Vertisch

Arent the 757s being parked? Wouldnt it be nice to see the 76 seaters have to go with them...

johnso29

No. The 757's are NOT being parked.

gloopy

How much of that 5-10% swing in our favor was going to happen anyway though? Many 50's are going to be parked. The company wants them parked. I'm against giving more DC-9 replacment jets to DCI to enable them to park more 50 seaters a few years faster. Also eventually, and at least for a little bit, the production balance from AF/KLM/AZ will swing back in our favor by several percentage points. We will get much or all of that 5-10% swing anyway eventually.

To even entertain the threat that the company will offshore the entire holding company to the Emirates ponzi scheme or whatever if we don't give in to more 76 seaters at DCI is pure nonsense. To think they have that leverage in the first place, and then to think that if they do that they will completely give it up just for more 76 seaters is even less logical.

Production balance can't be the only or even the primary yardstick we use. If that were true, we could increase the balance dramatically by insourcing all RJ's but outsourcing all 777's and 747's. Give up a few dozen planes and get a few hundred planes. What an epic block hour win, right? If production balance is the key as some claim, then outsourcing the top of the pyramid would produce the most bang for the buck. By far. So should we do that? And I'm not talking nebulous JV's...think Mesa with super premium widebodies, bidding to be the lowest among Kalitta, North American and 2 or 3 non union first year start ups, right here in the USA at Delta Connection International. Shouldn't that be the goal, as long as the production balance increases?

If not, why is it OK to sell management the lower end of the DC-9 range of mainline flying but not OK to sell management fewer pilot positions in larger equipment?

Selling flying to protect flying won't work long term. If the company has the leverage to shred the pilot group with ease with foreign labor busters, does anyone really think they will give all that up and give us peace in our time just for more 76 seaters?

All areas of scope have to be improved IMHO or we start the clock and work diligently towards a release to self help in full section 6 negotiations and strike for as long as it takes to fix these career oriented issues. The RLA is a long and unfair process but our CBA with early opening and accelerated timetables to mediation put us years ahead already. Putting a dirty infected band aid on the wound and having to deal with next contract with even more core domestic lift outsourced...when you KNOW they will want more large RJ's just like they do today...is a very poor long term stratedgy.

Carl Spackler

Everyone please read and understand this. Especially what's bolded.

This is the kind of critical thinking that needs to be done by all of us. If our union isn't able to and once again caves in to fear, we can fix this with a NO vote. We can give our union the backbone they may be lacking.

Carl

georgetg

The problem with the top-end scope is that unlike the RJs it is mostly invisible to you. While it is very easy to see 10 DCI 50-seat RJs as 500 seats for Delta, it's much more difficult to see the three Virgin Australia 777-300ERs as providing up to 525 seats for Delta.

I have a feeling once you look at the underbelly of multinational code-shares and JVs you will find a very real and growing threat to our career, because it has the biggest impact on the senior-most positions. Even worse the interaction of the various forms of outsourced flying can create situations where the feeder feeds the partner with no need for any Delta pilots. That situation currently exist at LAX.

Delta has 3-4 international flights at LAX. For reasons that exceed the scope of this post, Delta has decided not to feed the international flights LAX with DCI, but to have a codeshare agreement with Alaska Air. In essence at SEA and LAX, Alaska Air provides Delta with the same feed that DCI typically provides, but outside the limitations and restrictions imposed on DCI by the PWA.

When a Delta passenger in say SEA want's to travel to SYD, the Alaska Air 737 pilots fly the passenger to LAX and then a Delta 777 crew carries the passenger on to Sydney. The Alaska 737 feed, supports high-paying Delta 777 jobs by adding passengers to the LAX SYD flight.

So far so good.

Now Delta enters an agreement with Virgin Australia to collaborate on flying passengers from the US to Australia. Delta and VA enter into a JV agreement to share revenue on all joint US-Australia flights. (this JV is just weeks away) Delta operates a daily 777-200 LAX SYD flight, while Virgin Australia offer three daily US-Australia frequencies on 777-300ERs. Because this JV is a "revenue sharing" JV, there are only a few provisions in our PWA that govern this arrangement:

Delta needs to operate at least four flights/week to Australia.
In return, Delta is able to place up to 175 passengers on every VA flight, not to exceed 50% of the seats on each VA aircraft.
That's all we have.

So every day, our current Section 1 permits Delta the ability to sell 525 seats (3x175) on Virgin Australia to supplement the 269 passengers on our own 777-200LR. And unlike a traditional codeshare, where there is nothing more than a "finders fee" for passenger placed on other carriers, with the new JV, Delta and VA will be splitting the ticket revenue from all passengers on the Delta and Virgin Australia LA-Australia flights.

Back to our Delta passenger in SEA going to SYD. He goes on delta.com and searches for flights from SEA to SYD. To his surprise he finds that some of the results have the entire trip operated by non-Delta pilots. SEA LAX by Alaska air pilots and LAX SYD by Virgin Australia pilots. he might get Delta pilots from LAX to SYD, but that's just luck of the draw.
In the example above, Delta pays Alaska Air a fee to fly the passenger from SEA to LAX. In turn Alaska pays Delta a "finders fee" for providing a codeshare passenger. If the passenger chooses the LAX SYD leg that is operated by VA, Delta and VA will share the passenger revenue after subtracting the cost.

Unlike the RJs, you would never know any of this is going on unless you really started to dig and look at every possible combination of route and connection. The Virgin example is a very easy to understand one because it involves one US city and three Australian. This stuff gets really complicated when the number of cities and hubs is scaled up.

If I were Delta management, mindful of airline industry consolidation on a global scale, I would want my pilots to be worried about RJs and keep the current JV language in the PWA unchanged...

Cheers
George

georgetg

Gloopy, that is the essence of what we need to do!

Cheers
George

forgot to bid

Damn.

Gloopy and George are convincing.

acl65pilot

George,

Spot on. Pilots all over the seniority list are just starting to understand SJS, and we have had the problem for almost 20 years. These JV's et al are less conspicuous, and therefore need to be vetted by us each and every time DAL wants to sign one, independent of what type of economics or business model they are running under.

Gloopy, I am concerned at the noise EK is making. Wanting to buy in to AF is one way to control schedules and willingness to cooperate. In an article wit the AF CEP there is some silly talk about transferring a lot of their NA flying to their JV partners. After much thought it may just be a way for them to get out of the JV and embrace EK.

There is a lot going on in the international scene and all of us need to watch it, and educate ourselves accordingly.

dc10guy

Who wants the early contract? I believe the company wants it? Did they not come to us ? Why should we give up anything top or bottom? We should tighten both. I can not believe I am reading that some will give up anything. The company wants a contract fast for a reason. If we give up one more aircraftl to DCI or not tighten top end it is a NO VOTE. Try being Furloughed for 5 years while DCI grows and ALPA does nothing!! You can say it was forced on ALPA. That is Bull.

gloopy

We provide something EK can't even come close to replacing. A comprehensive domestic feed in the USA is far more valueable than the redundant arbitrary hub connectivity EK can provide. EK can't touch what we do in the US. Not even remotely close. It wouldn't suprise me if EK tries to buy into or partner with AF in some way...they have to try and put their little tinpot "EGO" bubble fleet somewhere, but it won't be the catalyst for kicking DL out of the AF JV because they would be in even worse shape afterwards with a huge chunk of revenue missing that they couldn't replace.