Airline Pilot Central Forums - Details on Delta TA

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1892540)

And you're flying in a shiny "new" jet, and DCI has about 30% fewer pilots.:D

And yet if we didn't agree to C2012, management would have taken a huge bath breathing big money commitments into the largest 50 seat fleet in the galaxy, only to keep them around during the high oil when they couldn't staff them, into the less high oil when they couldn't staff them even more. :rolleyes:

That's why, even now, and despite the false rhetoric that the 50 segment is suddenly viable again, they are *rumored* to want even more DC-9-10 sized "RJ's" to continue to up gouge DCI. But but but if we don't agree those 50's will stay around forever...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1892576)

Right. But we don't get 100% of the PS described in the PWA. That is the amount shared by the entire eligible Delta employee group, of which we get about 37%. So, our share is 37% of 10% (i.e., 3.7%) of PTIX up to $2.5B and 37% of 20% (i.e., 7.4%) of PTIX above $2.5B.

Tough though. Seriously. Our PWA gets us our PS. Everyone else's is apparently what the company calculates they have to pay for non union labor peace. Good for them, not our problem. All of the other 63% is discretionary money that they freely choose to pay. If Wall St has an issue with that, they should address it with the 63% that could be reduced or eliminated tomorrow if it was really that big of a deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1892540)

So just how are you going to get management to publish competitively sensitive data (CPA costs)?

Btw, the analysis was done. The MEC was briefed. With the actual numbers, not speculation and assumption. It didn't work out as you wish it did. Ask the current and former code-share guys if you want another source.

Management disagrees with your assumptions, and they have the data to back it up. Since C2012 the cost differences have grown more stark, as our costs are up 20% and DCI costs are down substantially (PCL bankruptcy reset, contract renegotiations). DCI is down about 150 jets, mainline is up a bunch. And that's with fuel dropping 40%, which makes the RJ's more competitive.

Oh, and before you trot out your 3 year old spreadsheets (how do those look now anyway ;)) UAL is just beginning their RJ reductions this year. Other than upgauging, AMR hasn't really gotten started in a meaningful way except for transferring Envoy assets. So for something that was "going to happen anyway" it took our competitors 3 years to begin. We're already back in negotiations for a new deal. FDX, SWA, and UPS "wound the clock." UAL won't negotiate for another year and still lags us by a year. APA traded the guts of their contract (scope, sick leave, disability, work rules) for pay, but is now stuck until 2020 (new amendable date).

And you're flying in a shiny "new" jet, and DCI has about 30% fewer pilots.:D

The shiny new used jet I fly was coming anyway but we were told that in order to get the inevitable 717 we had to give DCI more profitable jets to prevent their inevitable withering on the vine. How much of that reduction in their costs is related to having larger more fuel efficient and better casm RJs? Why in the world did we allow that and why should we ever allow that again because, as you argue, it's killing are argument for ending outsourcing.

Btw If fuel prices are down then they're also cheaper now to run here as well even with our higher rates, no? Also, our rates might be up but we are also more productive, no? Ed said so.

So maybe we should crunch those numbers again? When were those numbers crunched? And how much value was assigned to having it under one big roof for QC and performance reasons?

Now maybe is just me but sometimes I just get the feeling some people really like having those... what was the term used... flaps? ****ing little airplanes or something? Anyways, having those jets here. Some people just to be adamentally against it or scope recapture. Makes no sense to me.

Speaking of my spreadsheets, it only calculated the MBH : DBH ratio and capacity changes.

Right now I show 1.66 is the ratio, out of curiosity, what do you show with the real numbers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1892588)

I'm sure there's some no talent hack B-school ladder climbers that would like to ink billion dollar extentions for 50 seat lift because the flash in the pan actuarials make it seem more palatable with cheaper oil. Monetize the temporary Saudi assault on US oil production into a long term renewal of a failed business model, bonuses all around baybee!

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...BRILLIANT_.jpg

I can only imagine what we will have to give up to prevent this. :rolleyes: Or worse, what we will "gain" to allow it.

Why did management want to keep 100-125 50 seaters when they announced RJ reductions in 2012? Could it be that at $100 oil they still returned 15%? ��

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1892599)

Why did management want to keep 100-125 50 seaters when they announced RJ reductions in 2012? Could it be that at $100 oil they still returned 15%? ��

Maybe to DCI managers the number of CR9s being offered in the C2012 swap for CR2s wasn't enough to get rid of an extra 125 jets. But maybe another 70 CR9s will be enough to finish them off.

Just a thought.

Alan, Slow,

Thank you.

They are correct. The smell test wasn't met and I am confident now you will be able to explain why.

PTIX ins't 4.5.

PTIX its a calculation closer to 6.45 after adding back taxes and one time items. Then you get to the 1.1B payout.

Pilots share 37% Thank you.

Dollar for dollar monetization would be your gross profit sharing check.

Or

37% of 1.1B = 407M

Real answer C is 412m - 407m, we are within 5m of 2004 rates Now!!! We don't need a TA now to get there.

If you want any of my profit sharing do better than this!

Attachment 2121

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1892599)

Why did management want to keep 100-125 50 seaters when they announced RJ reductions in 2012? Could it be that at $100 oil they still returned 15%? ��

Because they not only couldn't have physically gotten rid of them much faster than they did, they also wanted about that many around for that time period. That's what our scope "limits" usually are: management's game plan all along.

And I bet they don't return 15%? �� when they're parked for lack of staffing (plus mesabah's point about paper sorcery with their fuel being unhedged etc).

In addition to that, they are pretty much the worst jet engined product in the industry right now, and worse than some props. They're hotter than an 88 in the summer, cramped, constantly blade running weight and balance, and they're running out of pilots to operate them. Its taken a quarter million per 4-5 years per pilot at one airline to even come close to solving the problem, and that is only buying a little time and ends up hurting other airline's ability to staff them, many of which are also DCI.

But the real "RJ" issue right now isn't the 50, its the 70 and especially the 90 seaters (76 installed per management's discretion). They want us to breathe more lift into DCI. Again. And are offering another urgent time value of concessions to allow it, when we should be granting no DCI relief under any circumstances. If anything, we need to be sunsetting the larger ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1892610)

We are flying the CR9's into the places the 200 went last year. If you look at the economics, in no way is a 50 seater better than a 76 seater in any market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1892587)

If the CDO debacle confirmed anything for us, as well as these recent LEC letters, we as line pilots are actually negotiting against the negotiating committee more than the company.

FTB gets it.

Management is nearly irrelevant in this phase of the battle.
Whatever the MEC ratifies, the pilots will ratify. The company knows that and ALPA knows that.
This fight is for the heart and soul of our union.
Its the pilots against the old bulls of ALPA.

They brought us through bankruptcy by cooperating with pretty much everything the corporation needed or desired. They did that and still hung on to the guts of our work rules and we should be thankful. Those were scary times.

But its a new day now. We do NOT have to give the company everything they ask for. We CAN say no to management. In fact, its healthy to do so once in a while.
Not every contract has to relax scope. Not every contract has to enhance "productivity". (which just mean pilots work more hours). Not every contract has to whittle away at our sick benefits, etc. etc.

Delta Air Lines is making a ton of money. We deserve an "up" contract. Its that simple.

A bit of give and take? Fine. Major concessions? HE|| NO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1892540)

So just how are you going to get management to publish competitively sensitive data (CPA costs)?:confused:

Btw, the analysis was done. The MEC was briefed. With the actual numbers, not speculation and assumption. It didn't work out as you wish it did. Ask the current and former code-share guys if you want another source.

Management disagrees with your assumptions, and they have the data to back it up. Since C2012 the cost differences have grown more stark, as our costs are up 20% and DCI costs are down substantially (PCL bankruptcy reset, contract renegotiations). DCI is down about 150 jets, mainline is up a bunch. And that's with fuel dropping 40%, which makes the RJ's more competitive.

Oh, and before you trot out your 3 year old spreadsheets (how do those look now anyway ;)) UAL is just beginning their RJ reductions this year. Other than upgauging, AMR hasn't really gotten started in a meaningful way except for transferring Envoy assets. So for something that was "going to happen anyway" it took our competitors 3 years to begin. We're already back in negotiations for a new deal. FDX, SWA, and UPS "wound the clock." UAL won't negotiate for another year and still lags us by a year. APA traded the guts of their contract (scope, sick leave, disability, work rules) for pay, but is now stuck until 2020 (new amendable date).

And you're flying in a shiny "new" jet, and DCI has about 30% fewer pilots.:D

As one of the old Bulls who was kicked out of the MEC administration, Slowplay unwittingly shows yet another truth about our "union." They don't get any of their numbers and analysis from ALPA's "experts" because those 'experts' really just get their numbers from management.

Absolutely amazing. Our negotiators make the case for management while getting all their data from management. Any professional negotiator would be laughing and face palming.

Carl