a bunch of 50 seat CRJ. They were under contract to DCI carriers for flying and had ownership costs and network commitments that needed to be addressed. Adding the B717 was one component of the network, but they had to find a way to get out of 50 seat contracts and ownership costs. The additional 40 76 seat jets with options for 30 more (i.e. the 70 allowed) that they've ordered were used to "buy out" the contracts that they otherwise would have been unable to get out of.

Because of management's need we got a fleet size and block hour collar put around DCI, among a whole bunch of other things.

It is puzzling to me why folks misrepresent what the deal actually was and why it was available at that time.

Added bold for you.

That was more of a shot at the few that like to say "more profitable regional jets equals more profit sharing". Not necessarily aimed at the union sales pitch.

But you said in your post that we replaced 50 seaters with 76 seaters. Are 76 seaters more or less profitable than 50 seaters?

08-31-2013 | 07:33 PM

#138446

forgot to bid

veut gagner à la loterie

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 23,286

Likes: 0

From: Light Chop

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzpat

My head hurts............

I know you LAX guys do things different, but maybe skateboarding isn't as safe as Tony Hawk makes it look.

08-31-2013 | 07:40 PM

#138447

Express pilot

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jan 2006

Posts: 762

Likes: 0

College football, SN Torpedo, a little popcorn. Not thinking about DALPA.

08-31-2013 | 07:45 PM

#138448

forgot to bid

veut gagner à la loterie

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 23,286

Likes: 0

From: Light Chop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Express pilot

College football, SN Torpedo, a little popcorn. Not thinking about DALPA.

I'm thinking about Clowney.

I've been thinking about Clowney all week. Can't sleep. Oh I'm scared.

Then I realized I'm not a football player.

It helped a little.

08-31-2013 | 08:15 PM

#138449

hitimefurl

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2011

Posts: 165

Likes: 0

I guess it's Dragon Con time here in the A T L. Summary: it's okay to pick on Moak, not so okay to pick on Caplinger, kinda okay to pick on Kingsley and then everyone tore apart the 76 seat section based on a rumor of 717 issues and there's still that widebody rumor to be squashed and no one cares that dues are going to go up if the DPA takes over in the next 8 months.

08-31-2013 | 08:29 PM

#138450

80ktsClamp

Da Hudge

Joined: Oct 2006

Posts: 17,473

Likes: 0

From: Poodle Whisperer

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitimefurl

Who's giving Caplinger a break? He's getting eaten alive on here, moreso than Moak I'd say. All while Moak arguably has helped the DPA gain traction by himself more than any other person.

My question on the 717 came from a miscommunication between my rep and I. I mentioned the delay (which currently stands at 1 week, no big deal at the moment) and asked what that has to do with the 76 seaters, and he said nothing could be done until Jan 1, thinking I was asking about MBH. Thankfully that was cleared up and there isn't a loophole with that portion.