Did it ever occur to you that Delta really wanted more 76 seat RJ's all along? The 80/82 seat could of all been smoke and mirrors to achieve their desired goal of more 76 seat RJ's? This leaves the Delta pilots feeling that the additional outsourcing of more 76 seat RJ's was actually a win.

nwa, I hope you're right and we don't give up more in three years. So far every contract going back a decade has given up more and more scope. If during record profits coming on the heals of our massive sacrifices we are giving up more scope I worry about the next downturn. The trend line is still giving up more and more large RJ's. But I suppose we'll get em' next time! Wait a minute, this is next time!

Any yet again, management moves the ball closer to their goal. Outsourcing as much of the domestic fleet as they can.

 

There are no promises of growth in this agreement, just substantial downside protections embodied in the capturing of block hours shifted from DCI to mainline.

If Delta executes on their business plan the additions of B717 and certain other retained aicraft would require slightly more than 1000 additional pilot positions to be added. Productivity changes should be offset by staffing formula increases and the early retirement program. None of that is guaranteed.

What is guaranteed is the block hour ratio and contractual fleet caps on DCI. The percentage of Delta passengers flown by Delta pilots will go up substantially with this agreement, even if Delta shrinks.

 

Industry leading scope concessions.

 

False statement.

The JCBA signficantly tightened scope compared to the 2 pre-merger airline standalone scope. The Atlantic JV significantly tightened scope.

Conventional wisdom isn't always...

 

Still bitter at DAL for not asking you to step aboard.

 

Slowplay

Your facts will always prove that each contract is better than the last. So how is it that compared to 20 years ago flying that was once mainline is now outsourced? If every agreement is good for us, why is the trend towards DCI flying jets that directly compete with mainline increasing?

As the 19 seat turboprops didn't threaten mainline jobs, I don't think the 50 seat RJ will either. The 90 (76) seat RJ can do just about every mission that the 88 can.

I appreciate your input Slow, as you provide some great points. I want the TA scope section with the cap of 255 for the 70/76 seat RJ's. Anything other than that is a concession to me. If the next TA tries to get rid of all of the 50 seat RJ's in exchange for 450 70/76 seaters is that going to be a win as well? What if they tie that to a widebody aircraft order? Maybe one they needed anyway?

 

So, you want to keep planes that don't make money? Capping the 70/76 seaters means having to keep MORE of the 50 seaters, and those obviously don't make enough money in this environment. If Delta parks 150 50 seaters, will they just stop flying to all of those cities? No, the 102 70 seaters will take over and try to make money on those original 50 seater routes. The 76 seaters will fill in where the 70 seaters leave, and the 717s (88 of them BTW, a lot) will cover routes that we now see 76 seaters. It's the only way to improve the profits and lower the CASM during high oil. Tie the 717s up to the additional 76 seaters, and that means mainline growth, or NO additional 76 seaters. Then throw in a ratio that helps us and not DCI, and that is a win.

The only way to make a widebody order is to actually MAKE MONEY, and tons of 50 seaters flying around isn't helping. Those leases will not be cut unless they can trade up to larger. Parking 150 50 seaters can only help us.

 

the TA fleet caps of 450/325 DCI are as guaranteed as the 255 fleet cap is on jumbo RJs.

keeping that in mind, how am I supposed to believe the 1.56 ratio will remain when it's deemed uneconomical?

I think the only thing that is guaranteed is "there are no promises of growth in this agreement."

 

I actually agree with that post. Seriously. They can have all the RJ's they want. Put Delta pilots in the pointy end of the tube and I'm sold!

 

Using that logic payrates should never change, workrules should never change, your counterparty in a negotiation never has needs, business plans should never change, etc. I don't subscribe to your logic. 80 doesn't like the term "hard cap." It's a contractual cap.

As to your beliefs...can't help you there. But the economy is specifically listed in the TA as one of the reasons the ratio can't change.