|
Put another way, Bill...would you let them outsource 35 A320s in exchange for parking 200 50-seaters they wanted to get rid of anyways? Because that's precisely what this does. The modern jumbo-RJs are half an A320 with similar economics, range, and route structure. I've landed the E175 at 83 airports in 40 states and 5 provinces - so much for regional, eh? *Many* of the routes I fly are ex-A320.
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1201578)
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."
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1201597)
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.
Per your logic... it's okay to cross that line?
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1201597)
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.
After all...
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1199897)
A contract is a contract...man that brings up bad memories.
|
editorial...You've posted the same thing in a couple of threads and now I find myself reposting items...it would be easier if we all stuck to posting in just one thread rather than posting the same thing in multiple threads. end editorial The TA protects mainline pilots from failure to execute the business plan. The TA guarantees in every environment that a higher percentage of Delta passengers will be flown by Delta pilots. And you guys accuse me of spin by omission.... Be careful, or I'll channel my inner Scambo... Oh, and don't let roadkill see this... How many 50 seat contracts can be renegotiated with this TA. How many can be renegotiated without this TA. Hint - it's not the same number. While you are correct that 70 large RJs to trade is good leverage I would still like to know what Delta could do without 70 large RJs to know if this is a better deal. As I have stated before Delta could easily negotiate out of the 50 seat contracts a little early by offering a little increase in the terms of the ASA agreements. Really? Please..... Oh, tell me what happened again at Independence Air? Delta ate DorkJet leases for a long time due to our contractual provisions. Oh, and if the 76 seaters aren't delivered the ratios are still in place to provide a backstop that we currently don't have, and Delta still has contractual caps on DCI that they currently don't have. Next.... You are right about Independence Air. I will add that this was under a much "dumber" management team. Obviously is was very bad negotiates to allow no penalty in ACA's contract if through actions they took they became non-compliant. RA and team have proven much better at getting what they want. I think I have already given several examples of RA winning and ALPA living to fight another day. The trouble is we are giving back what little we won in the process with this TA. |
Originally Posted by JungleBus
(Post 1201680)
Put another way, Bill...would you let them outsource 35 A320s in exchange for parking 200 50-seaters they wanted to get rid of anyways? Because that's precisely what this does. The modern jumbo-RJs are half an A320 with similar economics, range, and route structure. I've landed the E175 at 83 airports in 40 states and 5 provinces - so much for regional, eh? *Many* of the routes I fly are ex-A320.
No, I wouldn't let them fly anything over 76 seats. Neither would ALPA, as seen in the last day of negotiations (supposedly). Where will those 70 and 76 seaters go when 150 50 seaters are parked? Anyone? Will they just stop flying to half of the city pairs out there? No, they will cover those same cities with larger planes. Where would we fly 717s? On nonstop transcons from NY to LA? No. They will fly regional flights that current 76 seaters are flying, which in turn will cover 70 seaters covering the parked 50 seaters. Not hard to connect those dots. As far as your E175 flying ex 320 routes, that has actually been swinging the other way as of late. A buddy on the small bus said he did a FAY layover recently, and also a Gulfport. Those were previous DCI routes that are slowly being changed back to mainline. Expect more of that with 717s coming. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1201597)
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. FTB, You generally have made some great points but I have to agree with Slow on this one. If you think the Union will not enforce the contract on scope then why would they enforce it on other sections? I'm not going for the: the union is in mangements back pocket argument. If that were the case we would be giving them as many large RJ's as they want, no ratios, and no pay increases etc. Denny |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1201682)
Per my logic, giving away jobs to another airline is a line I will refuse to cross.
Per your logic... it's okay to cross that line? Well, if they need relief I'm sure we can give them relief on the 1.56 if they need it. After all... Remember, we're just trying to hit singles, maybe doubles, maybe hope the pitcher balks but we'll probably tell the Ump that's okay and just maybe... get hit in the head with the ball. Moving something like the 1.56 ratio if they need it moved will pay dividends next time on something I'm sure. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1201682)
Per my logic, giving away jobs to another airline is a line I will refuse to cross.
Per your logic... it's okay to cross that line? Okay, how about this logic, we are not giving away jobs, we are actually taking them back. I don't remember exactly how many 50 seat rj's are being parked about 145 (?). Say 10 pilots (5capt,5fo) per aircraft, that's 1450 fewer pilots at another airline. The diffence is in what size aircraft the remaining pilots at DCI fly. Well, if they need relief I'm sure we can give them relief on the 1.56 if they need it. Well, all I can say is, with this logic, you will never vote in favor of any contract because you don't believe it will be enforced and we will given them relief on anything. If that's the case, why haven't we just bent over backwards and give the company more 76ers now? They clearly want them, what has stopped us from just giving them more under the current contract? After all... Remember, we're just trying to hit singles, maybe doubles, maybe hope the pitcher balks but we'll probably tell the Ump that's okay and just maybe... get hit in the head with the ball. Moving something like the 1.56 ratio if they need it moved will pay dividends next time on something I'm sure. See above. Denny |
Originally Posted by FIIGMO
(Post 1201558)
Still bitter at DAL for not asking you to step aboard.
|
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1201568)
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. |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1201711)
Sorry FTB just gotta throw the above at ya!:)
Denny |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:27 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands