|
Originally Posted by qball
(Post 1203451)
I haven't seen anything that would prevent them from drawing down block hours from the 50 seaters, perhaps even parking more of them and upping the block hours on the 76 seaters.
|
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1203573)
Anything except the physical limitation of a fixed number of airframes and their possilbe utilization rates. The 76 seaters have the highest utilization rate in the DCI fleet and the 50's the lowest.
Does the TA require them to maintain 125 50 seaters? Or are they just capped? |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1203574)
slowplay,
Does the TA require them to maintain 125 50 seaters? Or are they just capped? Speaking of which, what is the penalty cost for parking CR2s before the contracts are up? Because 1. if the cost to park CR2s is high for the company and we're bailing them out with the swap, are we being compensated properly for it? 2. If the cost is low, then why sign off on this CR9 swap for unwanted CR2s in the first place? Why not just do that now and not give up more 76 seaters? |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1203574)
slowplay,
Does the TA require them to maintain 125 50 seaters? Or are they just capped? |
Originally Posted by vprMatrix
(Post 1201530)
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 Carl |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1201555)
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... It is for this exact reason that we continue to see our scope language get better, but we continue to outsource more of OUR jobs. Language is one thing, defense is quite another. Carl |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1201672)
Slowplay,
Thanks for the quick response. I've been in this industry, oh, probably about as long as you have(:)) and understand about "promised growth." I removed the middle part of your post because I think I understand how the ratio's work for both the up and down sides. My concern about this is that in 2015 once all the 717's are delivered, the 76ers are at DCI, and the 1 to 1.56 ratio has been established, there is nothing preventing the company from parking older, larger, higher paying aircraft and remaining within the 1 to 1.56 block hour ratio. This is assuming your ratio of 1 to 1.76 is valid. I know, under our current agreement, nothing is preventing the company from parking aircraft now but, under the TA, throwing the 717's in the mix might make that decision easier for the company to make...... The final ratio is definitely something I really like about this agreement. I'm not thrilled with the additional 76ers, and like the tightening of JV/codeshare language. I'll be slammed but, over the years, I've pretty much gone along with union perspective and been a yes voter. This is the first contract TA where I really have my doubts.... Leaving on a 3 day in a few hours so I won't be around for awhile either. Denny Carl |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1201694)
Good Luck!:) I've tried to point that out with no success!
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 14. “Circumstance over which the Company does not have control,” for the purposes of 39 operations.28 Section 1, means a circumstance that includes, but is not limited to, a natural disaster; 29 labor dispute; grounding of a substantial number of the Company’s aircraft by a 30 government agency; reduction in flying operations because of a decrease in available fuel 31 supply or other critical materials due to either governmental action or commercial 32 suppliers being unable to provide sufficient fuel or other critical materials for the 33 Company’s operations; revocation of the Company’s operating certificate(s); war 34 emergency; owner’s delay in delivery of aircraft scheduled for delivery; manufacturer’s 35 delay in delivery of new aircraft scheduled for delivery. The term “circumstance over 36 which the Company does not have control” will not include the price of fuel or other 37 supplies, the price of aircraft, the state of the economy, the financial state of the 38 Company, or the relative profitability or unprofitability of the Company’s then-current What this language does is set forth a series of excuses that has almost no limits...thus the use of the term "includes, but is not limited to". Then later the language specifically delineates what it DOES NOT mean. This is the worst of all worlds because it allows everything in the known universe...except the 5 things specifically listed as to what it doesn't mean. It is absolutely awful language and is a vitrual get out of jail free card for management. Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1203626)
Great example of the MEC's one-sided story telling. The JCBA did indeed tighten scope language. But when management went after our scope language via the RAH loophole regarding holding companies, our own MEC refused to file a grievance because a single ALPA lawyer proclaimed that the language was not defensible.
Carl But.... Karl, you ignorant...groundskeeper. The language which you refer to was written in the PWA long before you were a Delta pilot, and it was authored to incorporate American Eagle, a wholly owned subsidiary of AMR. AMR has an airline that flies other than permitted aircraft. After that came Mesa, which flew other than permitted aircraft for USAirways. 12 years after this language was written you showed up and cried foul, claiming the scope language meant something that it didn't...and couldn't have...when it was written. You still can't handle the truth. Not one Delta passenger has flown nor one bit of Delta code has been carried on other than permitted aircraft that was allowed by this exception. There was no grievance filed because there was nothing to grieve. The lengths that you go to make stuff up is really getting pitiful, Ninja. Now that I'm logged in I won't have to see the untreated effluent that you're putting out. I wish our forum had this feature. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1203334)
You understand that what management opened for wasn't a new airframe type. What they opened for was to change the seat count on their existing fleet to 80/82 seats (older CRJ-900 can only handle 80, newer ones 82).
There was never a proposal that includes the airframes that you suggest. Now they suggest they'll rip First Class out of the 90s to put in more seats? Who would believe that ruse? ALPA apparently, since they're claiming victory at preventing 80/82 seat scope. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:10 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands