I actually had a trip and am now way behind. Im too lazy to go back and read everything as I'm in the middle of moving, but I do have a burning question I haven't seen the answer to.

In the TA WHAT is the penalty to Delta for exceeding the ratio. As far as I recall there is also a ratio between the JV members for Atlantic flying. I also remember the window for compliance was just recently changed with no MEMRAT.

I hypothesize that Delta knows it will probably one day be out of compliance with the ratio of mainline vs. DCI and will come to DALPA before they have any idea it might happen and ask for a little give and take and BAM our hard fought section scope is weakened by an MOU.

Oooo run on sentence.

 

Where are the reps in Detriot set up? My flight out is delayed so I wanted to ask some questions.

 

Pushing for a 5% reduction n profit sharing should be a pretty good indicator to all that DAL is looking to make a hefty profit this year.
I'm sure there forecast as of now probably puts them just over the $2.5 billion dollar range. The 4% increase in pilot payroll maybe the extra few million to keep profits under that $2.5 billion dollar mark.

That's a jump in profit sharing of $250 million if management makes $2.5 billion or more. I'm not saying the entire business plan is structured around that, but I'm sure it's definitely something they are looking at.

I think we, as pilots, need to cautious about voting this thing in to quickly.
That in itself isn't a reason to say NO, just something to be weary about.

Since I bring that up, what kind of possible timeline, barring a typical section 6 negotiation timeline, could we expect if we vote it down and have the negotiators sit back down to revise the TA?
I have hard time believing both sides will scrap the whole thing without trying to sweeten it a little in hopes to get it through.

 

A contract is a contract...man that brings up bad memories. Any lessons to be learned from the rest of your statment?


As I said previously, it's not their only option. Delta can proceed with us or without us. Some guys here think Delta's only option is with us. Why would management spend more money than they want/have to if Delta has options?

ALPA has never said that Delta will keep all of the 50 seaters. Delta has a path without us and will significantly shrink the number of DCI 50 seaters. That path is slower and has additional risk, but doesn't reduce the 50 seat count nearly as low as the TA. They've already laid the groundwork for keeping 50 seat flying (PCL bankruptcy agreement) and have started a CF-34 engine lease program from other airline previously grounded CRJ-100/200 to delay/defer maintenance on Delta engines.

I don't recall if you were one of the ones worried about "pump and dump", but our current PWA would allow Delta management to do that much more easily as it doesn't have a block hour ratio. Also, 737-900's aren't included as small narrowbody a/c in our TA (just B717/A319), under the current PWA it doesn't matter what the a/c is. Over the next 3 years we have 170+ aircraft announced for delivery. We only need to increase fleet size by about 70 aircraft for Delta to convert 70 to 76 seaters. The 70 seaters begin coming off lease at the end of 2014.

Remember, Delta has multi-party deals going on. They need new/revised contracts from Bombardier and/or Embraer, GE, the development banks of Canada and/or Brazil and various DCI carriers to get to where they want to be. We're the quickest path to get leverage on all those players simultaneously, but management still has leverage without us.

The manufacturers need to produce aircraft (look at their order backlogs). The countries where those manufacturers are based and the aircraft are financed need jobs.


As described above, management has options. You seem to be thinking in a binary manner when it comes to DAL/ALPA but recognize their flexibility when it comes to DCI. I get that you don't like the result of this TA. What I don't get is the difference in your logic and argument when it's about your company and contract and not somebody else.

 

"Right to privacy"??? Are you saying that an employer doesn't have the right to "enquire" into the well being of an employee? Let's face it, there is a small % of the pilot group that abuse sick leave. This is who the company wants to target. If you don't abuse sick leave, you have nothing to worry about. I have been called once in 23 years about sick leave but I have called them to explain a "multiple" sick call or one that touches a vacation a couple of times. IMO, this is reasonable and NOTHING to worry about.

 

Guys,

Commuted home yesterday. While this in itself is not noteworthy, especially for those of you who get to live in base, what is interesting is the aircraft I was on.

I commuted on an E70 (travelnet code). It was a comfortable ride (seated in an aisle seat in coach with a passenger next to me). We both had elbow room and except for having to check my big crew bag, there was plenty of room in the overhead - lots of pax had big bags up there!

The real problem was I flew LGA-DFW. That's a mainline route (or should be). So, we put a comfortable airplane on a mainline route with lower crew costs how is this not a win for the company. It looks like a Delta plane and doesn't have any of the negatives as the CRJ-700 (cramped) so the passengers don't notice. It had young, energetic crew and good service.

This reaffirmed my view on section one of the TA. I just can't see having these planes flown by subcontractors. We have rates for them and I think DAL actually owns a lot of them. By giving away more large RJs, we really are selling our jobs.

 

And that right there, ladies and germs, is the fear card that will be wielded throughout the next month of "unbiased" roadshows. Trust them, vote it down and the ONLY option will be 3+ years of protracted negotiations with the nmb lady putting us on ice. Just look at American? We're in the same position as they are.

 

How about United/Continental? UsAir/America West? Look how long it took Pinnacle. Look how long it took TranStates.

 

Yes, I saw that term in the definitions part of the contract. This term has been used for the last few years for a few other parts of the PWA. Wrt to this MBH scenario, we cutout the Domestic hrs for the ratio. A tsunami is out of the control of the company but will more than likely effect the international operations, and as a result the economy of a foreign nation state. The Euro Zone crisis has and may continue to effect international traffic and the need to fly international lift. You could argue that both of these are the economy. It comes down to a scenario that insurance companies used after Katrina. They claimed the water destroyed the house, but you claimed it was wind damage which you were protected for. They claim it was the water, which is not specifically stated in the declarations page. In the end it goes to court, and your house(our protections, flying and ratios) are still in need of repair.

My concern is the word "economy" in the definitions section is vague in nature. I ask, what economy, world, domestic, or any specific region? Does the term cover all of that. What was the intent begin the term definition? Was it to cover AD's or a grounding of jets only? What was and is the understanding of this definition by the company and the association?

The whole airline and its operation is intertwined and as a result MBH(domestic) and MBH(international) are also intertwined. The section 1 language is for domestic feed which is influenced on the need to feed international departures. A better understanding of what the word "economy" meant to the negotiators and the company at the time of conception, and now if there is a new understanding would really help.

Also, in this definition wrt to this new ratio, nor in the rest of the document, I did not see anything that would hold DAL Airlines, Holdings et al, responsible for omissions in the newly minted or modified agreements that would preclude a pull down of DCI lift due to breach of that new CPA.

Not trying to be a pain here, really, but language in the current agreement has left DALPA unable to legally remedy a few situations in the last few years.


-------

On another section 1 concern:

Why are we allowing the DPJ large biz jets back in that we filed a grievance over? As far as I know there was only rumor out there that DAL agreed to cease and desist using these aircraft, but there was no formal announcement of the end state of this agreement. Was there? and if so, why are we allowing them now? Did we get a barging credit for this?

One last item in section 1:

Wrt to JV's the term "profit/loss agreement is used to define the need for a production balance. The definition reads:

means an agreement or arrangement in which the Company or an Company affiliate
37 in the economic performance of one or more other carriers and/or of its or
38 their affiliate or affiliates, through incremental revenue sharing or the sharing of
39 profits or losses in connection with the Company’s and the other carrier or carriers’
40 carriage of passengers. An agreement or arrangement that constitutes an
41 industry standard interline agreement, a codeshare agreement with a carrier
42 engaged in international partner flying in which there is no sharing in the economic
43 performance of the carrier’s flying through incremental revenue sharing or the
44 sharing of profits or losses, a prorate agreement, a sales/super commission
45 agreement, the Hawaiian and Alaska marketing agreements, and an arrangement
between the Company and any Company affiliate and one or more Delta Connection
2 Carriers is not a profit/loss sharing agreement.

What concerns me here is this:
If we enter in to a JV agreement with a carrier that is foreign government owned, or is heavily influenced by a foreign government, they may not desire to enter in to a traditional JV from the revenue sharing standpoint. They may decide to seek the JV for schedule and pricing abilities but want the financial side to more mirror a interline and or code share agreement. There will be no sharing of revenue. The revenue gained would be from what each side flew, and a finders feed to the booking airline. We would coordinate schedules and pricing but still incentiveize each airline to fly their own lift. Now I know this is not the purest form of a JV where its truly metal neutral, but its a possibility with airlines like KAL, JAL and EK, China Eastern or Southern, and it may be all DAL can get. With this language, there is no trigger for a production production balance.

Now I know you are going to tell me that this scenario is very unlikely, but that is not what I am asking. What I am asking is, is this scenario protected by the definition when the last sentence in the definition basically states that these are not considered profit loss. The only reason I am hitting the definition and not the actual JV production trigger language is because it centers around this definition.

Reality is we need a JV partner in Asia, and the playing field is currently taken expect KAL. It has been continually stated that KAL undercuts our NRT hub, and because of this, I do not see them agreeing to a JV in the traditional context. I see more of a CS type revenue scheme under the moniker of a JV.

Could we be setting ourselves up? Honest question.

 

With a planned of 1.76:1 there will be growth from the 717's. Why did we not up it a little closer to that ratio then.

The profit/loss definition was an expansion designed to capture any form of JV flying.[/QUOTE]

I have not been on here much, and did not see it in the thread I posted it so I asked it again.

Its been a few days since I read the TA in its entirety, so answer me this.

If we shrink necessitating DCI to shrink, they can park 50's to get in compliance correct? They are not required to park the new 76 seaters, as long as they are in the compliance with the ratio, correct?