I think the reason for Delta's financing of this deal is more of a practical matter... there is an FAQ that Pinnacle Mgmt put out, and mentions that no one else they asked would do DIP financing for them. Since Delta has an obligation to their passengers, I'm betting that Delta did this just to allow 9E to continue the operation long enough until Delta finds another way to replace this lift (whether that's GoJet, Skywest, B717s, ect). And who knows, they very well could have given the stipulation that we'll DIP finance you, but you have to park 100+ CRJ-200s. I guess time will tell...

 

Maddog;

Love your avatar. Huge fan of Ricky-isms on trailer park boys. Nothing productive to add to your speculation, just giving a shout out.

 

The math is using the 2009 Form 41 data and adding SWA pay raises to their numbers, and the same for us. In order to take DC into account, I assumed both pilots contributed 2% into their DC. Both pilots in that case would see 2% less in their paycheck and the Delta pilot would receive 12% more in his DC. The SWA pilot can receive more DC if he subtracts more current pay, but I didn't choose to run the numbers that way. Doing that math, it looks like they are about 23.5% ahead on pay, and 12% behind on DC. Combine the two and you are close to the Roger number of 11%.

So, like some (88) here say, there is more to it than straight hourly wages. I agree with that. That could be why you have friends with great W2s. What's the explanation for that? Maybe SWA pilots work more than us. Using the same year Form 41 data, they do. The average SWA pilot flew 59.9 hours a month in 2009, and the average Delta pilot flew 42.5. If they are flying 40% more than us, they should be making more money.

So why are they flying more? Our contract is not as efficient, we spend time upgrading and doing WW ops, and transitioning to different aircraft, and sitting around for the plane we fly to show up so we can work. We could probably create a more efficient contract and be able to fly 59.9 hours a month, thereby increasing our W2s, but then 88 is not going to be an 88 captain. He's going to be a 767FO because we get rid of the bottom 2000 pilots.

So we are not in total disagreement. If both carrier's pilots flew the same number of hours as a Delta pilot averages, we'd need about an 11% pay raise to match SWA. If we flew as many of those hours as a SWA pilot, we'd make their W2.

Does that make sense?

 

If Delta were ever to become 'as efficient' as SW, ie. we average 40% more flying per pilot, that's actually the bottom 4,800 pilots we wouldn't need, not just 2,000.

Of course, with the 8 different fleet types DAL has, that's -never- going to happen...oh, and now they want to bring on yet another? (717)

Brilliant!

 

You are wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

 

That was kind of my point in asking the question. I hear a lot of hard core "I ain't gonna give..." I think that if viewed in the context of the whole contract as a package, there is very little that is a single issue absolute "no" vote. JMHO. Frankly, it is foolish to say that there is. It is very noble to say that scope is a non starter, but I am not willing to take a payCUT to ensure that scope is recaptured or halted or whatever the issue is to ensure that that single issue "no" vote is avoided. Sorry if that sounds selfish, but that's my honest opinion. And while some might say that is a ridiculous postulation, I offer this: Remember the old joke about asking a woman to sleep with you for a million dollars? I have said this before, and I will say it again. EVERYTHING is negotiable. If you do not believe that, you are either naive or foolish. Either is tragic.

Now.. that being said, and Carl's asinine characterization of my personal... how did he say it? "Doesn't care about scope" stance aside, I have no intention of allowing any increase in the number of RJs that the company currently has available. Is it an automatic no vote however? Maybe, maybe not. For it to pass my personal test however, the sweetener better be pretty damned sweet.. and I am not talking about simply money. For example.. it might have to include something to the effect of "there shall be 1 "super premium widebody aircraft on the premises prior to the allowance of a single increase in the number of DCI flown jets... and furthermore, if any super premium jets are parked, sold, crashed, stolen or otherwise lost.. the RJs go back to their manufacturer"... or something of equal strength. I am not writing the TA. And all I am saying is that there are no absolutes... Personally, I am more concerned about tightening up the JV language than worrying about the dying RJ contingent at DAL...... fire away.

 

The DIP financing carries a higher priority claim on collateral.
Delta just jumped ahead of some other creditors.
The other creditors probably won't complain too loud because if Delta hadn't stepped up to provide the DIP then they might have got ZERO. Delta has 'em by the b@||$.

I suspect this whole thing is what lawyers call a "briefcase bankruptcy". Basically we will now see a series of pre-planned maneuvers. Its all about dumping some assets and liabilities, getting new financing and allowing Pinnacle to move forward with a new set of assets and liabilities and a new business model.

 

He knows that. he has an agenda he has to front...

 

Not sure if anyone has already posted this, but it looks like ATL DC9 will open in May, lots of people on the May conversion list.

 

That's all cool. what if getting all that stuff also means 500 guys get furloughed? You cool with that too? Just axing... or are we in such a vacuum that we can get it all for no cost? Nevermind... I am sure the Krispy Kremes could do it... they can do everything that DALPA is too stupid to do... rah rah rah