More suppositions. You can only count eggs that are in your basket! Can you really say that reducing the total seats at DCI and capturing some of that flying at the mainline is a bad thing? What, you really thing you can capture all of the DCI flying now? If we can do it at all, it will be done in incriments. Let's build on what we can capture now.

 

Did you have a threshold for a yes vote before this TA came out? Mine was a 30% raise and no increase in DCI. That's what I put in my survey. What did you put down?

 

No I don't think we can recapture it all now. But we should at least start by reducing the allowable 76 seaters, not increasing them for less 50's that are going away anyway. For those who say the 50's will be around for over 10 years, that's going to be the case with or without this TA because there will still be well over 100-150 50 seaters for a long time no matter what. But many of today's current fleet will be retired anyway. Giving up 70 more 90 seaters just to hasten the inevitable retirement of cost inefficient jets the company has too many of in exchange for 70 additional 90 seaters that are VERY cost effective and that can compete with, and directly replace, just about any mainline narrowbody lift on almost any route is a really, really poor ROI.

And why are we giving up 5 large DPJ jets that we JUST won a grievance on? Just giving them up!! Those are our jets and our flying. We OWN it and we are just giving it up...to a non union pilot group...to a subcompany that requires seniority resignation to work for if on furlough (and here we thought that was a big deal! LOL!)

 

I hope people realize the pay increases were based on a contract when DAL was in bankruptcy. DAL isn't in it anymore, and making buku $$$$$$. Mgt wants something and they want it yesterday. If DAL is in such a hurry, they will negotiate in a timely fashion.

 

Agreed, it does need to be done in increments. The first step is stop giving up any area of scope to fix the rest of it. That's the problem, the company has us chasing our own tails because we let it get this far. Why give more 76 seaters? The TA is not terrible in regards to section 1. Take the improvements in section 1 and limit the 70/76 RJ's to 255 and we've got solid progress in the right direction. That is the first step towards putting the Genie back in the bottle. The current TA is putting her back in, it also put a new hole on the other end of the bottle.

 

Agreed. I do like some of Section 1. It's the additional 75 jumbo RJs that turns me into a nayer. I don't believe the Yes voter realizes how damaging the 76 seaters are to our career. Yes, getting rid of the 50 seaters is in the right direction, kudos to our NC. But, I just can't fathom getting more of the same poison (if not even more poisonous) that we've been fed to is a good idea as well.

Do you rather have to trust our mgmt/union to comply with the ratio in this TA, or do you rather put a stop to competing RJ (ie 76 seaters, not 50 seaters) growth for once, and go from there?

 

Exactly. The 90 seaters we're giving up (while allowing to keep all 70 seaters) represent a collective fleet of 325 AC versus the current 255. This is the fleet that counts. A 2:1 reduction in much less relevant 50 seaters is an insufficient ratio even if one is going to entertain allowing more. Next contract they will still have 150 50 seaters and 102 70 seaters they will want to trade in for even more 90 seaters. If 2:1 is acceptable and even a "big win" by some, then by that line of thinking, C2015 will contain 126 more or a total of 451 90 seaters. That DC-9 replacement fleet with mainline CASM would be equal to our fleets of everything under a 757 and then some and it would be the equivalent of 225 current mainline aircraft. Even this TA's allowable number of 325 is about 140-150 mainline aircraft (rounded in favor of the current 70's remaining 70's versus the other example of all 90's seating 76).


Not only that, but I just can't see how this will be enforceable in good times, let alone bad times. The ratios, mile and hub limits will be the first things shredded in concessionary negotiations and even if we keep rolling in profits forever (not possible in this industry especially when your main strategy is the radically unsustainable shrinking to profitability) the enforceability is very suspect at best anyway. Is an arbitrator really going to uphold our contract by forcing the company to violate other contracts? While there may be some flexibility in the block hour utilization of DCI CPA's, you can't just go to zero at your sole discretion because I'm sure their CPA/ASA's specify a certain amount of flying/income, otherwise we could do that right now and transfer that flying to mainline with ease and the company and DALPA say we can't do that now, so how can we do that then?

 

I don't think you can ever "build" on a contract. Each contract is a new negotiation, and in 2015 when DAL/ALPA comes out with a new TA that retires more 50 seaters but adds 76 seaters (in return for 3-4% pay raises), there will be people saying the same thing that you are saying now: "It would be stupid to throw the TA back into the negotiating pot and risk giving up some of the gains"

I'm sorry, but we have to stop giving up any 70 & 76 seat aircraft to DCI, heck we should be REDUCING the number, not increasing it...

PWA: Cap of 255 70 + 76 seaters
TA: Cap of 325 70 + 76 seaters

Thats the part that keeps me from voting yes. That and the modest 13% pay raise over 2.5 years

 

maybe if money is the only thing you are voting for you would vote yes, but there are lots of other problems in this contract. look beyond the $$$$$$$$$$

 

If he's thrilled about the money in this contract, I've got a shiny penny in my pocket! What will he sign for that??

This thing falls so unbelievably short on pay bumps it's almost laughable. Especially if that's what you're focusing on!