Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-06-2012 | 05:22 PM
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
I don't see how it could even come close to being considered an improvement in our production balance. 50 seaters are typically used on short routes, while the 76 seaters are used on legs such as LGA-DFW, LGA-MSY, DTW-MTY, MSP-YYR, etc. ANYONE who even considered it an improvement should probably not be allowed with sharp objects while unsupervised.
04-06-2012 | 05:26 PM
Banned
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
From: DAL
Sailingfun's platitudes are not soothing. Quite the contrary:
04-06-2012 | 05:27 PM
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
I've got a "Production Ballance" for you, how about 1 new 777 for every additonal 76 seater?
See? Scope is negotiable.
If Richard wants this done quickly, all he has to do is write the check.
See? Scope is negotiable.
If Richard wants this done quickly, all he has to do is write the check.
04-06-2012 | 05:34 PM
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Really?
You'd rather fly the RJ?
Really?
You'd rather fly the RJ?
Really?
04-06-2012 | 05:36 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Maybe. But that would depend on what "production balance" even means, how its interpreted and what the language ends up being. For example, for every 20 fifty seaters that are parked, the company can outsource 19 CRJ900/905's and/or EMB170/175's. Technically, that could be defined as an improvement in the production balance, right?
Fewer large RJ's is fewer large RJ's though. How many fewer? That depends and gives a lot of flexibility, but at least its fewer. But we absolutely refuse to "go there" and the real question is why?
Fewer large RJ's is fewer large RJ's though. How many fewer? That depends and gives a lot of flexibility, but at least its fewer. But we absolutely refuse to "go there" and the real question is why?
There is a lot of truth in what you say. I don't hold scope necessarily as the litmus test of pass/fail on this contract however. And before everyone gets their panties in a twist, I am not in favor of giving any on scope.. but I am not necessarily opposed to certain conditions for it as I have said before. For example (and this is only a what if): Would you be opposed to allowing the 76 seaters to go to 80 seats if all the 50 seaters were to be removed from the inventory immediately upon signing, a reduction of those 80 seaters from 255 to 200 and a signed purchase of a 100 seat airframe that would go to mainline? I don't know if I would say no to something like that. I could come up with more too, but I think you might get my drift. I guess what I am saying is that I am not a one issue no voter, and I doubt that there truly are many out there that are... I could be wrong though.
I have no idea what you mean by telescope.
Again.. fire away.
I have no idea what you mean by telescope.
Again.. fire away.
Would I consider it? Absolutely.
I'd vote it in if the seats remained at 76, and the Alaska codeshare ended on signing and the AF/KLM JV language cleaned up.
So this is the list right now:
CRJ200/ERJ-145.................. 364 (of which CRJ-200 accounts for 340)
767/757...............................244
CRJ900/E175........................153
MD88/MD90..........................146
A320....................................126
CRJ700/E170........................101
73N.......................................83
A330.....................................32
765.......................................21
777.......................................18
THE DC9................................17
744.......................................15
Delta....................................702-ish
DCI......................................618
Alaska....................................86 (oh wait)
Total (Excluding Alaska)......1,320
I'd need to see:767/757...............................244
CRJ900/E175........................153
MD88/MD90..........................146
A320....................................126
CRJ700/E170........................101
73N.......................................83
A330.....................................32
765.......................................21
777.......................................18
THE DC9................................17
744.......................................15
Delta....................................702-ish
DCI......................................618
Alaska....................................86 (oh wait)
Total (Excluding Alaska)......1,320
CRJ200/ERJ-145.................. 0 (of which CRJ-200 accounts for 340) down from 364 and capped at 0.
767/757...............................244
CRJ900/E175........................200 up from 153
MD88/MD90..........................146
A320....................................126
CRJ700/E170........................0 down from 171 and capped at 0.
73N.......................................83
A330.....................................32
765.......................................21
777.......................................18
THE DC9................................17
744.......................................15
Delta....................................702-ish
DCI......................................200 down from 618
Alaska....................................0 (oh yeah baby!) down from 86
Total (Excluding Alaska)......902
And then I'd want a sunset on DCI contracts or at least on outsourcing the pilot seats. 767/757...............................244
CRJ900/E175........................200 up from 153
MD88/MD90..........................146
A320....................................126
CRJ700/E170........................0 down from 171 and capped at 0.
73N.......................................83
A330.....................................32
765.......................................21
777.......................................18
THE DC9................................17
744.......................................15
Delta....................................702-ish
DCI......................................200 down from 618
Alaska....................................0 (oh yeah baby!) down from 86
Total (Excluding Alaska)......902
If you gave me that in the latest LOA, I'd vote it in.
BTW, I am fully aware of "the 50 seaters are dying" but until someone says we want to get rid of all 50 seaters, which they've said the opposite, then I want those things FINALLY scoped. Who is to say Bombardier and Embraer are not begging for a GTF to revive their core niche? And are we not buying a oil refinery to offset fuel costs for ourselves and the regionals we buy the fuel for so they can muddy up their true CASMs?
Last edited by forgot to bid; 04-06-2012 at 06:02 PM.
04-06-2012 | 05:39 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
I might prefer the RJ. Hell I might prefer a Dash 8. To each his own. 
A domestic only 777 category... man I am there! Of course depending on what number I'd be.
But as to the 1:1 ratio between 777s and CRJ900s, I think it should be more simple than that.
Buy whatever you freaking need. You want 360+ 50 seaters? 255+ 70-76 seaters, fine have at it.
We'll fly it all.
In the interim:
Plan A will be SWA or RAH scope.
Plan B is significant gains.
Plan C is a new union.
A domestic only 777 category... man I am there! Of course depending on what number I'd be.
But as to the 1:1 ratio between 777s and CRJ900s, I think it should be more simple than that.
Buy whatever you freaking need. You want 360+ 50 seaters? 255+ 70-76 seaters, fine have at it.
We'll fly it all.
In the interim:
Plan A will be SWA or RAH scope.
Plan B is significant gains.
Plan C is a new union.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 04-06-2012 at 05:57 PM.
04-06-2012 | 05:52 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Am I willing to stretch this process out over 3 years over a minor pay deficiency in the TA? No.
Am I willing to strike over just one more 76 seater flown by DCI? ABSOLUTELY.
I am a "single issue voter" on scope.[/QUOTE]
me too!
Am I willing to strike over just one more 76 seater flown by DCI? ABSOLUTELY.
I am a "single issue voter" on scope.[/QUOTE]
me too!
04-06-2012 | 06:00 PM
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
I might prefer the RJ. Hell I might prefer a Dash 8. To each his own.
A domestic only 777 category... man I am there!
But as to the 1:1 ratio between 777s and CRJ900s, I think it should be more simple than that.
Buy whatever you freaking need. You want 360+ 50 seaters? 255+ 70-76 seaters, fine have at it.
We'll fly it all.
In the interim:
Plan A will be SWA or RAH scope.
Plan B is significant gains.
Plan C is a new union.
A domestic only 777 category... man I am there!
But as to the 1:1 ratio between 777s and CRJ900s, I think it should be more simple than that.
Buy whatever you freaking need. You want 360+ 50 seaters? 255+ 70-76 seaters, fine have at it.
We'll fly it all.
In the interim:
Plan A will be SWA or RAH scope.
Plan B is significant gains.
Plan C is a new union.
OK, I'm going to play 'Devil's Advocate' here for just a moment, and throw out a scenario, see what you (all of you) think:
What IF...
RA comes to our Negotiating team and says something like this, "Ok, well, we had to buy Pinacle, and we need more 76 seat feed...bla, bla, bla..."
And our NT says, "OK, but they WILL BE FLOWN by DELTA PILOTS!!"
And RA says, "OK, fine, let's put all the Pinacle pilots on the Delta Seniority list, straight date of hire, and on the Delta Pilot Contract."
Or words to that effect.
Now What?
What should our NT say to that? Yes? No? Staple or...?
Discuss.
04-06-2012 | 06:02 PM
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
OK, I'm going to play 'Devil's Advocate' here for just a moment, and throw out a scenario, see what you (all of you) think:
What IF...
RA comes to our Negotiating team and says something like this, "Ok, well, we had to buy Pinacle, and we need more 76 seat feed...bla, bla, bla..."
And our NT says, "OK, but they WILL BE FLOWN by DELTA PILOTS!!"
And RA says, "OK, fine, let's put all the Pinacle pilots on the Delta Seniority list, straight date of hire, and on the Delta Pilot Contract."
Or words to that effect.
Now What?
What should our NT say to that? Yes? No? Staple or...?
Discuss.
What IF...
RA comes to our Negotiating team and says something like this, "Ok, well, we had to buy Pinacle, and we need more 76 seat feed...bla, bla, bla..."
And our NT says, "OK, but they WILL BE FLOWN by DELTA PILOTS!!"
And RA says, "OK, fine, let's put all the Pinacle pilots on the Delta Seniority list, straight date of hire, and on the Delta Pilot Contract."
Or words to that effect.
Now What?
What should our NT say to that? Yes? No? Staple or...?
Discuss.
Fine by me.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
