I know exactly what their scope proposal is.

 

Time will tell, but the timing of it all is interesting.

The 717's; like a few other airframes will need to have replacement/ or extension plans in place in the next 3-7 years.

The 717/76 seat aircraft swap allows the C-Series debate to occur later, and as Slow pointed out, after AMR's contract is done. It means that the "line in the sand" can and will be debated again.

 

Where do you come up with this? The last of 88 717's won't even be delivered to Delta for 3 years. They are not planned as short term aircraft here. As to the other airframes, there's 85 737-900 and MD-90 coming in the next 3 years, with an additional 70 737-900 on order and option during the3 years after that. Extension plans are made about 1 year out (heavy maintenance scheduling).

 

We just passed up significantly larger raises to keep our seat limit at 76 (delta wanted 82). I don't see us changing our mind in three years.

 

I have not heard DALPA touting increased jobs as a result of the 717 deal. From what I can gather ALPA admits the changes in the contract will cost jobs but will hopefully be offset by early retirements. Since thay are admitting that with the “planned” early outs we will be pilot neutral I would expect them to be clearly explaining the number of growth position we can expect from the 717s as well as the MD90s and 737-900s. Since they are not this leads me to believe that the total result of aircraft deliveries and retirements will not result in any noticeable increase in pilot staffing.

To make a better decision on whether this TA is a good deal or not it would be nice to have an idea where Delta’s fleet count will end once the dust settles. If the 717s end up being mostly replacement aircraft as the MD90 have been, and the 737-900s are slated to be, this could end up in a fleet count not much more that the “767” mainline aircraft trigger Delta needs to exceed to start converting 70 seaters to 76 seaters. In order to convert all 70 seaters to 76 seat aircraft would require a fleet of 801 aircraft. The current mainline fleet is 720 so Delta would have to increase its mainline count by 81 (over an 11% increase in the fleet) aircraft to take advantage of the 3-1 language thanks to our current grievance settled contract language.

There are 20 DC9s that will be parked and Delta has already said it will be parking A320s, 757s, and 767s going forward so even without adding any additional 319s or MD88s that might be retired it already appears hard for Delta to take advantage of our current contracts 3-1 language. Also, note that Delta would have to get out of payments and contract on the 70 seat aircraft and park all of them in order to do this.

The company has already tried successfully to go around our contract and increase the number of 76 seat aircraft by putting orders on the books to take the mainline fleet above 767 but not accounting for the planned parking of other aircraft. This resulting in a grievance where DALPA allowed Delta to keep that aircraft that were in violation but they had to agree to actually abide by the contract language going forward. Shortly after this Delta again violated section 1 of our contract by purchasing several aircraft over the weight limit allowed in our contract for Delta Private Jets. After pressure from the pilot group there was another grievance filled resulting in a cease and desists for these aircraft. Now out of the blue these aircraft show up in the TA as permitted aircraft types.

Delta clearly violated the PWA and agreed to settle two grievances on scope with no monetary penalty, yet now we are giving back the language that was violated on both issues for no reason or monetary reward. By allowing Delta to start buying 76 seat aircraft and removing the requirement to increase the mainline fleet above “767” we are guaranteeing that the mainline fleet will not increase significantly if at all above this amount. This does not even take into account not having to park the 70 seat aircraft at the same time. We are also agreeing to outsource 5 addition aircraft that Delta already violated our contract with once before.

What is the benefit of our contract if we continually roll over on blatant violations of it? The ball is in our court our current contract language is the companies fleeting opportunity.

vpr

 

I asked a few reps if we are assuming the lease terms.(not the leases themselves) If that is the case then the first one start to expire in 2017.

 

Delta is not assuming the lease terms.

 

Slowplay,

Vpr has some good points in his above post. Will Delta have to hire due to this TA? If so is there a projected number of how many? Thanks.

Denny

 

Didn't an ALPA guy say the 717s would necesitate 1100 new pilots? Then, take away 250 for the ALV+15 type stuff, and then count the 250-300 who might take the early out package.

 

Denny,

I'll repost a previous answer I've given to a very similar question. Suffice it to say if anybody is promising you growth then they havent' worked in the airline industry. This agreement should be compared to our current agreement (where we actually are) and not to where we "wish" our agreement would be. Any stress test applied to this agreement should also be applied to our current agreement. Does our current agreement guarantee growth? Does our current agreement restrict DCI if mainline downsizes? The answer to both of those is clearly "no."

The block hour ratios in the TA ensure that Delta executes at a minimum level on their business plan, and that if it doesn't that Delta mainline isn't the only hydraulic accumulator in the system.

There are no mainline fleet counts in this agreement other than the delivery of small narrow bodies (B717)...there are block hour ratios. There is a DCI fleet count in this agreement. As DCI takes delivery of 76 seaters which is only enabled by mainline receiving SNB's, DCI must shrink according to a table in the PWA.

There is no guarantee of growth in this agreement. This agreement protects us if there's not growth and serves as a backstop to business plan failure. If management accepts delivery of all 88 B717's, then they get access to up to 70 76 seat jets AND they must reduce the DCI fleet to 450 by the end of 2015. 125 of those can be 50 seat jets. As described before, Delta currently has obligations to 311 of those aircraft at the end of 2015. They will also be capped at 223 76 seat aircraft and 102 70 seat aircraft. If they shrink mainline block hours below the minimum ratio, then for every hour mainline shrinks DCI will shrink more due to the requirement to maintain a 1.56-1 minimum ratio. If mainline grows, DCI will still be capped by the 450 aircraft limit and their physical ability to utilize the aircraft. Remember that DCI's fleet seating capacity is being reduced by 15-16% over time and they are currently (depending on month) 46-48% of domestic equivlent block hours. While the math isn't pure due to differences in aircraft utilization rates, if Delta stayed static whle DCI shrank there would be a significant capacity reduction going on in our domestic system, and almost all of it would be borne by DCI. That means that something else is going on that is negatively affecting Delta. Compare the contractual result in that case under the TA with our current scope, where management is unfettered except for furlough protections in downsizing mainline in favor of DCI.

Oh, and the planned ratio (not guaranteed) of flying is about 1.76-1. That number and even the backstop number of 1.56 are a far cry from today's 1.19-1.

Let me know if this is not responsive to your question, and I'll try again. I'm going to be away from the computer for most of the day, so any response will be later tonight.