DALPA Propoganda Wrong Again....
 

How does this reconcile with what DALPA has been spouting about the proposed block hour JV agreement found in TA2015?

"Yet Delta Air Lines (NYSE: DAL) is expanding its usage of 757s for international flights -- to some extent, at the 767's expense. What gives?

In Delta's most recent quarterly SEC filing, the airline revealed that it will purchase five used 757s later this year. This was an interesting move...

...not all 757s are alike. Some are optimized for shorter routes, while others are capable of long-haul flights of up to 4,000 miles. Moreover, the used 757s that Delta is buying are some of the last to be built, and are nearly two decades younger than many of the 757s that Delta is retiring.

In other words, Delta is buying 757s that can stick around for a while and that are capable of long-haul international flights. Indeed, there's no substitute today for the 757 on 3,000-4,000 mile routes that don't have enough demand for a larger widebody plane.

In April, Delta began a new route from Philadelphia to London that took advantage of the 757's unique capabilities. Joint venture partner Virgin Atlantic has a hub in London, but it doesn't have a small enough plane to fly economically to Philadelphia, a US Airways stronghold."

United Continental Zigs While Delta Air Lines Zags (DAL,UAL)

What's your point?

The point is that the TA language allows Delta to remove all higher paying widebodies from the Atlantic JV and replace them with lower paying 757's. The TA language removes the seat metric in favor of an aircraft block hour metric. A380 equals 757 with this TA language.

Carl

As much as you want to, we cannot force the company to buy any particular type of airplane. They will buy what they need to execute their plan. What you are talking about and what that article allude to are two different things. I get it. I am on your side with the EASK vs BH thingy, but there is no argument to be made with that article. IMHO, DAL buying more 757s is a win any way you slice it.

Completely agree. I've never said anything different.

It's not if they are replacing widebodies. It hurts us then. It hurts us by having more Delta passengers flown by non-Delta pilots, and it hurts us because of our pay structure.

Carl

The recent 757's purchased are not additional airframes or a increase in the fleet plan. They will allow Delta to retire an additional 5 airframes that would have required extensive overhauls. It's cheaper to buy used airframes with time left and avoid the overhaul cost.

Fleet plans change. That's why they're called plans. Therefore, it's just silly when you make definitive statements like this based on a plan.

Carl

Your right Carl, it would be a terrible thing if the company decided to keep more 757's! The horror of the thought!
I would prefer the plan does change and they do the heavy checks. The stuff posted about A321's, 737's, more 757's is simply not rational thought. The first two don't have range and the last is not likely to see a increase on routes running full into slot controlled or gate restricted airports.
I prefer when I try and evaluate something to look at facts. The planned fleets for Delta and our JV partners are pretty well known. I will go with those in evaluating that portion of the TA.

Sailing,

Don't forget the fact that DAL has been out of compliance for 4 years.

Also, don't forget that our unions solution was $60/month/pilot on a grievance settlement. A pittance. AND to solve the problem going forward the TA makes the company instantly compliant with the ability to flex down.

Now, I know you know these things, but you are defending a position which has been proven to be based on faulty logic. (I am not saying the C150LR isn't a big stretch, or the 73-9 even. But, in the future games of hardball, let's at least get a wooden rather than a plastic bat.

If the language isn't specific, clear, includes remedies and minimums it isn't language.

Scambo, based on the current fleet plans does the TA or the current language provide better protection looking 3 or 4 years out?

IMO, EASKs protect us more than the BH language...Hugely.

Mind you, I realize that I, you and we are not in control of fleet deployment decisions. That said, decoupling VA is a monumental mistake. Giving one individual the ability to rebrand foreign carriers is a non starter.

Selling top end scope is too dangerous a road.

3 or 4 years out, I want to be the one flying Delta jets across the pond. Big, twin aisle Delta jets. In fact I want to have delta pilots flying the jets that have upper deck business class too.

In response to your question, I have to ask it back to you.

I am not willing to sell my kidney so I can have Starbucks coffee.

You have to look at both Joint Venture agreements together.

The Virgin JV protects twin-aisle ASKs, and it also includes a global production balance. You can't replace everything with 757s and stay in compliance.

We can't force the company to get airplanes? 717, E190, E175. These are all being purchased by the company, did we have anything to do with that or was that a business decision? All we can do try to protect against other groups operating flights that generate revenue for Delta. If C2012 stays in effect large scope remains out of compliance.

The pacific language was rewritten to include Henada because they weren't operating enough at Narita. Now we are allowing them to rewrite again to be in compliance. Stop changing the metrics and redrawing the lines. Start enforcing the agreement. If C2012 stays and they don't change that's $60 a month more for everyone. The point is I want them to honor the deal or pay for non-compliance. The settlement was to small but that's what we agreed to. Why can we use only one metric?

The reason we don't have 787s today is because several metrics were written into the purchase agreement. The delivery timeline and the performance. If you want to bind a party to an action, you use multiple metrics to measure the action.

No you only use 1 metric. Look at our scope section.

Well no freaking duh!!!!:rolleyes: But by all means, let's keep it the same old way.

We aren't FORCING them to buy anything. They are gonna buy whatever they NEED to execute their plan. All we did in any of the above mentioned airframes was to place conditions upon other needs that allow them to buy what they want. And guess what: If they didn't need the 717s E190s and anything else, they wouldn't buy them. You really think any of those were huge wins for us? That's beyond naive.

The reason we don't have 787s is because BA couldn't deliver on it's promise. The original airframe did not perform anywhere near the level they said it would. It was massively heavier than originally sold. And mostly, Mr Anderson got a little lucky.

And tell me this. You want to hold them accountable for non compliance. OK. How you gonna do that? The way C15 does it is to move the goalposts. It's like saying land in the touchdown zone, but moving it back 1,000 feet in the middle of your flare. There are no damage mitigations spelled out in ANY of our contract language other than gray lawyer language that a first year student can shoot holes in. "To be brought back into compliance within a year" Really? We now have a precedence of a weak azzed grievance settlement of $30M. Pocket change. DAL is a $40 billion company. $30 million is a good holiday weekend.

uh oh.....sounds like someone pizzed in benders Wheaties! :)

You're changing the subject and your premise. Which is good because I hope that means you realize that using company fleet plans to make the TA's scope concessions less damaging is foolish.

The point is that whatever they ultimately decide, it has no bearing on evaluating the TA scope concessions that are in front of us now.

They all have the range Sailingfun. It makes perfect sense to run these into gate/slot controlled airports if your goal is to have others fly our passengers, while still sharing the revenue and profits. If this is management's plan, this TA language specifically allows this plan to thrive.

Look at whatever you want sailingfun, but fleet plans aren't facts. They never will be. If you use them to evaluate TA language, you're using non-factual information by definition.

Carl

Our CURRENT language provides far better protection. That's why management wanted it changed back to block hours. The EASK metric was so protective, management refused to comply.

Carl

Simple and brilliant. Should be a baggage tag.

Carl

Actually, no.

An old guy a long time ago told me that we do not make any decisions for the company. None. They decide what airplanes they are going to buy. They decide to where they are going to fly them. We are labor. Highly compensated, highly educated, highly trained, but just labor. And as much as we think the contrary, the world does not revolve around us. Now that isn't to say that we are not a very important cog in the wheel, but we are replaceable, and to act as if we are not is pure folly. Divorce yourself from the thought that we can make management do anything they don't want to do, because it simply isn't true. We tell them how much it will cost them to fly the airplanes they choose to buy. Period.

The same old guy told me to never eat in a hotel or sleep in a restaurant. Sage advice if I say so myself.

Great, you started early with your daily devotional to longevity based pay. We have what we have and this TA's scope concessions must be evaluated against that reality.

How should we change it though t? Should we average to the 757 in pay? Exactly how should we attain your dream?

Carl

Yes it was protective, but there was no remedy spelled out for non compliance. THAT is where our contract is weak. The block hour "solution" gives an immediate 3+% buffer. I just don't get the logic. We'll go from 53% to 49%. I do keep hearing about the global production balance, and I would love for one of those better informed to explain that. Bullet points please, no graphs and charts.

If they swap the A321s for A321neo's, those have a range of 4000+nm. Those will probably eventually replace the 757 in 2020 and beyond, but yes, that is a lifetime away in this business. Also, there is an E195X E2 aircraft design floating around that has MD88 seating capacity with airbus 320 type range. I expect that aircraft to replace the MD88's/717. The passenger surveys show the love for the E-jets. Compass is the highest ranked airline in the Delta system. The last customer survey showed Endeavor just slightly below Delta, and Delta a few points behind Compass. Go jet is so far below the Delta standard, it is embarrassing, like 8 or 9 standard deviations from the mean.

That was back in an era where we also told management that only Delta pilots would fly Delta passengers. Now we only tell them how much we'll charge for our services, and they decide whether the pay rates apply to Delta pilots or not.

Carl

Like Scambo said. 777/350/330/764 all pay the same.

AAL's bands would be a good start.

We have to look at career earnings guys because the DB retirement is dead. You don't have the luxury to stay really really really senior on junior metal and suck it up in your last year to bump up your retirement. TVM is real, and it is calculable. (I am not talking about the contract here vis a vis hourly pay increases, but rather big picture retirement funding). You have to fund as much as you can, as early as you can or you will be behind. This is another reason that the 2017 increase to the 401k is so puzzling to me. Why on earth would we wait a whole year to see that?

Code shares and JVs are a fact of life in a global corporation. Get over it. SWA will never grow and never do anything near what we do with the clauses they have, and you know it. If that is your idea of Nirvana, then you got hired at the wrong place. I wouldn't trade places with their number 1 captain. ymmv.

The global production balance was conceived when our administration signed an LOA allowing management out of their Narita flying requirements. They took a snapshot of our global international flying block hours, reduced them by about 20%, then set that as a floor below which management could not drop regarding international flying. We are currently flying more international block hours than the minimum afforded management by the global production balance.

Carl

How does that help your claim of the stupidity of bigger paying more? The VAST majority of our fleet is smaller than these aircraft and pay less. Again, how do we divorce ourselves from bigger paying more?

Carl

You're right. With those SWA scope clauses, they'll never pull up to an Orlando gate with 3 Virgin 747's getting ready to take their passengers to Europe. They'll never "get to do" what we do. :rolleyes:

Carl

B-man.....say it aint so!.....dalpa will get the db back....just you wait and see!:)

Your point of career earnings is spot on.....as we exited BK I floated an idea to the R&I guys about the best way to structure a delta pilots retirement benefit....it involved getting to the maximum extent.. front loaded company contribution to self directed savings.

it was probably not a template that would retrofit....it would have to start with pilot 'zero'.....well, pilot zero is now onboard and we are still stuck with traditionalists thinking.

If this pilot 'group' wanted to be at the head of the class...the pwa would provide the company filling to the 415c ceiling from year one.

How do you eat an elephant, Carl?

Says Mr 747 captain. :rolleyes:

winner winner (you know the rest)

My understanding is that EASK's are better upside protection, worse downside protection. Which one is more appropriate now? You decide.

I work for Delta, so we eat elephants by entering into an eating joint venture and Delta pilots fight over the elephant scraps.

Carl

What does that have to do with anything?

Carl

Ahhh neither actually. Before the TA came out, you guys were talking recapture, now it's which turd is better? Come on....

Incorrect. EASK's provide the better protection for pilots. That's why we fought for EASK's in C2012. It's why the company wants out of it now in favor of block hours.

Carl

Yup. Stockholm Syndrome is a powerful phenomenon.

Carl