Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
12-14-2011 | 03:31 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
That isn't an "extension" though. That is a rework on a massive scale, with tremendous cost. No incentive for the company to even entertain it. The purpose of an extension is to keep the working environment stable to undertake an event such as a major acquisition or merger. If RA & Co. want to "buy some peace", it's just a matter of what the Co. will be willing pay!
I completely concur that we need some scope protections, it needs to be addressed considering what the future is shaping up to be.
I have been thinking about this possible scenario and have come up with my conditions for an extension. (and yes I have contacted my rep and informed him of my position/thoughts).
1. Extension of 18 months max.
2. MOU/LOA/NMB recognized letter with the company that binds them to production balances in all future codeshare/JV agreements, and to phase them into all current agreements.
3. Pay rate increases of 10% at beginning.
4. 5% increase to rates 12 months later.
5. Significantly increased profit sharing percentage for pilots(at least double).
6. DC increase of 1%
7. Increase Vacation pay to 5:15. (=1.5% annual pay increase per week)
8. Openers exchanged at the 12 month point, and NMB assisted negotiations immediately at the 18 month point.
9. A 5% retro payment and 5% pay rate bump going forward if the reason for the desired extension fails to materialize/deal falls through.
Essentially it boils down to a day one increase of 10% pay + 4% PS + 4.5% Vac. pay + 1% DC = 19.5% on day one.
Reworks and enhances "network scope" over time, but lets the company still undertake new opportunities.
At the one year point nets an additional 5%, and starts the negotiations.
We enter NMB negotiations with 26% higher compensation than if we had been frozen in negotiations for 1.5 years without a new deal, company gets to advertise stability to get a deal done, but protects the pilots with an ADDITIONAL 5% if the company just wanted to "stall"(for a 31% increase at 12 months plus one day).
Every 1% the pilots compensation increases costs approx. $21 Million if this board has accurate info..... That translates to a $409 mill. year 1 and $535 mil year 2 in pre-tax cost increases.
The US corp. tax rate is 35% so the company will write off 1/3 of the costs. Net cost for DAL Inc. to pay for the extension is $265 mil. in year 1 and $348 mil in year 2. TOTAL $613 mil. net cost.
According to alfa, DAL spent $229 mil in the 3Q 2011 on 12.5B debt.
That equates to roughly $900 mil in 2011. Debt will be cut by $2.5B over the next 1.5 years, so roughly $415 million in principal reduction and $180-200 million in interest ≈ $600 million EACH QUARTER.
So, to give the DAL pilots a 18 month "extension" it will cost DAL Inc. $30 mil./mo. (or one quarters' worth of debt payment out of 6 quarters.) They owe a debt to the pilots, time to start paying. I can be flexible and work with the company, like any other creditor, as long as they make an earnest effort too.
This is MY opinion, feel free to craft one of your own.
I completely concur that we need some scope protections, it needs to be addressed considering what the future is shaping up to be.
I have been thinking about this possible scenario and have come up with my conditions for an extension. (and yes I have contacted my rep and informed him of my position/thoughts).
1. Extension of 18 months max.
2. MOU/LOA/NMB recognized letter with the company that binds them to production balances in all future codeshare/JV agreements, and to phase them into all current agreements.
3. Pay rate increases of 10% at beginning.
4. 5% increase to rates 12 months later.
5. Significantly increased profit sharing percentage for pilots(at least double).
6. DC increase of 1%
7. Increase Vacation pay to 5:15. (=1.5% annual pay increase per week)
8. Openers exchanged at the 12 month point, and NMB assisted negotiations immediately at the 18 month point.
9. A 5% retro payment and 5% pay rate bump going forward if the reason for the desired extension fails to materialize/deal falls through.
Essentially it boils down to a day one increase of 10% pay + 4% PS + 4.5% Vac. pay + 1% DC = 19.5% on day one.
Reworks and enhances "network scope" over time, but lets the company still undertake new opportunities.
At the one year point nets an additional 5%, and starts the negotiations.
We enter NMB negotiations with 26% higher compensation than if we had been frozen in negotiations for 1.5 years without a new deal, company gets to advertise stability to get a deal done, but protects the pilots with an ADDITIONAL 5% if the company just wanted to "stall"(for a 31% increase at 12 months plus one day).
Every 1% the pilots compensation increases costs approx. $21 Million if this board has accurate info..... That translates to a $409 mill. year 1 and $535 mil year 2 in pre-tax cost increases.
The US corp. tax rate is 35% so the company will write off 1/3 of the costs. Net cost for DAL Inc. to pay for the extension is $265 mil. in year 1 and $348 mil in year 2. TOTAL $613 mil. net cost.
According to alfa, DAL spent $229 mil in the 3Q 2011 on 12.5B debt.
That equates to roughly $900 mil in 2011. Debt will be cut by $2.5B over the next 1.5 years, so roughly $415 million in principal reduction and $180-200 million in interest ≈ $600 million EACH QUARTER.
So, to give the DAL pilots a 18 month "extension" it will cost DAL Inc. $30 mil./mo. (or one quarters' worth of debt payment out of 6 quarters.) They owe a debt to the pilots, time to start paying. I can be flexible and work with the company, like any other creditor, as long as they make an earnest effort too.
This is MY opinion, feel free to craft one of your own.
Carl
12-14-2011 | 03:36 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
1. Extension of 18 months max.
2. MOU/LOA/NMB recognized letter with the company that binds them to production balances in all future codeshare/JV agreements, and to phase them into all current agreements.
3. Pay rate increases of 10% at beginning.
4. 5% increase to rates 12 months later.
5. Significantly increased profit sharing percentage for pilots(at least double).
6. DC increase of 1%
7. Increase Vacation pay to 5:15. (=1.5% annual pay increase per week)
8. Openers exchanged at the 12 month point, and NMB assisted negotiations immediately at the 18 month point.
9. A 5% retro payment and 5% pay rate bump going forward if the reason for the desired extension fails to materialize/deal falls through.
2. MOU/LOA/NMB recognized letter with the company that binds them to production balances in all future codeshare/JV agreements, and to phase them into all current agreements.
3. Pay rate increases of 10% at beginning.
4. 5% increase to rates 12 months later.
5. Significantly increased profit sharing percentage for pilots(at least double).
6. DC increase of 1%
7. Increase Vacation pay to 5:15. (=1.5% annual pay increase per week)
8. Openers exchanged at the 12 month point, and NMB assisted negotiations immediately at the 18 month point.
9. A 5% retro payment and 5% pay rate bump going forward if the reason for the desired extension fails to materialize/deal falls through.
Additionally, no more CPA extensions and a drop dead date in the future for all of it over 50 seats. That gives them a decade to figure it out and even then they'd have 50 seaters to use to fill in rare gaps. That allows immediate stability and flexibility with only marginal gains in CASM/trip cost for half of the DC-9-10 replacment fleet, but provides "capacity dicipline" at the same time by taking seats out of the market.
As long as 50 seaters are being parked, there is zero harm to the operation and zero cost to continually cap the number of allowed 50 seaters to the lower number actually in revenue service, with contract language to protect against schenagans like ultra low utilization, etc.
And I think we need a quarterly status rep review for every single AS code share route and frequency and any city pair beyond certain paramaters needs to be brought in balance with our metal and some markets need to be excluded from the code share entirely. If we want it that bad, we merge. End the AS whipsaw either way.
Again, maybe you meant all that. Our vacation is sickning. An absolute embarassment. And we need sick time reform as well. I'm willing to shorten the list of items for an extension with immediate gains, but I can't agree to allow our current scope debacle to continue just for a 5% raise above an ongoing COLA. If that's all we get (which is what a 10% DOS, 5% after that is) then why even bother resetting the NMB clock.
Want a quick deal? Make real, comprehensive gains in all areas of scope, not just JV's, and fix some critical work rule shortcomings like vacation and sick time. If the company ever makes a peep about productivity, tell them we agree and want to be far more productive, that's why we propose industry dominating rigs and min days to force planning and marketing to make more productive schedules.
12-14-2011 | 03:43 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
While we're at it though, it has always bothered me that no US legacy airline has the stones to do MCO-anywhere in Europe. Yet how many foreign wide bodies fly those routes every day? Tons.
DL sometimes pretends to fly MCO-LHR and even call it the prestigious "flight 1" but it ends up being a 757 with a plane change in JFK that keeps the same flight number.
12-14-2011 | 03:44 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
I'd still demand some tangible up front gains in all scope areas not just JV's. Maybe that's what you meant, but for me to agree to a quick extension, which obviously the company would want, I'd have to see some binding DCI and AS code share abuse reversals or its no deal. Ripping 6 seats out of the 76 seaters is doable in a week or two. That would bring us back to the 70 limit without the company having to pay any penalties to anyone and it would further push marketing towards our tiny fleet of 125 seat aircraft as well as our large fuel inefficient MD80/90 fleet, which we will need going forward.
Additionally, no more CPA extensions and a drop dead date in the future for all of it over 50 seats. That gives them a decade to figure it out and even then they'd have 50 seaters to use to fill in rare gaps. That allows immediate stability and flexibility with only marginal gains in CASM/trip cost for half of the DC-9-10 replacment fleet, but provides "capacity dicipline" at the same time by taking seats out of the market.
As long as 50 seaters are being parked, there is zero harm to the operation and zero cost to continually cap the number of allowed 50 seaters to the lower number actually in revenue service, with contract language to protect against schenagans like ultra low utilization, etc.
And I think we need a quarterly status rep review for every single AS code share route and frequency and any city pair beyond certain paramaters needs to be brought in balance with our metal and some markets need to be excluded from the code share entirely. If we want it that bad, we merge. End the AS whipsaw either way.
Again, maybe you meant all that. Our vacation is sickning. An absolute embarassment. And we need sick time reform as well. I'm willing to shorten the list of items for an extension with immediate gains, but I can't agree to allow our current scope debacle to continue just for a 5% raise above an ongoing COLA. If that's all we get (which is what a 10% DOS, 5% after that is) then why even bother resetting the NMB clock.
Want a quick deal? Make real, comprehensive gains in all areas of scope, not just JV's, and fix some critical work rule shortcomings like vacation and sick time. If the company ever makes a peep about productivity, tell them we agree and want to be far more productive, that's why we propose industry dominating rigs and min days to force planning and marketing to make more productive schedules.
Additionally, no more CPA extensions and a drop dead date in the future for all of it over 50 seats. That gives them a decade to figure it out and even then they'd have 50 seaters to use to fill in rare gaps. That allows immediate stability and flexibility with only marginal gains in CASM/trip cost for half of the DC-9-10 replacment fleet, but provides "capacity dicipline" at the same time by taking seats out of the market.
As long as 50 seaters are being parked, there is zero harm to the operation and zero cost to continually cap the number of allowed 50 seaters to the lower number actually in revenue service, with contract language to protect against schenagans like ultra low utilization, etc.
And I think we need a quarterly status rep review for every single AS code share route and frequency and any city pair beyond certain paramaters needs to be brought in balance with our metal and some markets need to be excluded from the code share entirely. If we want it that bad, we merge. End the AS whipsaw either way.
Again, maybe you meant all that. Our vacation is sickning. An absolute embarassment. And we need sick time reform as well. I'm willing to shorten the list of items for an extension with immediate gains, but I can't agree to allow our current scope debacle to continue just for a 5% raise above an ongoing COLA. If that's all we get (which is what a 10% DOS, 5% after that is) then why even bother resetting the NMB clock.
Want a quick deal? Make real, comprehensive gains in all areas of scope, not just JV's, and fix some critical work rule shortcomings like vacation and sick time. If the company ever makes a peep about productivity, tell them we agree and want to be far more productive, that's why we propose industry dominating rigs and min days to force planning and marketing to make more productive schedules.
Carl
12-14-2011 | 03:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,105
Likes: 100
I can't see MCO. It's a loss leader domestically, like LAS. TPA is out along with JAX.
MIA makes the most sense. It's a top 6 O&D market, a springboard for SA, which they say they want to more of, and they can co-domicile with FLL and PBI
The only problem with this, from my perspective, is that it'd go so senior, I couldnt hold reserve driving the biffy truck.
Nu
MIA makes the most sense. It's a top 6 O&D market, a springboard for SA, which they say they want to more of, and they can co-domicile with FLL and PBI
The only problem with this, from my perspective, is that it'd go so senior, I couldnt hold reserve driving the biffy truck.
Nu
12-14-2011 | 03:58 PM
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
12-14-2011 | 04:10 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Likes: 0
FAA on Friday issued its version of the directive requiring Boeing 777 operators to modify Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engines to minimize the risk of ice build-ups that can lead to fuel flowage problems and, in rare instances, in-flight shutdowns.
The AD is based on an EASA directive issued in July, which came out just days after Rolls-Royce issued an alert service bulletin detailing the recommended fix. The problem was spotlighted in the probe of the January 17, 2008 crash of a British Airways Boeing 777 at London Heathrow.
FAA's directive gives operators of about 70 N-registered 777s 6,000 flight hours from the AD's Jan. 4, 2010, effective date or until Jan. 1, 2011, to replace fuel-to-oil heat exchangers (FOHEs) with new, modified designs.
The FAA's compliance window is larger than EASA's. The July 13 EASA AD requires replacing the FOHE within 6,000 flight hours from July 10, 2009--the day the Rolls-Royce bulletin was published--or before Jan. 1, 2011, whichever occurs first.
ALPA, in comments on the AD's draft version, asked FAA to make the compliance time a bit tighter, suggesting operators be required to make the modifications "within six months after the effective date of the AD or within 6,000 flight hours after receipt of the service bulletin.'' FAA declined, saying that procedures mandated by AD 2009-05-11, published March 5, 2009, provide "adequate" procedures to address in-flight problems "until hardware modifications become available."
The AD is based on an EASA directive issued in July, which came out just days after Rolls-Royce issued an alert service bulletin detailing the recommended fix. The problem was spotlighted in the probe of the January 17, 2008 crash of a British Airways Boeing 777 at London Heathrow.
FAA's directive gives operators of about 70 N-registered 777s 6,000 flight hours from the AD's Jan. 4, 2010, effective date or until Jan. 1, 2011, to replace fuel-to-oil heat exchangers (FOHEs) with new, modified designs.
The FAA's compliance window is larger than EASA's. The July 13 EASA AD requires replacing the FOHE within 6,000 flight hours from July 10, 2009--the day the Rolls-Royce bulletin was published--or before Jan. 1, 2011, whichever occurs first.
ALPA, in comments on the AD's draft version, asked FAA to make the compliance time a bit tighter, suggesting operators be required to make the modifications "within six months after the effective date of the AD or within 6,000 flight hours after receipt of the service bulletin.'' FAA declined, saying that procedures mandated by AD 2009-05-11, published March 5, 2009, provide "adequate" procedures to address in-flight problems "until hardware modifications become available."
12-14-2011 | 04:17 PM
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,263
Likes: 105
From: DAL 330
Yep - Just got em. And on a positive note, the January Bid package is the best in months! Nice to have some two and three day trips again. When I fly with our Rotation Construction Committee (RCC) guy the first round is on me.
Scoop
12-14-2011 | 04:31 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
This is what we're up against on C2012: The stench of complacency--and the long-established Delta reticence to getting salty, if necessary, to make sure we're taking care of ourselves and not letting the company off the hook.
Oh, and before you foist any more kool-aid on us, let me return the favor and offer you an unsolicited lecture: The clothes weren't invisible--the emperor was naked.
Oh, and before you foist any more kool-aid on us, let me return the favor and offer you an unsolicited lecture: The clothes weren't invisible--the emperor was naked.
Last edited by OccupyRestSeat; 12-14-2011 at 05:03 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
