Total DCI Seats
 

Guys,

Here are the total seats allowed currently and under the TA:

Current
76 x 153 = 11,628
70 x 102 = 7,140
50 x 343 = 17,150
Totals 35,918 Seats and 598 RJs


TA 2012
76 x 223 = 16,948
70 x 102 = 7,140
50 x 125 = 6,250
Total 30,338 Seats and 450 RJs

So the total number of RJs and the Total number of RJ seats will be going down - by itself this is good. But what is troubling is that the 50 seaters would be going away anyway. Another wildcard is frequency - which maybe the new Block Hour ratios would help with.

Food for thought.

Scoop

Scoop,

The 50 seaters will go away, for sure. We just have to wait about a decade, and hope engine technology doesn't change enough to make them viable again.

You know, when you put it in terms of seats now vs. seats proposed, it looks even worse.

That's only about a 20% cut but the 70 new airplanes allowed are SO much more capable and comfortable and mainline-like than the 50 seaters.

Unless of course you look at ratios and consider the attendant increase in mainline. That helps.

Without the purchase of more 900's, the 50 seaters would die a very slow death and wouldn't go away until 2022.

As a counter balance to that, we are sharply increasing the longevity of DCI by allowing 70 more jumbo RJs.

How so? Do you think 325 stay around longer than 255?

The 50 seaters will be gone by 2022ish.

Anderson has stated that when he buys an airplane, he plans on it staying around for 30 years. The 900's are much more viable and "mainline quality" type aicraft.

So, while I agree that DCI is smaller, we are enabling DCI to maintain a higher mass for longer by this agreement. In essence, trading 190 short term planes for 70 long term aircraft.


______


Taking this a bit further:

My major beef with this portion is the amount of jumbo RJs allowed. When I was briefed on this concept, I could have swallowed 30 or even 40 gain in exchange for the 50 seaters- but only about 75 50-seaters allowed to remain. Let them have a little bit more viability while reducing their mass significantly vice marginally. Everything in this TA is taken to the limit of what I could tolerate, and then over the edge into ridiculousness:

70 more Large RJs? Wayy too many while allowing too many smaller gauge jets to remain.

RAH fixed, but carved out for RAH forever with no sunset.

The pay?? Considerably lower than survey guidance and well below my limit. I don't see how you who gave so much in bankruptcy are not downright insulted.

DC- 1%... The pension was taken in BK and we only get one more 1% in the first section 6 after it?



I'll stop here, because these just illustrate my point that this thing wreaks of seeing how little they could get away with and possibly still get a pass.

OK, so I get that logic and it's a fair point. The new large RJ's would keep DCI around 3-4 years longer if airframe longevity determines their viability. The 70 seaters on average have a 15-17 year contractual life with DCI, so I think 30 is a bit optimistic for that space.

What does that have to do with anything? If they sign 2 year or 200 year DCI contracts, that doesn't mean at the end of those contracts those jets just go away. They are very clearly considered permanent jets. If they weren't, they would have a sunset clause to all of them, yet none of them do. When the leases run out, they will be renewed or given to a cheaper DCI carrier who "deals them an ace" to undercut another DCI carrier. The seat ranges and counts we give them will remain at DCI forever unless they become totally out of whack with CASM. The extra 90 seaters we are giving them insure fierce mainline CASM loyalty to DCI and not mainline for every seat of that lift for all eternity.

That's not the way it has worked so far...we once had a whole lot more 50 seat rj's and the first ones were delivered in 1993. That means a whole lot of them left when their DCI or EDC contracts were up, and that was well before 20 years. The 700's and EMB-170's are similary situated.

There's 311 of the 50's obligated through the end of 2015.

I really am curious what the current CRJ-200 number is. Seems to change a lot. But scoop I have this table:

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...d/TEMP1-34.png

Yes because the 50 seaters are pigs unless oil is 30/bbl like in their salad days. The 70 seaters and especially the 90 seaters are much more CASM sustainable (on par with mainline) and that is what is so horrifying about them being outsourced. They will never leave the fleet (unless something of greater CASM is built in which case they will just replace DCI with DCI and never mainline).

Want them here at mainline? What would YOU fly it for? Without knowing what each airline's benefit package is worth to it's respective pilots, let's play a game, but we have to make an assumption. Let's say that mainline's benefits package is worth 25% more than DCI's. Would that be fair? IT would mean that in order to compare payrates, we would have to subtract 25% from DCIs payrates in order to make them cost neutral to come to mainline. Ready...? A 7 year captain at Comair makes $79/hour. Care to do the math and tell me if we could fly them on mainline for that?

This is small potatoes in the big scheme of things. They will be capped... there is no reason to ever revisit that.. and it rids ous of 50s. There is too much obsession here.

We have payrates at DL for the 900s, and the CA rates are quite in line with what the actual pilots flying 900s at the regionals make. The FOs make more, management wants the whipsaw, and management wants a way out of the leases.

I don't have a problem with the theory, I have a problem with the sheer amount of additional jumbo RJs we are allowing in, and the amount of 70's and 50's allowed to remain. This TA doesn't rid us of 50s, either. It puts us about 5 years ahead on the count, and provides more 70's than would be around in 2015 to remain. (98 are committed to through 2015.. why not make that the cap?... don't forget that only 144 76 seaters are committed to through 2015)

Oh, and let me know how many year 7 Comair captains there are...

Speaking of capped. Wasn't 255 a cap? Hasn't that now been revisited? Or were you sucked in by the all caps "HARD CAP" from the bullet points? We're changing one cap for another cap.

There probably aren't any 7 year captains at Comair. And for those kind of rates, there won't be any at DAL either.. they will all be new hires.

Yeah 255 was a cap. Things change, and this was an opportunity to get rid of those 50s.. as you said.. 5 years early. Management will probably come to us in 3 years asking for more in order to get rid of the remaining 50s.. But for now I think it a good trade. More of OUR guys will make more money sooner.
The 76s aren't worth our time to fight like we are fighting. The 90s are ours.. and anything bigger obviously is. Turning this down will ensure the 50s are here a lot longer, and that will continue the stagnation. If you are OK with that, I am too. This is a good deal for the junior guys, and IMHO it will hurt them more to turn this down than it will me. The money sure would be nice though...

Oh, and I didn't read any bullet points.. I read the TA itself. I haven't read any NPs until afterwards for clarification of my conclusions.

Clamp,

Biggest problem with the whole outsourcing issue right there - there are no "real" caps.

No Scope Cap has actually stopped DCI growth. At times these so called CAPs have delayed growth until they could be contractually circumnavigated, either through "mis-interpretation" or mutual consent.

It would probably take at least three years for us to get to the new 76 "limit" and guess what happens then?

Scoop

+100000000000000. I dont understan why this is so hard? Why dont they get this?

TEN

So you only are concerned with fixing a short term problem. Sorry but as a junior guy i focus further out than that. According to you management will probably come to us again to get rid of the rest. I guess we will give them another 70 to dump the rest of them. Then dci will be completely 70 and 76 large RJs. What then? Those planes will be around a longggg time taking more of our routes.

Wow a whopping 3 more years as opposed to the headache of dealing with new 76 seaters for another 15 years. Unbelievable.

You're absolutely right, there is no actual cap. We're just a MOU/LOA away from another release. Or for that matter, a little inaction, like our not defeating RAH under the current contract.

I realize that this TA reduces the number of DCI seats and airframes. Aren't the ASM's roughly the same though? In other words fewer seats are actually equivalent to the same available seat miles?

As an outsider that flys 76 seat jets with Delta painted on the side, I would much rather have those airframes at Delta, even if the pay scale stinks. It would certainly be better to have the Delta work rules and benefits, but the real thing would be the career progression. I don't like always looking over my shoulder, waiting for the next sham regional bankruptcy or to be underbid by the next blowjet. I know the primary focus of your contract negotiations has to be what is best for you guys, but don't forget that what you do here has an effect on thousands of others that don't work for Delta.

Posted this question in the latest and greatest, but nobody answered.

Pinnacle’s bankruptcy underlies growing weakness of US regional carriers | CAPA

why would Delta finance and extend the contract until 2022 for 142 CRJ200's at Pinnacle? My guess is so they can swap them out 2:1 to get the CRJ9's at pinnacle with a new cut rate crew cost. 142/2=71 so it makes sense to me. They're using this in my opinion to make it look like a scope win and this was their plan all along. These CRJ2's could have just gone away at this point.

BINGO !!! People are finally starting to get it.

These new 76 seaters are going to be with us for a much longer time.

Economics has sentenced the 50 seaters to death. Even RA is on record admitting it.

So why would you want to keep RJs around longer, giving them newer shiny new jets?

Oh yeah, so we can get used 717s that nobody wants. Nevermind. :rolleyes:

That's why I said you can tell they management is lying by the lack of a sunset/expiration in the large RJ's. They want a permanent fleet of outsourced large RJ's with mainline CASM and turnkey profitability. 70 and especially 90 seaters are long term career killers that will never, ever go away. 50 seaters are very costly place fillers and are self expiring. No wonder they want to make a trade.

+1
We are making the threat of DCI more long term now. Replacing worn out POS planes with new ones that passengers love. Most passenegrs cannot tell the difference between a EMB175 and a 737. They hate the little cramped 50 seaters. We are giving them mainline similar airplanes...brand spankin new. Come on people...DCI is turning into mainline but without our pilots!

And while everyone is talking about fewer seats at DCI that is the thing that actually kills this deal. By trading profitable 76 seaters for 2.7 UNPROFITABLE 50 seaters then DAL will be able to meet the new block ratios without growing mainline (and in actuality shrinking mainline). Once again, we're negotiating ourselves right out of a job.

http://www.lynchbuslines.com/small_bus.jpg

http://www.wisoveg.de/bve/sichtungen...03/doppel2.jpg

Seems like a fair trade. Especially since the old little one needed an engine overhaul and tranny change. I was going to park my fleet of them anyway but wait, I am being allowed to replace these little, worn out ones with these bigger more efficient ones with premium seating? Seems fair to me. Thanks guys!

- Management

Regionals started as small turbo props, and it was because pay was associated with number of seats that pay was low, not because they were turbo props. As I recall, large turbo props were once flown by mainline. Today, the Q400, a 70+ seat turbo prop, flies all over the place for pay much less than that of an equivalent 70+ seat jet. Not only is it a regional aircraft now, but it is a turbo prop, so the pay gets a double whammy. Pay has somehow shifted from number of passengers carried to also look at the power plant used. What a scheme by management to further reduce pay.

In the mean time, regional jets grew from 35 seats, to 50 seats, to 76 seats, to 99 seats (Republic, sorry to have screwed the pooch on this one). And every time some argument was used with some imaginary cap on number of planes allowed. You limit the number of regional planes with 50 seats in them, and of course the word jet is applied, not aircraft, so now there are 50 more large, just as comfortable, turbo props flying around for you because you made an arrangement with management.

Delta pilots, I implore you, please do not make the mistake of allowing more large jets, turbo props, or 76 passenger gliders, balloons, etc, to be flown by regionals. Delta is not gonna keep those 50 seaters until 2024. Those f...ing things won't last that long. They are already falling apart. Customers hate them. They are loosing money by flying those things.

Do you really think you are winning by swapping 200 of them now for 70 more larger RJ's? Or do you think that the cap is real THIS TIME ;)

I fly for this POS operation called Republic, and I am trying to get out with all my might. Just for me, please don't allow them to get more flying. Please, don't fall for the BS that you are reducing the number of DCI seats. You would simply be swapping a ****ty RJ, one customers hate, for a really nice RJ, a brand new RJ, one customers really like.

+1

Until ALPA produces a TA that does not give away scope, I am a solid no. The proposed pay could be better too, but ultimately I want a future with a left seat in it.