Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-20-2012 | 07:35 AM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Carried over from another thread because it seems more relevant here ....
The Company is rumored to have approached ALPA for a significant scope concession to allow many more 76 seat jets. My posts have been aimed at educating mainline pilots why they might want to look past the 717 and understand the numbers which make airplanes like the CRj905 more desired by management and more operationally flexible. Thus, if we had to play this game defensively; we would rather have the 905's than the 717's; they make more money.
As things stand at the end of 2011, beginning of 2012, mainline has 718 airplanes. At 767 mainline jets the three to one language is triggered. 153 76 seat jets are currently authorized and management has bought every single one they were allowed to buy ... now they want more. It would take a mainline fleet growing by 49 jets to make that happen.
However, then management runs into the 255 total limit on 70/76 seat jets. As you can guess, they've maxed that limit out also.
My guess is that Management wants concessions on one of those two limits with the promise that "if we ever pull down the mainline fleet, we will pull down DCI in a proportionate fashion." We've seen that before and it failed to protect jobs in Contract 2000 because the minute things got tough the Company said "we really need these bigger RJ's to make money and stay in business" so we removed those scope protections and furloughed mainline pilots. Some, ironically, found employment on the same jets ALPA outsourced, at one fifth the pay that they were making at Delta.
Strategically, it would be smarter for Delta pilots to want the real action, the 905's, where Delta's 10K reports say the profits are. That's the more secure position and instead of looking for cheap and used, Delta management is obtaining the best and new for their "regional" operations, again.
The task of our Negotiating Committee is to get Delta pilots in those seats, performing Delta flying. Delta can buy more RJ's if it wants WITHOUT SCOPE CHANGES and fly them with mainline pilots. We should all support and encourage our Reps, Admin and Negotiators to hold the high ground against outsourcing our jobs.
The Company is rumored to have approached ALPA for a significant scope concession to allow many more 76 seat jets. My posts have been aimed at educating mainline pilots why they might want to look past the 717 and understand the numbers which make airplanes like the CRj905 more desired by management and more operationally flexible. Thus, if we had to play this game defensively; we would rather have the 905's than the 717's; they make more money.
As things stand at the end of 2011, beginning of 2012, mainline has 718 airplanes. At 767 mainline jets the three to one language is triggered. 153 76 seat jets are currently authorized and management has bought every single one they were allowed to buy ... now they want more. It would take a mainline fleet growing by 49 jets to make that happen.
However, then management runs into the 255 total limit on 70/76 seat jets. As you can guess, they've maxed that limit out also.
My guess is that Management wants concessions on one of those two limits with the promise that "if we ever pull down the mainline fleet, we will pull down DCI in a proportionate fashion." We've seen that before and it failed to protect jobs in Contract 2000 because the minute things got tough the Company said "we really need these bigger RJ's to make money and stay in business" so we removed those scope protections and furloughed mainline pilots. Some, ironically, found employment on the same jets ALPA outsourced, at one fifth the pay that they were making at Delta.
Strategically, it would be smarter for Delta pilots to want the real action, the 905's, where Delta's 10K reports say the profits are. That's the more secure position and instead of looking for cheap and used, Delta management is obtaining the best and new for their "regional" operations, again.
The task of our Negotiating Committee is to get Delta pilots in those seats, performing Delta flying. Delta can buy more RJ's if it wants WITHOUT SCOPE CHANGES and fly them with mainline pilots. We should all support and encourage our Reps, Admin and Negotiators to hold the high ground against outsourcing our jobs.
That said, I could see a production balance sort of position from the company. One where we take the current mainline jet count and the current DCI 76 seat jet count(153). With these two numbers growth and reductions are tied. Currently we have a one way growth plan. We grow, they add 76 seat jets at a 3-1 ratio but when we shrink the jets stay. They may offer a quid that makes the 76 seat jets shrink too, with a max cap of 255 76 seat jets. I am sure the company will want to take the 70 seats out of the mix and make them unlimited, or make them replace them 1 for 1 up to 255 with a production balance in both directions.
Again, I can see the company wanting this, but I have a real hard time seeing the majority of the reps going for an outright deal where we effectively allow more large RJ's even if they are tied to mainline jet count. Allowing the same number of 70+ seat jets with a 255 limit, which is where currently are at, but with a production balance where they can only grow on a one to one basis and shrink on a one to one basis with us seems to be more rational from a company and or pilot perspective, but again, even if the reps signed off on this, I am not sure the pilots would.
Instead of staying awake at night worrying about what they might do, or what the company may demand, I will wait for a TA that needs to get voted on, then vote on it. I will continually send my reps direction on this issue as well.
Thinking that we will grow if we allow more large jets is an age old trick though. yawn.
03-20-2012 | 07:40 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 0
Not very far fetched at all. Another merger and we will easily hit that scope trigger. If not that, I see management getting used aircraft to cross that trigger, fly said aircraft till they are used up and then never replace them. No need, they crossed the scope trigger they needed and now the extra DCI aircraft can pick up the load.
You can only be used as a pawn so much ("hey we are all working together for mutual goals and interests") before you realize everything is completely one sided. Time to sober up and fight back.
Main Entry: deceive
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: mislead; be dishonest
Synonyms: bamboozle*, beat, beat out of, beguile, betray, bilk, buffalo, burn, cheat, circumvent, clip, con, cozen, cross up, defraud, delude, disappoint, double-cross, dupe, ensnare, entrap, fake, falsify, fleece, fool, gouge, gull, hoax, hoodwink, hook*, humbug, impose upon, lead on, outwit, play joke on, pull fast one, put on, rob, scam, screw, sell, skin, suck in, swindle, take advantage of , take for, take for ride, take in, take to cleaners, trick, victimize
03-20-2012 | 07:41 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Its a rumor, and I would say, wait until the actual TA in which you would vote on.
That said, I could see a production balance sort of position from the company. One where we take the current mainline jet count and the current DCI 76 seat jet count(153). With these two numbers growth and reductions are tied. Currently we have a one way growth plan. We grow, they add 76 seat jets at a 3-1 ratio but when we shrink the jets stay. They may offer a quid that makes the 76 seat jets shrink too, with a max cap of 255 76 seat jets. I am sure the company will want to take the 70 seats out of the mix and make them unlimited, or make them replace them 1 for 1 up to 255 with a production balance in both directions.
Again, I can see the company wanting this, but I have a real hard time seeing the majority of the reps going for an outright deal where we effectively allow more large RJ's even if they are tied to mainline jet count. Allowing the same number of 70+ seat jets with a 255 limit, which is where currently are at, but with a production balance where they can only grow on a one to one basis and shrink on a one to one basis with us seems to be more rational from a company and or pilot perspective, but again, even if the reps signed off on this, I am not sure the pilots would.
Instead of staying awake at night worrying about what they might do, or what the company may demand, I will wait for a TA that needs to get voted on, then vote on it. I will continually send my reps direction on this issue as well.
Thinking that we will grow if we allow more large jets is an age old trick though. yawn.
That said, I could see a production balance sort of position from the company. One where we take the current mainline jet count and the current DCI 76 seat jet count(153). With these two numbers growth and reductions are tied. Currently we have a one way growth plan. We grow, they add 76 seat jets at a 3-1 ratio but when we shrink the jets stay. They may offer a quid that makes the 76 seat jets shrink too, with a max cap of 255 76 seat jets. I am sure the company will want to take the 70 seats out of the mix and make them unlimited, or make them replace them 1 for 1 up to 255 with a production balance in both directions.
Again, I can see the company wanting this, but I have a real hard time seeing the majority of the reps going for an outright deal where we effectively allow more large RJ's even if they are tied to mainline jet count. Allowing the same number of 70+ seat jets with a 255 limit, which is where currently are at, but with a production balance where they can only grow on a one to one basis and shrink on a one to one basis with us seems to be more rational from a company and or pilot perspective, but again, even if the reps signed off on this, I am not sure the pilots would.
Instead of staying awake at night worrying about what they might do, or what the company may demand, I will wait for a TA that needs to get voted on, then vote on it. I will continually send my reps direction on this issue as well.
Thinking that we will grow if we allow more large jets is an age old trick though. yawn.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if the company suggested this, but we already have contractual language with a mainline base aircraft number substantially higher than the current mainline fleet.
I would hope DALPA would emphatically say no, but I'm less than confident they would.
As far as I'm concerned; zero scope sales. Zero!
03-20-2012 | 07:43 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
Likes: 0
Allowing the same number of 70+ seat jets with a 255 limit, which is where currently are at, but with a production balance where they can only grow on a one to one basis and shrink on a one to one basis with us seems to be more rational from a company and or pilot perspective, but again, even if the reps signed off on this, I am not sure the pilots would.
03-20-2012 | 07:43 AM
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,263
Likes: 105
From: DAL 330
Its a rumor, and I would say, wait until the actual TA in which you would vote on.
That said, I could see a production balance sort of position from the company. One where we take the current mainline jet count and the current DCI 76 seat jet count(153). With these two numbers growth and reductions are tied. Currently we have a one way growth plan. We grow, they add 76 seat jets at a 3-1 ratio but when we shrink the jets stay. They may offer a quid that makes the 76 seat jets shrink too, with a max cap of 255 76 seat jets. I am sure the company will want to take the 70 seats out of the mix and make them unlimited, or make them replace them 1 for 1 up to 255 with a production balance in both directions.
Again, I can see the company wanting this, but I have a real hard time seeing the majority of the reps going for an outright deal where we effectively allow more large RJ's even if they are tied to mainline jet count. Allowing the same number of 70+ seat jets with a 255 limit, which is where currently are at, but with a production balance where they can only grow on a one to one basis and shrink on a one to one basis with us seems to be more rational from a company and or pilot perspective, but again, even if the reps signed off on this, I am not sure the pilots would.
Instead of staying awake at night worrying about what they might do, or what the company may demand, I will wait for a TA that needs to get voted on, then vote on it. I will continually send my reps direction on this issue as well.
Thinking that we will grow if we allow more large jets is an age old trick though. yawn.
That said, I could see a production balance sort of position from the company. One where we take the current mainline jet count and the current DCI 76 seat jet count(153). With these two numbers growth and reductions are tied. Currently we have a one way growth plan. We grow, they add 76 seat jets at a 3-1 ratio but when we shrink the jets stay. They may offer a quid that makes the 76 seat jets shrink too, with a max cap of 255 76 seat jets. I am sure the company will want to take the 70 seats out of the mix and make them unlimited, or make them replace them 1 for 1 up to 255 with a production balance in both directions.
Again, I can see the company wanting this, but I have a real hard time seeing the majority of the reps going for an outright deal where we effectively allow more large RJ's even if they are tied to mainline jet count. Allowing the same number of 70+ seat jets with a 255 limit, which is where currently are at, but with a production balance where they can only grow on a one to one basis and shrink on a one to one basis with us seems to be more rational from a company and or pilot perspective, but again, even if the reps signed off on this, I am not sure the pilots would.
Instead of staying awake at night worrying about what they might do, or what the company may demand, I will wait for a TA that needs to get voted on, then vote on it. I will continually send my reps direction on this issue as well.
Thinking that we will grow if we allow more large jets is an age old trick though. yawn.
And another thing - No matter what DALPA decides on, the Hell with a 3-1 ratio. That blows!
Scoop
03-20-2012 | 07:47 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
If the MEC puts forth a TA with more scope concessions I think it's safe to say that ALPA will change significantly in the next year.
03-20-2012 | 07:52 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
I'd really like to know what was going through the DALPA negotiators heads when that was included into the contract? We seemingly had leverage with LOA 19 and the Joint Contract, why our negotiators didn't politely tell Delta "NO" when it came to the 3-1 I'll never understand.
03-20-2012 | 08:15 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
Likes: 0
03-20-2012 | 08:22 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
Paying the costs to "switch out" jets in the 3/1 clause isn't worth it for 10 seats. DAL might want scope relaxation, but they aren't stupid.
All we need to do is vote "NO".
Talking to my reps (the ones who will vote), it is abundantly clear that scope relaxation is a non-starter, they want the language tightened up and us to be much better protected and positioned going forward.
(Don't start with the "MEC bureaucrats will influence the reps to accept a management friendly deal" junk either... The NC is one of 2 committees that report DIRECTLY to the Reps, and its members are directly elected by those Reps)
All we need to do is vote "NO".
Talking to my reps (the ones who will vote), it is abundantly clear that scope relaxation is a non-starter, they want the language tightened up and us to be much better protected and positioned going forward.
(Don't start with the "MEC bureaucrats will influence the reps to accept a management friendly deal" junk either... The NC is one of 2 committees that report DIRECTLY to the Reps, and its members are directly elected by those Reps)
03-20-2012 | 08:25 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
From: MadDog gear slinger
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
