Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)
-   -   Details on Delta TA (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/88532-details-delta-ta.html)

forgot to bid 05-24-2015 04:49 AM


Originally Posted by Xray678 (Post 1887660)
Normally, I would be against any scope concession. Right now though I don't think it's as big a deal. The regionals are short pilots. Instead of three 50 seaters, it takes fewer pilots to fly two 76 seaters. Even with a change like this I don't see us losing flying at the mainline.

I am more concerned with scope on the top end.

I will add if we don't do something to help the regionals cover their flying, there will be pressure on the FAA to raise the retirement age again. I sure as hell don't want that.

I agree. The top end scope is scary.

As to the bottom, and let me get my soap box, the reality is that yes while they're having trouble staffing DCI and we're growing... the growth is not written in stone. It's not required.

DCI/ATA/DAL could fix its issues, eliminate 1500 hour rule, etc, and fix their staffing woes and back they come with a fleet of 325 jumbo RJs that could very well increase in C2015 if you yahoos are right.

Currently we're at a block hour ratio somewhere now around 1.65-1.66 with DCI, the contract has a min of 1.47 right now (1.56 only if they order their full allotment of CRJ900s). Acquiring 717s and already being above the min means the minimums were set too low to begin with. If they did want to get rid of the 88 fleet as rumored, they could park nearly 90% of those 117 jets and still be in compliance with 1.47. DAL wanted an out from required growth and we gave it to them.

If the 88 B717s were truly to be growth over 2012 numbers then the min ratio should have been 1.7 for DCI at its current size and 1.8 at 450 DCI jets. If you want to get rid of a ML fleet, you better replace it 1:1 or park RJs.

We need more things in Section 1 written in stone to match the intent of what is sold. A car dealer saying a car will last 250,000 miles but only offering a 35,000 mile warranty is very different then one who gives you 250,000 mile bumper to bumper.

forgot to bid 05-24-2015 04:50 AM

A goodie but oldie post from May 2012


Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1196248)
Math Problem for the Day (I hope newk has recovered from his analysis of the staffing formula)

Delta currently flies about 3,600,000 domestic block hours per year (combined mainline + DCI).
  1. Our current share of those block hours is 53.9%
  2. Under the TA, if Delta purchases the extra 70 76 seat jets the minimum share of our block hours rises to 60.9%. Calculate the difference between our current share and our minimum new share.
  3. Divide that difference by 12 to get the monthly block hours.
  4. Multiply that number by 2 because we have two pilots per domestic cockpit.
  5. Divide by 60 whcih is what our block hours per pilot will be in the future.
  6. Tell me how many additional pilot jobs at mainline that this creates
  7. Now contemplate that with a hard cap on DCI fleet, where does all additonal system capacity growth have to go after that.

Mr. JungleBus claims that they can buy the 76 seaters and then dump mainline aircraft. How can they do that and still increase the mainline share of block hours? That is why there is the ratio built in, and it is a very powerful ratio that you will never see again under a new negotiation. Management felt like we took their children when this was negotiated. Block hours are the core of pilot jobs, the number of aircraft required to create those block hours are basically fixed by the average daily ute rate of aircraft.

Bonus question: Under Delta's business plan our share of block hours will rise to 64% (remember DCI fleet is capped). Redo the above calculations and tell me how many jobs that creates at mainline.


TOGA LK 05-24-2015 05:07 AM


Originally Posted by Xray678 (Post 1887660)
Normally, I would be against any scope concession. Right now though I don't think it's as big a deal. The regionals are short pilots. Instead of three 50 seaters, it takes fewer pilots to fly two 76 seaters. Even with a change like this I don't see us losing flying at the mainline.

I am more concerned with scope on the top end.

I will add if we don't do something to help the regionals cover their flying, there will be pressure on the FAA to raise the retirement age again. I sure as hell don't want that.

Wow. I wish I could spend a day inside your head.

sailingfun 05-24-2015 05:44 AM


Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 1887508)
How do you know what happened in the negotiations on May 20th?
I didn't see that in the update.

Apparently leaks are OK coming from one side but costly and destructive coming from the other side.

I guess you did not look closely enough. Go read the last contract update. Your apology is accepted after you read it.

sailingfun 05-24-2015 05:45 AM


Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1887438)
Yeah, like this stuff here:



This guy has no clue of what's happening in negotiations, yet here he is.

Carl

Go read the last contract update. Your apology is also accepted.


The Negotiating Committee met with the Company negotiators four days this past week. They exchanged proposals on Section 1, Scope, and passed our response to issues in Sections 25 and 26, Retirement and Insurance.

Boatbuilder 05-24-2015 05:51 AM

Just reading between the lines hear but the last paragraph in last nights email from ALPA tells me things are not progressing smoothly.
Anytime somebody says they "remain hopeful" whatever they are talking about ain't going so well.
Lotta PS coming. Regionals withering on the vine. Emerites just got b***h slapped by the Netherlands.
We don't need to rush.

Xray678 05-24-2015 05:51 AM


Originally Posted by TOGA LK (Post 1887674)
Wow. I wish I could spend a day inside your head.

The loss of wide body flying and more stagnation from another age change are much bigger threats to my career than more 76 seat jets that they will have trouble staffing anyway.

Purple Drank 05-24-2015 06:23 AM


Originally Posted by Boatbuilder (Post 1887703)
Anytime somebody says they "remain hopeful" whatever they are talking about ain't going so well.

I thought the same thing about that line.

They aren't "on track" or "progressing well." They "remain hopeful."

If Hope is all they have, it might be time to step away, wind the clock, and let the dust settle. Why does RA get to set the timeline?

Flamer 05-24-2015 08:12 AM


Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1887655)
You mean you're going around unless you think it's safe to land.

Yes, because it's Newark.

SharpestTool 05-24-2015 08:21 AM

I wish I could articulate just how ridiculous the usual suspects here look to the large majority that exist out there, outside the bubble universe of Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD) that permeates this board. Sadly, I just have to admit defeat. I am both embarrassed for the profession, and quite frankly dismayed that somehow these people have made it this far without blowing up or hurting others.

The dim bulbs will spark to life and will have something to say. Predictable. They just don't get that they exist in a special bubble universe separate from the rest of us. This post and the following is for all the others:

Call your reps.

The tepid spew served up here as factual fare is a farce. Don't settle for it. My recent and ongoing interaction with my reps does not reflect the reality that apparently exists here. Sorry, I don't subscribe to the idea that my reps lie and strategize in order to fool me and the rest of the pilot group in order to find a way to concede to management. I prefer a more elegant solution. I employ Occam's Razor and assume a handful of bent (HPD) individuals are doing what they must do.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:03 AM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands