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 ERflyer (Post 1903400)

With this TA:
With a PTIX of $0B your payout will be 5.0% more.
With a PTIX of $6B your payout will be 15.5% more.
With a PTIX of $10B your payout will be 22% more.

Without this TA:
With a PTIX of $0B your payout will be 16.5% less.
With a PTIX of $6B your payout will be 0% more.
With a PTIX of $10B your payout will be 6.5% more.

Clearly you have much more money with the TA. You also have downside protection and will STILL make much more with increased profits.

Need to site the sections of the TA to our current contract and show your work.

As it stands, it does not add up at all.

Provide the citations, foot notes, and proof.

The path forward starts with NO.

We have a decent contract with provisions to make more money as profits increase and other airlines ink new agreements.

(The above stolen from flyallnite's post #8150 a few pages back. I like it.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1903463)

Something not inclusive to the TA but to think about is that AZ has publicly stated they are leaving the JV in 2017. That represents approximately 6-7% of flying that will flow back into the JV partner balances. Just something to keep in mind.
***end my own stupid opinion***

Meaningless until AZ actually leaves. Kind of like voting YES to a TA based on planned aircraft deliveries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1903463)

The EASK to Block conversion is a downside protection.

It's just the opposite. EASK's provided the downside protection by (ostensibly) requiring the other partners to lower their EASK's. That's now gone. The Euro's can fly unlimited seats...as long as their block hours (IN ANY AIRCRAFT TYPE) are equal to ours. It's the single worst concession in this contract and is a huge job killer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1903463)

Let us say that we all pull capacity out of the market. One 380 would be the equivalent to two of our 330’s. So 2 of their pilots (2man crew CDG-JFK) for six of ours.

You're making no sense with that analogy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1903463)

The block hour conversion is also up gauging protection. Because all of our WB deliveries both real and notional are larger than the 767, EASK balance doesn’t help us keep jobs. As we up gauge the 767s on the JV routes, we add seats and keep 3/person crews. Keep in mind as well that using pilot block hours would hurt us because of the crew imbalances amongst the JV partners, as previously mentioned.

Completely wrong. Deliveries or current aircraft mean NOTHING in this TA. Just block hours. E190 equals A380. Your ignoring that is hurting your credibility. But since receiving your flight pay loss has nothing to do with credibility...you're good to go.

See you in the morning.

Carl

Details on Delta TA

A must read APC thread for all frequent posters, lurkers, or those in between.....

"Strategy to Defeat TA2015"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERflyer (Post 1903400)

I created a spreadsheet on this as well and didn't get those numbers. What are your numbers when you're looking at 2016 alone for say a 12 year 7ERB at 89 credit hours?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bananie (Post 1903561)

[/I][/B]This new language provides that same protection for international partner flying on the discretion of the MEC. This is a gain.[/FONT]

It is a gain.

That the MEC chair can throw to the side. So how much of a gain is it?

This would have been a gain:

Quote:

9. A carrier engaged in international partner flying will maintain a separate operating and corporate identity from the Company including, but not limited to, name, trade name, logo, livery, trademarks or service marks.

Quote:

9. Except as approved by the Delta MEC Chairman, or as otherwise provided by Section 1 E., a carrier engaged in international partner flying will maintain a separate operating and corporate identity from the Company including, but not limited to, name, trade name, logo, livery, trademarks or service marks. The Delta MEC Chairman may, at his option, approve the use by a carrier engaged in international partner flying of a trade name, brand, logo, trademarks, service marks, aircraft livery or aircraft paint scheme currently or in the future utilized by the Company or any Company affiliate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1903511)

If you have a question about the TA, I'd be happy to answer it.

Professor, don't waste any time responding to the internet dbag. He's definitely not a DL pilot and needs to butt out and mind his own business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAVdude (Post 1903423)

First post on a forum ever. This TA is dragging me into the 21st century, against my will...

Has anyone heard about E-Jets being used to replace Mad Dogs? 717s were sold as replacing RJs but I've been seeing 'em on a lot of my old 88 trips/layovers. It seems 190/195s are initially being pushed as replacing RJs, too, but if they have a 4-hr range, I don't see them going to Columbus, GA. True, the Mini Dog goes to Augusta, but so did the 88.

I'm a "NO", but if I need to plan on downsizing the house, I'd like to start getting ready.

As John McLain would say "Welcome to the party pal!"

Speaking of those E-Jets, they are a total B scale. A Captain on those pays about the same as a MD88 Co-Pilot.

That's right - an 88 FO. They have more range than the 717 and carry almost as many passengers but pay much, much less.

Why do you think that is?:confused:

Scoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1903639)

There is no penalty delineated. Its a contract.
It would be impractical to set forth penalties for non-compliance for every section of the contract. I don't think this is any different.

We don't have language that specifies if the company doesn't pay us either.

If the company breaks the contract we grieve it and it is either arbitrated or litigated if required.

Gee, I think we agreed to a delineated penalty for furloughs. It was agreed that the company would remove the additional seats from all the 76 seat RJs if they furloughed a single Pilot protected by the no furlough language.

And guess what else? When it would have been economically advantageous for the company to furlough they didn't.

Why the difference? Could it be because the company knows they can not honor our contract and get off for pennies on the dollar.

A predefined noncompliance penalty has been proven to work, there is no reason the company would not want to do this with JVs unless they want to keep an out.

Scoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1903643)

This is true.

And yet you try and obfuscate the facts. With the current contract, the company needs to add more seats over to Europe to be in compliance or we sign the new contract resetting the definition of compliance and furthermore can remove a large amount of seats and still be in compliance. Trying to tell us the new language is a positive is either gross incompetence in understanding the difference between more and less or a willful obfuscating of the issue in the hopes that repeating the lie over and over will get pilots who always trust ALPA to blindly follow.

We have been flying 757s over to Europe as long as AF has been using A380s. We fly to various destinations with two men crews (under 117 we can do almost half of Europe with a crew of 2) and if we add 737s like United has, we can continue to down gauge the flying.

As soon as we signed the JV in 2000, AF went on a 777 buying spree to add more capacity over to the US. We have been shrinking our European operation for the past 15 years and Anderson is pretty clear he prefers to sell tickets not fly passengers, across the pond.

You can spin this section as much as you wish but it is without a doubt the largest outsourcing of flying Delta has planned in a long time. To agree to it is crazy. We have to hold the line in the amount of scope we give up or we will become the domestic feeder for foreign international carriers.

AC