This is a JOKE!! Pure posturing on the company's/management's part, and every time someone posts this my blood pressure jumps 20 points on the systolic/diastolic readings.

Does this timeline for aircraft delivery seem just a little coincidental with anyone else, or am I reading too much into it? THAT'S RIGHT, THE AIRCRAFT DELIVERY COINCIDES WITH CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS----DALPA?

What the statement is, is the "large dangling carrot" hanging from the 15# weight fishing line. Once the schmuck's in "union-land" are convinced that aircraft deliveries are dependent on a less than optimal "signed" contract, once again, everyone else at Delta (& pmNWA) will have been "bent over at the waist" without even the courtesy of a "reach around".

Enough venting for now. My apologies for posting on the forum when I've had a "venti" worth of caffeine at Starbuck's.

Fly safe,

GJ

 

I can't even begin to guess when you'd get training, but the good news is...it doesn't really matter. If you give them 30 days notice, at the end of those 30 days they start paying you the average line value for your category, whether you are in training or not. Because of that, they will go to great lengths to get you into training pretty quickly after you get back. When I came back a year ago, they said it might be 4 months, but it turned out to be 10 days. Don't know how long you've been out, but if they don't offer it, I would ask to go to an indoc class.

 

It seems futile to argue about upcoming MD-90 deliveries, or even the company's RFP. The best (and maybe "only") way to settle debates about whether the company will and will not order an airplane is an airframe with Delta paint, in service.

Meanwhile, we're back to 2008, and the company has to tell Wall Street they'll shrink if needed, and tell us they'll grow as much as they can. Once again, our fates are fluctuating with the price of crude, our cracks spread...

The only thing worth talking about is contractual rules that need to be modified, such as the "nugget" Jonhso29 referred to. There need to be penalties on the RJ side, for when the mainline fleet shrinks. For example, we need to have Delta pilots operating a number of ERJ's/CRJ's. When the company is out of compliance, airplanes need to be shifted over to us. The point that Bar made is valid: right now, the MD-88 and DC-9 fleets are serving as the airline's accumulator.

 

It's not a dangling carrot. We have old planes, and they need to be replaced eventually. We can call their bluff and take higher pay and better scope, and they will still have to replace the planes anyway.

 

Bill.

It kind of is a dangling carrot with the emphasis on "Mainline" growth and in another press release even going so far as to say "...to be flown by mainline pilots" or something to that effect.

Me doth think the company panders too much.

Scoop

 

Bill,

I appreciate your optimism, and like you, I am always someone who is looking at the glass as "half full".

With this particular issue, the timing seems too coincidental. (No, I don't believe that black helicopters follow me around on my off days.) All I'm saying, and maybe my original post came across as a little too angry, is that if we allow the company to "hold us hostage" on the "new a/c instead of bigger pay raises" stance, we'll be severely disappointed when they again decide to "not replace the 100-seat marktet" at Delta/NWA. One in which they've been touting for the last 20 years that they've wanted to, but each timeline offered in the past has turned into empty promises.

The reason that I highlighted part of your post, is that you're right, they do need to replace our aging fleet. NOTHING, says that they need to replace Delta's aging fleet with "mainline metal". Instead of accepting their announcement as the fact of new a/c coming to mainline, why don't we hold them to their word (I know, not in today's business practices) and give us a concession now if those 100-200 a/c with options for 200 more don't come to mainline? They've already said they're coming, so it must be true, right?

They are management, and we aren't compensated appropriately for what our profession deserves. "Let me use the game of SCRABBLE as an analogy".

First word is placed. Management constructs a word for equivalent points. The entire time they're (management) looking at the "triple letter"/"double word" scores, and can capitalize on those once they know our "next word"(position in contract negotiations).

Again, and maybe I'm talking in circles, but we need to be in a constant "defensive" position about both PAY & SCOPE. Once we settle for one, they can find a loophole to give the other up.

Rant over.

GJ

 

Do we have a min fleet number for mainline? If we don't , maybe we should look into that. I think we do. Also, whoever negotiated and sold us on the idea that it was ok to give management RJs for each new plane, but NOT lose large RJs for every mainline plane lost, should be pummeled. Of course we ratified it, so bad on us, again.

 

Go back to Bill's original post:

"...It's not a dangling carrot. We have old planes, and they need to be replaced eventually. We can call their bluff and take higher pay and better scope, and they will still have to replace the planes anyway..."

He's not saying the company is sincere, I think he's saying we shouldn't "purchase" growth airplanes. I think you're talking past him. We all understand that the timing of the RFP being published is probably not a coincidence, and I would hope we're smart enough not to let any optimism cloud our behavior at the negotiating table. That doesn't mean the company won't need new airplanes.

The bottom line is that rumor of new airplanes are entertaining, and serve to fuel individual speculation about the future. This shouldn't have anything to do with the pragmatic work that goes into crafting good contract language, and starting to close some of the loopholes.

 

Exactly.

I have to replace my car when it wears out, but I do not ask someone else to help offset the costs. It is part of owning a car. It is the same for airlines. Replacing jets is part of owning an airline.

 

The base number is 440+N where N equals aircraft in service, mx, spares, added to the fleet from NWA merger. This ended up being somewhere around 760-770 airplanes I think. Once this number is reached, they can add THREE 76 seaters for every ONE mainline airplane added. And my favorite part ONCE THE NUMBER OF 76 SEATERS IS ESTABLISHED, IT WILL NOT BE REDUCED.

I still get SO MAD when I read this. WHY DID WE PUT THIS IN???? ARGH!!!!