Details on Delta TA
06-12-2015 | 09:45 PM
#8281
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Likes: 0
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.
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.
As it stands, it does not add up at all.
Provide the citations, foot notes, and proof.
06-12-2015 | 09:46 PM
#8282
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 709
Likes: 2
From: 7ERA
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.)
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.)
06-12-2015 | 09:47 PM
#8283
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
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***
***end my own stupid opinion***
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.
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.
See you in the morning.
Carl
06-12-2015 | 10:09 PM
#8285
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
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.
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.
06-12-2015 | 10:20 PM
#8286
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
That the MEC chair can throw to the side. So how much of a gain is it?
This would have been a gain:
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.
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.
06-12-2015 | 10:42 PM
#8287
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,325
Likes: 9
From: 3fidy
06-12-2015 | 11:22 PM
#8288
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,263
Likes: 105
From: DAL 330
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.
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?
Scoop
06-12-2015 | 11:31 PM
#8289
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,263
Likes: 105
From: DAL 330
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.
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
06-13-2015 | 12:59 AM
#8290
On Reserve
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
From: B-209
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
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
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
