New MEC Officer Elections In November
09-19-2016, 08:40 AM
#91
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,868
Originally Posted by notEnuf
Why 76 then? Is the line arbitrary? MTOW and seats are just a metric. Do you have a line that should not be crossed? Lets all get 50% raises and left them have the CS-100. NO jobs lost yet right?
The sell small scope mentality has ruled this union far too long. The long term goal needs to be to protect and recapture brand flying. You diminish the power of the union to affect the brand with every carve out.
The sell small scope mentality has ruled this union far too long. The long term goal needs to be to protect and recapture brand flying. You diminish the power of the union to affect the brand with every carve out.
Why 76 then?
I too would like to not have 76 seat jets at DCI - but we can not undo what has already been done.
Is the line arbitrary?
It may have been arbitrary in the past but it is now and has been in our last few PWA's.
MTOW - I am fully convinced that 1 more lb. of MTOW or 1 more seat than 76 would not pass the MEC or MEMRAT. It is as close to a single issue "NO" vote that I have.
The 76 seat line has been established and has held - that is good. I was furloughed when we kept raising the limit. Keeping it at 76 seats for now is good.
As someone has said - If we want to get to zero RJs we have to go through less RJs. If we are reducing the size of DCI as far as % of mainline flights and total DCI seats it is good for us.
Do I think 50 seats are dinosaurs and would go away anyway - yes but it might take many years so I would rather do it the way we did it in C-2012.
Scope is to protect DAL Pilot jobs. If we allow more 76 seaters but reduce the number of 50 seaters by much more we are moving more DCI Pilots to mainline - again a good thing.
We should not let the quest for a perfect deal delay a good deal.
Finally - I was a No vote on the lat TA and will vote No again if the deal is lacking but a reduction in DCI while allowing more 76 seats jets may be acceptable to me depending on the details.
Scoop
09-19-2016, 09:01 AM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,027
Originally Posted by Scoop
Why 76 then?
I too would like to not have 76 seat jets at DCI - but we can not undo what has already been done.
Is the line arbitrary?
It may have been arbitrary in the past but it is now and has been in our last few PWA's.
MTOW - I am fully convinced that 1 more lb. of MTOW or 1 more seat than 76 would not pass the MEC or MEMRAT. It is as close to a single issue "NO" vote that I have.
The 76 seat line has been established and has held - that is good. I was furloughed when we kept raising the limit. Keeping it at 76 seats for now is good.
As someone has said - If we want to get to zero RJs we have to go through less RJs. If we are reducing the size of DCI as far as % of mainline flights and total DCI seats it is good for us.
Do I think 50 seats are dinosaurs and would go away anyway - yes but it might take many years so I would rather do it the way we did it in C-2012.
Scope is to protect DAL Pilot jobs. If we allow more 76 seaters but reduce the number of 50 seaters by much more we are moving more DCI Pilots to mainline - again a good thing.
We should not let the quest for a perfect deal delay a good deal.
Finally - I was a No vote on the lat TA and will vote No again if the deal is lacking but a reduction in DCI while allowing more 76 seats jets may be acceptable to me depending on the details.
Scoop
I too would like to not have 76 seat jets at DCI - but we can not undo what has already been done.
Is the line arbitrary?
It may have been arbitrary in the past but it is now and has been in our last few PWA's.
MTOW - I am fully convinced that 1 more lb. of MTOW or 1 more seat than 76 would not pass the MEC or MEMRAT. It is as close to a single issue "NO" vote that I have.
The 76 seat line has been established and has held - that is good. I was furloughed when we kept raising the limit. Keeping it at 76 seats for now is good.
As someone has said - If we want to get to zero RJs we have to go through less RJs. If we are reducing the size of DCI as far as % of mainline flights and total DCI seats it is good for us.
Do I think 50 seats are dinosaurs and would go away anyway - yes but it might take many years so I would rather do it the way we did it in C-2012.
Scope is to protect DAL Pilot jobs. If we allow more 76 seaters but reduce the number of 50 seaters by much more we are moving more DCI Pilots to mainline - again a good thing.
We should not let the quest for a perfect deal delay a good deal.
Finally - I was a No vote on the lat TA and will vote No again if the deal is lacking but a reduction in DCI while allowing more 76 seats jets may be acceptable to me depending on the details.
Scoop
The re-engining a scrap airframe at a cost greater than its value is just a poor business decision no matter how you try to explain it. This management doesn't make those kinds of poor decisions.
09-19-2016, 09:02 AM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 1,306
Originally Posted by Scoop
Why 76 then?
I too would like to not have 76 seat jets at DCI - but we can not undo what has already been done.
Is the line arbitrary?
It may have been arbitrary in the past but it is now and has been in our last few PWA's.
MTOW - I am fully convinced that 1 more lb. of MTOW or 1 more seat than 76 would not pass the MEC or MEMRAT. It is as close to a single issue "NO" vote that I have.
The 76 seat line has been established and has held - that is good. I was furloughed when we kept raising the limit. Keeping it at 76 seats for now is good.
As someone has said - If we want to get to zero RJs we have to go through less RJs. If we are reducing the size of DCI as far as % of mainline flights and total DCI seats it is good for us.
Do I think 50 seats are dinosaurs and would go away anyway - yes but it might take many years so I would rather do it the way we did it in C-2012.
Scope is to protect DAL Pilot jobs. If we allow more 76 seaters but reduce the number of 50 seaters by much more we are moving more DCI Pilots to mainline - again a good thing.
We should not let the quest for a perfect deal delay a good deal.
Finally - I was a No vote on the lat TA and will vote No again if the deal is lacking but a reduction in DCI while allowing more 76 seats jets may be acceptable to me depending on the details.
Scoop
I too would like to not have 76 seat jets at DCI - but we can not undo what has already been done.
Is the line arbitrary?
It may have been arbitrary in the past but it is now and has been in our last few PWA's.
MTOW - I am fully convinced that 1 more lb. of MTOW or 1 more seat than 76 would not pass the MEC or MEMRAT. It is as close to a single issue "NO" vote that I have.
The 76 seat line has been established and has held - that is good. I was furloughed when we kept raising the limit. Keeping it at 76 seats for now is good.
As someone has said - If we want to get to zero RJs we have to go through less RJs. If we are reducing the size of DCI as far as % of mainline flights and total DCI seats it is good for us.
Do I think 50 seats are dinosaurs and would go away anyway - yes but it might take many years so I would rather do it the way we did it in C-2012.
Scope is to protect DAL Pilot jobs. If we allow more 76 seaters but reduce the number of 50 seaters by much more we are moving more DCI Pilots to mainline - again a good thing.
We should not let the quest for a perfect deal delay a good deal.
Finally - I was a No vote on the lat TA and will vote No again if the deal is lacking but a reduction in DCI while allowing more 76 seats jets may be acceptable to me depending on the details.
Scoop
I don't think all flying on mainline is ever going to happen and it's probably something we don't even want. A reduction in outsourcing is definitely a good thing though and the 76 for 50 deal may be something we'd all benefit from. Like you said, it's in the details.
09-19-2016, 09:08 AM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,322
Originally Posted by Scoop
Why 76 then?
I too would like to not have 76 seat jets at DCI - but we can not undo what has already been done.
Is the line arbitrary?
It may have been arbitrary in the past but it is now and has been in our last few PWA's.
MTOW - I am fully convinced that 1 more lb. of MTOW or 1 more seat than 76 would not pass the MEC or MEMRAT. It is as close to a single issue "NO" vote that I have.
The 76 seat line has been established and has held - that is good. I was furloughed when we kept raising the limit. Keeping it at 76 seats for now is good.
As someone has said - If we want to get to zero RJs we have to go through less RJs. If we are reducing the size of DCI as far as % of mainline flights and total DCI seats it is good for us.
Do I think 50 seats are dinosaurs and would go away anyway - yes but it might take many years so I would rather do it the way we did it in C-2012.
Scope is to protect DAL Pilot jobs. If we allow more 76 seaters but reduce the number of 50 seaters by much more we are moving more DCI Pilots to mainline - again a good thing.
We should not let the quest for a perfect deal delay a good deal.
Finally - I was a No vote on the lat TA and will vote No again if the deal is lacking but a reduction in DCI while allowing more 76 seats jets may be acceptable to me depending on the details.
Scoop
I too would like to not have 76 seat jets at DCI - but we can not undo what has already been done.
Is the line arbitrary?
It may have been arbitrary in the past but it is now and has been in our last few PWA's.
MTOW - I am fully convinced that 1 more lb. of MTOW or 1 more seat than 76 would not pass the MEC or MEMRAT. It is as close to a single issue "NO" vote that I have.
The 76 seat line has been established and has held - that is good. I was furloughed when we kept raising the limit. Keeping it at 76 seats for now is good.
As someone has said - If we want to get to zero RJs we have to go through less RJs. If we are reducing the size of DCI as far as % of mainline flights and total DCI seats it is good for us.
Do I think 50 seats are dinosaurs and would go away anyway - yes but it might take many years so I would rather do it the way we did it in C-2012.
Scope is to protect DAL Pilot jobs. If we allow more 76 seaters but reduce the number of 50 seaters by much more we are moving more DCI Pilots to mainline - again a good thing.
We should not let the quest for a perfect deal delay a good deal.
Finally - I was a No vote on the lat TA and will vote No again if the deal is lacking but a reduction in DCI while allowing more 76 seats jets may be acceptable to me depending on the details.
Scoop
09-19-2016, 09:25 AM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by notEnuf
Actually it can be undone and now is a prime opportunity to do it. The proposition is to replace old less desirable airplanes with new larger ones. The 20 year life of these new airframes ensures a younger more efficient fleet for much further into the future. Retaining current scope ensures the fleet continues to age and the larger aircraft lift required to replace retired inefficient airframes comes to Delta.
The re-engining a scrap airframe at a cost greater than its value is just a poor business decision no matter how you try to explain it. This management doesn't make those kinds of poor decisions.
The re-engining a scrap airframe at a cost greater than its value is just a poor business decision no matter how you try to explain it. This management doesn't make those kinds of poor decisions.
09-19-2016, 09:28 AM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by capncrunch
The 50 seaters are self retiring. Why would you pay for that with more 76ers when it's going to happen for free?
09-19-2016, 09:30 AM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,322
Originally Posted by sailingfun
When might that happen? Do you think at current and projected fuel prices they will park 100 very cheap airframes? The only issue would be there ability to staff them. So far they are doing ok with that. Could be worse in 2 or 3 years.
09-19-2016, 09:36 AM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by Scoop
Scope is to protect DAL Pilot jobs. If we allow more 76 seaters but reduce the number of 50 seaters by much more we are moving more DCI Pilots to mainline - again a good thing.
Based on history, I'm not so sure it is a slam-dunk "good thing."
We gave them more 76 seat rj's in the 2012 contract. Looks like more 76 seat rj's are going to be in this new ta. When does adding "only" XX more 76 seat aircraft end??
Scenario I envision: We give them, once again, more 76 seat rj's. 50 seat rjs go away (score on managements part, they would go away eventually anyway). Sounds good for us. The shiny bobble is "hey, we reduced dci flying by getting rid of all those 50 seaters." Trouble is, next contract (or LOA), we again "only" give away XX 76 rj's. Then again on the next contract etc. etc. Next thing you know, the number of 76 seat rj's is almost back up to the number of 50 seaters parked. Voila. Dci has been entirely made viable again.
This pilot group has demonstrated time and time again that they love to give away their rj scope. I do not believe for one second that the number of 76 seaters in this contract will be the last batch. There will always be some excuse floated as to why giving up more of them is a "good thing." Next thing you know, there are as many 76 seaters floating around at dci as there are 76 plus 50 seaters right now.
Camel's nose under the tent for the re-fleeting of dci to viable aircraft, sold to us little by little in each agreement.
09-19-2016, 09:36 AM
#100
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by sailingfun
When might that happen? Do you think at current and projected fuel prices they will park 100 very cheap airframes? The only issue would be there ability to staff them. So far they are doing ok with that. Could be worse in 2 or 3 years.
I agree with your point about the staffing issue. Go look on the UAL boards regarding fleet and pilot growth rumors - staggering to say the least. Then add in a new contract at SW and subsequent growth there. And those are just 2 of the major players draining the pilot pool.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
