|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1182363)
I'm hearing similar to what sailingfun is saying. There will be no push for larger gauge aircraft (and push for them has to be stood up to with a very strong NO)..
Carl |
Originally Posted by DeadHead
(Post 1182345)
Speaking from a point of ignorance on my behalf, how did we get from 30 airframes to the current 255 airframe limit?
I'm guessing it has something to do with the ratio between mainline and regional airframes only moving up and not down. Like others have said, taking out first class does the company no good. If they agreed to it, it would be to get a beach head for that seat count at DCI and then, likely during the next downturn, come for academic relief by saying they still want to honor the seat count, they just want different aircraft to do it...heavier aircraft, perhaps certified for 100-120 seats or a bit more...like the small C Series and many other OEM's on the drawing board as we speak. But we "limit" it to 90 seats, which is EXACTLY where management wanted it all along with a generous revenue generating first class. So today's "90" seater becomes tomorrow's "90" seater, which is really a 115 seater, and on and on and on. Hell to the no. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1182370)
No larger gauge aircraft is fine, but what we can't allow is more 76 seat aircraft. That number MUST begin to go down unless Delta pilots fly them.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1182362)
I'm thrilled to hear you say that sailingfun.
Carl I have never once said anything different. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1182359)
I have heard a different rumor. I will post it here as a rumor only. The company is not asking for more then 76 seats. What they want is more aircraft allowed above the 153 or 155 cap on large RJ's. They are willing to have fewer over all RJ's but more aircraft in the 70 to 76 seat range. This is not acceptable to me as I believe the E175 should be at the mainline. They will offer some type of block hour arrangement/ratio as a inducement to ratify.
Finally, as we watch for a possible tentative agreement in the weeks ahead, we need to prepare for the worst case scenario. DPA has confirmed through sources with ALPA positions at the regional carriers serving DAL that they did, in fact, meet with the DAL MEC Negotiating Committee on March 12th, 2012 as required by ALPA National Policy. They also confirmed that they would likely not be harmed by the Scope Proposal and would possibly benefit from it. They were told to expect to receive additional 70 seat plus aircraft in exchange for reducing the number of 50 seat aircraft by a ratio of approximately 2:1 (park two 50 seaters in exchange for receiving one 76 seater). It appears ALPA is preparing to offer us another CONCESSIONARY CONTRACT in the area of DOMESTIC SCOPE. You need to decide right now how you feel about allowing additional outsourcing of mainline jobs. Even if there are great improvements in other areas of Scope, WILL YOU TOLERATE even ONE additional 76 seat aircraft being flown off the Delta mainline seniority list? The 50 seaters are going away all by themselves, without our help. Delta can already fly unlimited 76 seaters and up on our seniority list and there is no shortage of DAL mainline pilots who would like to fly them. |
Originally Posted by BigGuns
(Post 1182385)
This is the rumor according to DPA....
Finally, as we watch for a possible tentative agreement in the weeks ahead, we need to prepare for the worst case scenario. DPA has confirmed through sources with ALPA positions at the regional carriers serving DAL that they did, in fact, meet with the DAL MEC Negotiating Committee on March 12th, 2012 as required by ALPA National Policy. They also confirmed that they would likely not be harmed by the Scope Proposal and would possibly benefit from it. They were told to expect to receive additional 70 seat plus aircraft in exchange for reducing the number of 50 seat aircraft by a ratio of approximately 2:1 (park two 50 seaters in exchange for receiving one 76 seater). |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1182372)
I agree with you Carl. I don't think DALPA does though. If they do, they sure as hell won't say it.
We'll NEVER know that if we act like lemmings and allow more 76 seaters to NOT be flown by Delta pilots. It would have the added benefit of getting ALPA off the hook for a DFR. ALPA could say: "look, we tried to give you regional guys more jobs at the expense of the majors, but those damn Delta guys voted it down even though we all threatened to quit if they did that. Nothing but good comes from a NO vote to more 76 seat aircraft. Carl |
The 50 seaters will be parked when their ASAs come up and they are off lease. Those ASAs are good for another 4 years at the minimum and up to another 12 years.
Use your noggins and start thinking what will open up those ASAs and allow a huge portion of DCI to be parked rapidly in exchange for a few airplanes. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1182394)
Use your noggins and start thinking what will open up those ASAs and allow a huge portion of DCI to be parked rapidly in exchange for a few airplanes.
Carl |
Originally Posted by DeadHead
(Post 1182326)
I'm expected to get crucified over this, but here goes anyway.
Being junior, I am well aware of the significance and importance of holding scope at no more than 76 seats, so with that being said, haven't we technically already scoped out 90 seat aircraft? I mean the DCI aircraft themselves have been reconfigured for 76 seats, but still have a capacity for 90 seats. I'm just looking at this objectively here, and before I get accused of selling short term contract gains for scope relaxation here is my question; Would increasing the seat capacity to allow 90 seats, BUT reducing the overall limit from 255 airframes down to lets say 180 (or something like that) be such a bad deal? 255 airframes X 76 seats = 19,380 seats 180 airframes X 90 seats = 16,200 seats So reducing the hull limit aggressively while allowing 90 seaters would decrease frequency and overall DCI seats by 3,180 seats. Trust me I would love to see that flying being brought to mainline, but if that doesn't happen isn't reducing the amount of seats/airframes being subcontracted out just as beneficial? It pings me to say that, but I figure less airframes is probably as important as the amount of seats each aircraft can hold. I'm just playing devil's advocate here, not saying the company would go for something like. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just curious as to what some of the more senior/experienced guys think. DH, I don't think you should think like that. This upcoming contract, must be a contract where we get equal or better on every front, especially scope. No swaps. No give a little there to get a little here. We have given enough already. It's time to recapture what we lost. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:30 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands