DTW 330 could get more junior... or get more senior... or stay the same with fewer seats. Basically, a crap shoot there.

But I agree ATL will be super senior but it might not be because of FL commuters. I think if ATL 330 opens and the pent up demand following the 7ER transformation and 764 slaughter in Peachtree City and Dallas for a strict international category will attract a lot of seniority to it not to mention 330 guys already on the plane who chase it in either base.

As to commuters, if you live in MCO is it worth it to bid ATL and lose seniority to save an hour on your commute? If you live in JAX, maybe. But if you only do it once and a half times a month, probably not. Being closer helps really only if you're driving and not if you're hell bent on taking the last flight that lands with 30 minutes left before show. Of course there are guys who live in SAV that off mainline commute to 7ER NYC when ATL is a relatively short drive but they could only hold the 88.

I think commuters will go to the path of least resistance to the highest QOL and to me, it's DTW. Put it this way, I know ATL based and ATL residing pilots who are ready to bid off the 737 and go to DTW and fly the 320. Fly 3 5-days a month for 80+ hours beats the snot out of flying every day on reserve on super unproductive trips.

As to the 320, still curious as to whether its replacing mainline equipment in ATL or adding to it and pooping out RJs?

 

I have a feeling that's the case. But I bet if it is the base will start very small.

 

Look at the amount of flying the 320 and 330 do out of ATL. Go take the time to look at the bid packages, and see how many rotations DH to and from ATL. Take the DH's out and you have ATL rotations.

 

There are a few very senior FO's on the 88 that have stated they would bid the right seat of it, if it arrived. All flew the Fluff (-200) and swore they did would not bid that again, so this gives them an opportunity to do different flying.

 

True but
a) that's a lot of work between MEM, DTW and MSP,
b) they could also increase the flying out of ATL especially if they ship 737 time to DTW or something and DH guys up there. They DH a lot on that thing. I had a 737 DH'ing not long ago that said he had a 3 day trip with 3 scheduled DH's,
c) MEM 320 compared to ATL 88 is very small. My bet is something on the size of MEM 320. Just a hunch if it's just all additional flying over current ATL mainline flying.

 

Not to mention with the 767 going away and guys not bidding the 7ER nor attracted to the 737 the 320 might be the only step up they take. I'd bid it, but I'm not senior. So whichever one gets me higher between the 320 and 88 I'll take and my bet is that'd be the 88... but it could be the 320 if nobody bids it.

 

Check out the tracks in action... it's like America builds up a head of steam and launches into Europe and then Europe builds up a head of steam and fires back, and the planes getting passed, those are Delta's... and note the very lonely guys going between South America and South Africa

 

After reviewing the last arbitrated award for claim # 2009-1 I came away with a few of observations which are relevant here.

1. An arbitrator can not add to, remove from or modify the BEH award
2. Specific terms prevail over general terms in the same document.
3. Conditions and restrictions 4 and 5 must be read together, neither negating the other.

What I'm getting to here is that, as Mr Eischen pointed out when he stated; “Specific terms prevail over general terms in the same document which otherwise might be controlling” that conditions and restriction number four is very specific, whereas conditions and restrictions number 5 is more general in nature and those two conditions and restrictions must be read together and that, the "cardinal principle is that an interpretation which renders either provision nugatory must be avoided in favor of an interpretation which gives reasoned meaning to each."

So what do I conclude from all this is that conditions and restrictions #5 does not negate the protections in # 4.

If the "replacement aircraft" were other than a 777, 747, or 787 that's a different story. JMHO

Here are some excerpts from the decision. I added bold for emphasis. You can find the entire decision on the Delta pilot website and draw your own conclusions. library>DAL dispute resolution>Dispute resolution>dispute resolution agreement arbitration-award number 1-claim 2009-1

¶4 For the period of five (5) years beginning with the first bid period after the issuance of the Single Operating Certificate (SOC), no pre-merger Northwest pilot may be awarded or displaced to a vacancy on a B777 aircraft or category and no pre-merger Delta pilot may be awarded or displaced to a B787 or B747 vacancy.

¶5 Should the merged company take delivery of any aircraft which is/are a replacement of any aircraft covered by Paragraph 4, the captain positions and, as applicable, the first officer positions on each such replacement aircraft will be allocated in accordance with the Paragraph 4. Restrictions on the type it is replacing.

For that contingency, these parties had the wisdom and foresight to establish, by Letter of Agreement dated April 29, 2009, DRC processes and procedures culminating in final and binding “rights arbitration”, which has been invoked in the instant claim concerning C & R ¶¶ 4 and 5.

However, it is necessary to reiterate and emphasize at the outset that we are now engaged in “rights” arbitration under arbitral authority expressly circumscribed by the introductory phrase of the second sentence of Article VII (G) of the DRC LOA of April 29, 2009:

“The decision of the arbitrator may not add to, remove from or modify the BEH Award.”

As I have observed elsewhere, however, it is not the proper function of any post hoc rights arbitrator to rewrite the words of an interest arbitration award under the guise of rendering an interpretation.

Both sides invoke the familiar rubric that plain and unambiguous language controls; the Delta-North group invoking ¶ 5 in support of its “Proposed Award” and the Delta-South group citing ¶ 4 in opposition. But those two paragraphs in the Conditions and Restrictions must of necessity be construed together, because ¶ 5 expressly refers to “any aircraft covered by Paragraph ¶ 4". When read together, it is apparent that in some factual circumstances lurking latent ambiguity could require reconciliation of ¶¶ 4 and 5. In performing that task, the cardinal principle is that an interpretation which renders either provision nugatory must be avoided in favor of an interpretation which gives reasoned meaning to each.

In apparent recognition of the reality that such reconciliation could be required, learned Counsel both invoked another age-old principle familiar to courts, arbitrators and other practioners of contract construction: “Specific terms prevail over general terms in the same document which otherwise might be controlling”.

If it were necessary to turn the decision of the present case on that legalistic “inside baseball” rationale, the principle of “Specialia generalibis derogant” appears more supportive of the South position than that of the North position, because it is clear that the language of ¶ 4 is more specific than that in ¶ 5.

 

No one seemed to pick up in the crew planning news that the conversion of the 767 to ER has been pushed off due to training constraints.

 

This wouldn't be a correct method. There is a large amount of ATL flying and ATL layovers. I bet you would be hard pressed to find many rotations built CVG style with DHDs too and from atl.