Why do you continually refuse to see that the number of 76 seaters without the TA can.. and probably will be.. higher than with the TA? While it is true that the 70s would disappear under current contract, the number of 50s does not have to shrink by one... single... airframe. Are you really willing to wait until 2024 for those leases to go away? Really?

It's YOUR captain seat that you are delaying with this line of reasoning...

 

For some reason, this reality is out of the visible light spectrum of those that are voting no on the scope issue.

 

And NOT park a single 50 seater...

 

Call me crazy, but I just don't see that as a big deal. I call in sick when I'm sick. I don't think it's unreasonable for the company to verify that you are sick if you are using that much sick leave.

 

We're not buying any more 76-seaters? Joy! I must have misinterpreted Steve Dickson's memo.

"As part of the domestic fleet restructuring strategy, Delta will have the ability to gain faster access to additional 76-seat RJs tied to mainline growth through delivery of 717s and as the 50-seaters are phased out."

Oh, and RA's comments.

"Delta will increase the two-class 76 seat regional jet fleet by 70 airplanes, which will increase our total large RJ fleet from 255 to 325."

 

I bet next contract those 70's as well as the remaining 50's will present another "opportunity" to "shrink DCI" with even more 90 seaters (or maybe larger). Its the logic of what we're doing that's the issue.

 

Are you high? RA has been talking about parking large numbers of 50 seat jets for quite some time now, it has always been the 76 seat CRJ-900s that he wanted to expand. Great job! Management gets everything they want to give you a meager pay raise that you deserve without ANY concessions. Once you finish reading this you, you can go shopping at the dump, for FREE, what a great deal.

 

Passing this TA most certainly will increase the number of 76 seat aircraft.

Here's some easy math:

Current PWA: Maximum of 255 70 + 76 seat aircraft.
Proposed TA: Maximum of 325 70 + 76 seat aircraft.
Difference: 70 additional 76-seat aircraft if we pass this TA and get 88 717s

They've already said "additional 76-seat RJs tied to mainline growth" and they have already contracted to lease 88 717s if we pass this TA. That means if we get 88 717s we will most certainly get 70 76-seaters.

That's fine if that part of the TA does not bother you, but I'm not misstating anything. I'm just going by what RA, SD and ALPA have told me.

Still a solid no.

 

Have you not seen how many 50 seaters are being parked by Comair? We did not have to give them anything to park them. Many more will continue to be parked. You keep throwing out 2024. How many are under lease until then? I will point out one thing. Our current scope sucks...plain and simple. I am not voting to keep our current contract. I want the ability to get more 76 seaters eliminated period. Neither our current contract nor this TA have enough restrictions on large RJs. When the next contract time rolls around in 2015, do you give them another 70 large RJs to park the rest of the 50s?? Then the DCI will be completely larger RJs. Holy crap. You just replaced their least competitive airplane with a full fleet of new highly competive equipment ready to fly anywhere our domestic fleet goes. Congrats...outsoucrcing will advance up to the next level.

 

I agree. It's a lot easier to evaluate different viewpoints when you aren't seeing red.

But y'know what bothers me about this particular conversation? Here am I, Joe Bag O'Donuts, trying to calculate the value of this TA. How is it possible that ALPA hasn't paid someone to write an algorithm that allows a guy like me to input his ALPA #, then have the algorithm spit back the delta represented by the TA based on his last year's schedule? Right now, we can't even agree on the data set we're using to make our decision.