So you want to keep the obviously more unprofitable planes longer? Do you think all new 76 seaters will just cover routes that we fly now, or will they and the 70 seaters cover routes those 148 50 seaters were flying unprofitably? We wouldn't get any more 76 seaters until we got 717s, and those 717s will probably be used to cover current 76 seater routes that could be more profitable with more seats on the route. More profits will allow us to buy even bigger planes, and tightened scope in this TA will allow us to fly them far away from ATL. That's what we want, right? To facilitate that dream, you have to get rid of unprofitable planes quickly. 148 50 seaters going away and unfortunately adding 76 seaters to cover for some of them in high oil will allow mainline to grow too. We have had terrible stagnation over the last 10 years, mainly due to age 65, but the 717s will help with that, and getting rid of as many 50 seaters as possible sooner will add to profits and add growth for us, with a ratio to keep DCI in check. I was Mr. DPA a month ago, but you really have to try to grasp the whole picture out there. It's tough, but huge changes and huge raises are just not achievable when AA is in BK and UAL/CAL can't figure out what to do either.

 

Bill,

Exactly how do you figure the 717s will help with advancement.

1. The first 21 717s will replace the last 21 DC-9s.
2. The new work rules allow DAL to fly us more and how do you know that they don't reduce International Flying more (Europe is falling apart) and just down bid pilots to fill the rest of the 717s (which won't start until after the first 21 (which by the way allows 17 brand new 76 seaters (type TBD)). So, in Jan 2014 we will finally have "growth" 717s which can be filled by the existing pilot force (theoretically we are over by around 300 pilots - with the early retirement program those retirements will get us back to normal staffing) and with the new work rules we easily have enough pilots to fill the slots of the lowest paying aircraft on property - the 717 - there will not be a growth AE under this contract - my only prediction - so continued stagnation through 2016 (the earliest we would get new pay rates and don't think the company will need another "fleeting opportunity in 2015 - they will force us through a true Section 6 and we will have to live with these work rules and Pay Rates until 2017 - think about it).

This carrot of 717s is a straw man by DAL and DALPA that will not help us with career stagnation. DAL does not have a growth plan - I don't have the exact numbers but I was in training in July 2001 when DAL hired their 10,000th pilot and I believe NWA had (some pNWA guy can help me out) had over 5,000 pilots so we have shrunk from 15,000 pilots to 12,000 pilots in a little over 11 years and with these new work rules there will be no hiring or advancement (don't think the retirement wave is here yet) under this contract.

 

If Europe is falling apart, where do you think that places us, in terms of negotiating on the traditional track?

 

Then why get the new MD90s? What are they for? There are probably many moving parts to the future of this airline, some Dalpa probably can't talk about. What type of flying would the 717s be doing? I see those LGA slots that we traded USair for that are initially slated for large RJs. Then throw more into ATL to do DC9 flying as they leave. It's still a plus in the 110 seat market.

And as I stated in another thread, who would leave a 20% pay increase and some work rule improvements on the table during the time it normally takes to negotiate (2 1/2 years after amendable date) a normal contract? That is nuts.

 

At 50% of Air France and KLMs contract.

 

You seem to be forgetting about the MD90's coming as well as 100 737-900ERs. And those aren't for certain a 1:1 trade. The fact that they are cash positive from day 1 gives the company extreme flexibility in how they use them. They are potentially capacity neutral, or capacity growth. It's obvious why we have fewer pilots too. Bankruptcy took a LOT of pilot jobs from Delta.

 

Bill;

In general, I think people agree with your statements above. The problem with the TA isn't that it was done rapidly.

The problem with the TA is that it:
Puts 70 more mainline replacement jets (not just feed, but replacement) in DCI.
Engraves the Republic exemption in stone.
Pursues the ALPA national agenda rather than the Delta pilot agenda.
Ties aircraft acquisition (shiny jet) to a scope concession.

If scope is for sale why not just find out what outsourcing the whole company is worth and be done with it?

When the Company came for the 36 seaters,
I remained silent;
I was not a 36 seat pilot.

When they locked up the 50 seaters,
I remained silent;
I was not a 50 seat pilot.

When they came for the 70 seaters,
I did not speak out;
I was not a 70 seat pilot.

When they came for the 76 seaters,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a 76 seat pilot.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Either stand up for your job, or pee it away for pennies. I hope we have a majority that see further outsourcing big RJs as a loss of strategic leverage.

 

Martin Niemöller

 

Heyas Bill,

I appreciate your comments, and we both want the same end-state, which is a great contract, we just simply disagree on how to get there. You're advocating slow & steady, like T.O., while I and others are advocating 'get it right the first time'. Put yourself on the other side of the agreement, on the side of management...when I do, I see a contract that meets my goals:

1) cost neutral
2) sets costs for the next 3 years for borrowing of capital
3) makes aircraft a 'pilot problem', when I know I'll do whatever makes economic sense for my fleet size & composition. It's all part of 'what will you give up if I add 717's and remove 50-seaters?'
4) sets a new normal for standard pay in a high profit environment for future negotiations
5) helps solve my pilot loss problem partially by making them work harder and calling it a raise
5) requiring a false sense of urgency in order to pass a substandard contract to take advantage of 'opportunities' that we as a company will do anyway.

Some things are worth fighting for to make it right. I'm fine with the current contract, especially the 70/76-seat limit. Heck, if this gets prolonged (which I doubt), they'll have to hire pretty soon because we aren't working harder under the current contract and they won't be able to increase outsourcing any more.

Bill, what were your limits you placed in the survey? How does it compare with this contract? Are you compromising the standard you set?

 

Excellent post! Goes to the heart of what is going on here! It's hard for me to even read what some junior guys are writing here on APC. We own the flying and are selling it...plain and simple.