What that article did not catch is that Delta approved Pinnacle's budget week to week and even the CRJ200's can be pulled out of the contract, jet by jet, as the financing concludes, or is renegotiated. Delta has the exclusive right to decide the merits of Pinnacle operational plan and budget.

In other words, instead of nuking the place, Delta has an off the books pseudo subsidiary that it had absolute operational control over. All Pinnacle is, is a temp crew provider for DELTA's newest CRJ 200's.

ALPA should recognize it as what it is, the latest form of alter ego.

 

If there is a chance we could get JAL out of One World, I'm sure we will go for it. That's probably the best answer to the Haneda mess.

I'd be optimistic that we could get a decent Joint Venture / production balance, which might help both us and Delta management.

 

Right now we are at the mercy of a JV being a Profit Sharing agreement, if it is only revenue sharing, there is not one thing we can do. The only saving grace is those flights that are under the agreement can not be reduced. For us that is eight cities served in the US from NRT, the rest would go. Suffice to say, we need to keep our current level in Asia and grow from there, without that, it is a loss of at least 500 or more pilot jobs.

 

Sorry Posted this in the wrong thread:

By Andrew Compart

Pinnacle Airlines will be relying primarily on 50-seat regional jets to carry it out of bankruptcy and until at least July 2022, when its newly revised contract to operate them for Delta Air Lines expires, even though the 50-seater market is shrinking and has a long-term future that is suspect at best.

That might not be the best foundation on which to build a future, but it may be the best option for the nearer-term survival of Pinnacle, the parent company for regional carriers Pinnacle Airlines, Colgan Air and Mesaba Airlines, or buy it time to transition to bigger aircraft. Memphis, Tenn.-based Pinnacle says in its bankruptcy court filings that its CRJ-200 contract with Delta is one of only two capacity purchase agreements at the regional carrier that are “potentially viable.”

The other is a contract to fly 41 CRJ-900s for Delta—all of which are under Delta lease—that also lasts until July 2022. For Delta, those aircraft are used in a two-class configuration with 76 seats, but can carry 90 passengers in an all-coach configuration.

As part of the restructuring, Pinnacle and Delta reached an agreement on early termination of a separate contract to operate 16 Pinnacle-owned CRJ-900 aircraft for Delta, which will wind down that flying over a five-month period that begins in January 2013.

Pinnacle is not yet saying what it plans to do with those 16 aircraft as they come off the Delta contract, so it is not clear whether they will remain in its fleet. The regional airline, however, definitely is getting rid of all of its Bombardier Q400 and Saab aircraft.

That means, by mid-2013, it might only be flying those 140 50-seat CRJ-200 aircraft and anywhere from 41 to 57 of the CRJ-900s.

The number of CRJ-200s is likely to dwindle between now and 2022: Under the newly revised Delta-Pinnacle capacity purchase agreement on the CRJ-200s, Delta can remove CRJ-200 aircraft from Pinnacle’s fleet, effective on the expiration date of Delta’s financing arrangement for each aircraft.

Pinnacle will not disclose the timing or number. Delta also can reduce the number, on a one-to-one basis, if it reaches agreements with Pinnacle for flying more regional jets with 70 or more seats.

A profitable future for the 50-seaters at Pinnacle depends on what rate Delta pays for them and how much Pinnacle can lower its costs, says Ray Neidl, a Maxim Group analyst.

“There still will be a need for 50-seaters, just not as many as are out there [now],” Neidl says. The 50-seater is not a growth market, he adds, “but at this point in time they [Pinnacle] are just trying to survive. Their fate is in the hands of Delta and, I guess, their employees.”

The newly revised contracts with Delta for the operation of the CRJ-200s and 41 CRJ-900s modifies the rates paid by Delta and eliminates the 2013 rate reset and pilot rate reset, which would have increased the amount of Delta’s payments.

Those pilot rate resets were going to be based on pilot pay raises that Pinnacle is seeking to eliminate under its bankruptcy restructuring. That makes the outcome of Pinnacle’s negotiations with its employee labor unions even more important—or, absent a voluntary deal, a Pinnacle request for the court to allow a rejection of the existing agreements and imposition of new terms.

Tom Wychor, chairman of the Pinnacle Master Executive Council (MEC) for the Air Line Pilots Association, said April 2 that union members “are always willing to sit down with management to find solutions to actual problems,” but he adds that “these solutions need to maintain contract standards that make this a career worth having.”

Pinnacle is planning to meet with members of the MEC next week.

Photo: airteamimages.com

Pinnacle To Rely On Small Jets For Survival | AVIATION WEEK

 

Check,

I don't know who "we" is, or what your own purpose is in getting votes, but I'm going to assume you want pilots to vote for a good contract, and vote down a turd. In which case you're almost making a truly great point.

The conversation on APC would have you believe that anyone on here has to be either a Crip or a Blood, which enables some classic (and ultimately unsuccessful) debating techniques. Using a broad brush to paint another, frees you to show contempt for the person, and by extension, dismiss their arguments.

But I don't think the pilots that vote fit neatly into categories, even if you expand the list as you just did. I think this pilot group, compliant as it often seems, values independent thinking. We may vote for or against a contract together, but we like to arrive at our conclusions on our own terms. What else should we expect from people that can manage their own affairs, as well as their cockpit, with such consistently favorable outcomes?

So I certainly think you have a point: pilots will respond to a calm and rational argument. But where you might be wrong is to assume that every "yes voter" category is some version of either a dimwit or a management suck-up. I know you didn't use those terms, but if I read back through the categories, you're not accounting for people that are independent, intelligent, and not swayed by sentimentality for the company, or by union power-struggles, or attempts to define for them what they need in a contract. Those people will respond to a coherent argument, and will also defy attempts to pin them down to a particular allegiance or color. They don't need an explanation for their demands: they know they should be compensated much better, considering their skills.

Whenever we vote (invariably "for"), there is always an element of surprise on the internet, where we feel betrayed by "yes voters". It never occurs to anyone to go back to the moment when the boards/forums started valuing perceived allegiances and labels, over logic. I think we're there. Again.

I must admit I'm guilty of falling into the trap. After being called an apologist, and an insider, by people I am intimately convinced are mere mouthpieces, it's hard to resist classifying some into camps. That tells me the conversation needs a reset. I tried to suggest sending those that want to get into the DPA stuff elsewhere, so we could look at issues, but I failed in that argument. So I'll try the ignore function, and take a break.

I'd like to thank those that contribute facts, news, and humor, which is what I come here for. Those bits have become scarce, which only makes them that much more enjoyable.

Later,

Sink r8.

 

The reason for posting the article was to point out the fact that the new pinnacle agreement has mechanisms for increasing 70seaters at the expense of 50 seaters. this ties in with management wanting a scope sale in exchange for 717 and bastian saying at a conference call that they may have a solution to the 50seater issue. The stars are aligning and DALPA better see this.

 

I saw that too although its not really much of a news event IMHO. 50's can *always* be exchanged for 70's or 90's on favorable basis (2:1 or maybe even less generous) so this doesn't exactly create or change anything. But I think you're right in that it absolutely tips the hand of where management wants to go with this.

 

When I got hired the average for my class was almost 11,000TT.

 

Gloopy, I disagree. DAL just agreed to this on a 1 for 1 with them. This is a new deal. Previous deals were 2 for 1 on 50's for 76 seat jets. DAL seems to be boxing themselves in to a corner wrt to 50 seat replacement. I am sure they will push us for this relief stating that the agreements require a 1 for 1. Well, they just penned it. To me that is significant.

 

Absolutely correct. We’ve had 600+ pilots depart the property from 2009-2011. I find it hard to believe that less will leave in the next 3 years. Projections from R&I about a year ago had roughly 750 pilots leaving from 2012 – 2014 (based on 45% leaving prior to 65, which seemed to jive with the data on when pilots were actually punching out at the time.) Add some more for lead time (a member of the crew resources team said about 12-16 months to replace a retiree, though that was a few years ago,) plus extra bodies we likely need for the rest rules, (plus elimination of recovery obligations) and you could easily see us being 1000 pilots behind the curve by the time the sun comes up in 2015. We actually look like we will have a net *gain* in airframes in 2012, and stay basically status quo in 2013.

So as it stands right now, they basically have 2 choices going forward: Hire fairly soon, or continue to reduce mainline block hours. If they don’t, this summer will likely be “interesting,” with overheating likely occurring next summer, and the chance of a full blown operational meltdown in 2014. I know they state we have a surplus, but I think they overstate how large it is, and I expect that will evaporate within 18 months. Plus, you actually need a surplus to have the operational flexibility that network demands.

I think you’re also correct in that this is being put out to manage expectations. They need to be careful, though, as this could backfire. Faced with a bleak prognosis for advancement such as this, some of the members of the bottom of the list may begin to “shop around.”

Of course, there may be additional reasons for their methods. If we were to acquire something (another airline or piece of one,) there would likely be redundancy, and being lean to short when that happened would help to minimize that. As everyone has stated, there’s probably one more shoe to fall in the U.S. airline consolidation game, and it likely hinges on what happens to AMR – which I think everyone believes will be decided towards the end of the year.