Get off the Military Channel!

One thing that seems to be missing in this discussion where item A is being traded for item B, is any credit for the huge givebacks leading up to and during bankruptcy. Its as if those contracts and givebacks now never existed.

There also seems to be too much focus given to what management wants/needs vs what would greatly improve the quality of life, compensation, working conditions and advancement of Delta pilots. I don't care how the DALPA people spin this, given where the company is headed profitability wise along with what was given/taken during BK, this contract is going horribly wrong.

Historically the management/pilot tug of war had gone back and forth, backward slide during unprofitable times with big gains when the chips are up.

Coming off the worst slide to the profession in 100 years its unbelievable we are negotiating Quid pro quo. Unacceptable in my opinion. I am only one however and there seems to be a number of folks here already willing to give up quality of life, spending more time away from home and potentially stagnating (or moving backwards) for another decade in return for the promises of a bigger pay check. The wrong way to go about this guys. The wrong way!

We need to stop where this is headed right now and start fresh before the hard sell begins. Many will regret locking into what is about to happen for years to come and question why we allowed it to happen. DALPA will simply state "you voted for it...deal with it".....and "we'll try to get em next time".

But you won't see that. This is 100% about raising the number of large RJ's well above 255.

If we need more 76ers at DCI to bribe our way out of expensive CRJ50 leases as the company claims, then increasing the 76 seaters within the current limit would then also require the additional dumping of up to 103 CRJ700's and EMB170's. There is no way the company is even going to offer that. They want additional large RJ's in totality.

As others have mentioned, the company can trip park fake planes at mainline for a 3:1 ratio pump and dump and run that 153 all the way up to 255 if they wanted...but they would then be stuck with 102 additional leases to dump in lieu of more 50's, which is the reason they claim they want more large DC-9-10 replacement jets at DCI (never here) in the first place.

This scope sale will be about more outsourced large RJ's over and above the 255 currently allowed. Book it. 100% chance and we are being groomed relentlessly by our own MEC for this. What we might see is the 255 number staying 255...if 70 seaters aren't counted anymore (but the company gets to keep them) and the total number of 76ers (or larger? or more weight?) goes to 255. That might happen. But if it does 255 is really 357 and we need to realize that.

I will take absolute zero satisfaction in being able to say "see I told you so" when (not if) the upcoming TA has an over all increase, and I have no problem eating crow and saying "I was wrong" if it doesn't. But I won't be because it will. 100%. Watch for it, and in the meantime decide if that's OK keeping in mind the spin will be furious about "its either this or lose the entire airline to the almighty Emirates" or we won't be able to get credit for the refinery (whoops, too late for that one) or some variation of nonsense like that.

No clicks or squeezing boobs. We are at war boys and girls.
Flash.......Thunder

Does the NC have a copy of C2K? Why are they not using that as a template instead of our current bankruptcy induced contract? Why not try to cherry pick the best of both and negotiate from there as opposed to trying to just improve our current contract?

The dually A320s would be cool:
(I know not kingfisher but exempt for IndiGo (Indian version of JetBlue) they all are struggling)

http://img.planespotters.net/photo/0...Net_096082.jpg

Cheers
George

(Pink for emphasis)

You obviously haven't looked closely at some of the proposed changes in the NNP, because they actually do away with hard-fought items in our current PWA.

Cheers
George

Bar;
On a the most basic level you are correct. If any of the "rumors" about the DCI contracts are correct, and DAL wants out now, it comes with a cost. A cost that DAL would prefer to avoid. These contracts, and lease commitments hit our debt total as well. Renegotiating the CPA's and getting out of lease termination penalties is worth a lot of money. Probably enough money that allows DAL to hit a targeted debt level/ leverage point to secure the financing needed to go after asset investments, and acquisitions.

The two are interrelated. To do B, the debt needs to be at the level they have been touting for some time. I am sure as the day is long, that they did not pick 10bln out of thin air. I am willing to bet that the financial community drove that number before DAL acquired more debt for jets, gates, route authorities, airlines, or investments in other airlines that would require the debt level to be raised. The DCI changes that are rumored may kill two birds with one stone; solve the DCI issue on all of the levels, and allow DAL to finally have access to the capital markets they have wanted access too to assure our lead in the industry remains.

Could DAL reduce the debt another way? Maybe, but for them it does not solve the DCI issues for at least another ten years. We can force them to pay for those leases; eat them as Carl puts it, or we can force them to hit the leverage point another way. Facts are, they are apparently on a timeline and one that is tight in nature. Will being right and just with the RJ conviction force DAL to pass up opportunities that will grow our list and increase or take? Should we care and stick to our convictions?

If we stick to these convictions, and tell them to eat the leases, will this pilot group regret that fact when our Section 1 is used?:
-To grow the 76 seat fleet,

-Sign JV's that do not require one more block hr be thrown our way,

-Sign more code share agreements that further hurt us and possibly marginalize our NRT hub,

-Restructure DAL's org chart so that DCI falls under the holding company and not the airline, realizing that we do not have holding company protections that would thwart this issue,

-Plus many more

The decision to hold strong on 76 seats may be the correct answer for unity, and unionism, but it may also be its downfall it we watch the top and middle part of our gauge erode due to the inadequacies in our Section 1.

I hate the idea of selling another jet, hate it, but the reality is if we do not fix the rest of Section 1, we can admit in ten years, that we had sold our Captain seats years ago, by not protecting ourselves with adequate JV, Holding Company, and CS language. Its just a scope sale of a different animal, a one of omission.

Its a horrible quagmire we are in. The devil is in the details, and we need to see what, if anything comes of these rumors. One thing is fore certain, we have a ton lose on the top side if we choose to play poker. We, as a group, need to decide though our vote if, more RJ's are an acceptable price to pay to make sure or top end growth does not disappear before our eyes.

In a thought, the whole situation sucks!

To me it makes sense. OH is another stick that they will use to leverage out of these contracts. Its what they have been saving them for.

Fact:
Even if the best contracts, there were quids in some if not many areas.

Yep, and its a non-starter