That is a good question, and not one I have seen a good answer on.

The focus seems to be on the "opportunity" to swap leases between 50 and 76-seat jets. We permit that and get rewarded with 717s and the MBH-DBH ratio. Then there is the reduced number of DCI jets from 598 to 450. Fewer but more efficient RJs give Delta a small but high ROI fleet vs maintaining a large low ROI fleet of 50s especially considering the MX cost speed bumps ahead. Since capacity discipline is the de rigueur buzzword at DAL these days, the swap of 50s to 76-seat RJs presupposes a reduced fleet. I wonder how many 82-seat RJs it would have taken and how small the RJ fleet would have been, had we taken that deal...

What if the TA presented us with a really "creative approach" to use Ed's words:
Maybe we should permit DCI to fly 18 777s on a capacity neutral basis.
Boeing buys Delta out of the remaining 50-seater leases.
In turn Delta orders the 18 777s for DCI and gets the 717 for a song.
We would keep 100 50-seaters - just because - and have DCI capped at 118 jets total.
The ratio could be 1 777 for every 18 717 at mainline.
Obviously we would protect ourselves with a 6 to 1 and with the MBH to DBH ratio. Wouldn't that be a win?

• Delta gets the added revenue
• Delta gets to eliminate unproductive 50-seaters and avoid the upcoming MX cost
• DCI permanently capped at 118 vs 598
• 6:1 MBH to DBH ratio really takes back the flying from DCI to mainline
• Boeing gives Delta the 717 for free only because we order the 18 new 777s for DCI. (otherwise this deal will go away)

From a logical calculating non-emotional perspective why not?
Would this be different from the TA proposal? Wouldn't we finally get a huge reduction in outsourcing from 598 to 118 a reduction of more than 80%
Why is the 76-seat "line in the sand" more valid than the "number of airframes" line or the block-hour ratio?

Cheers
George

 

One row of first class comes out and two rows of regular coach go in, for a net increase of 5 seats for a total of 81 seats.

Don't think Delta would do it if the could? Look at the expense in remodeling the mad dogs (removing aft galley etc) for a net increase of 7 seats (2 first and 5 coach). They are doing that as fast as they can.

They would do it to the 900's in a heartbeat if the TA permitted it.

 

Your logic is flawless.

DAL "yes" guys have latched on to the "we will have less airframes" argument to justify their concessionary scope deal.

They are now giving up mainline size airplanes that can fly far and carry big loads. That's very different from the 50 seaters that Mother Delta wants to scrap anyway.

Following this logic, they can give up 300 737's and brag about how they are improving scope since they are parking a larger number of small planes.

If this is what they negotiate during GOOD times, can you imagine what they'll give up when the next big downturn comes? (hint...the ratio system will be GONE!)

Not hard to see if you've been watching the industry for the last 15 years...

 

DALPA 2008 LOA 19 FAQ
Consolidation will lead to less market fragmentation, which in the long run will create a need to up-gauge many domestic markets, lessening the need for many RJ’s. Currently, high fuel prices make it difficult to achieve profits using 50-seat RJ’s and we see a continued drive by Delta to reduce the use of those aircraft in the future.

DALPA 2012 TA
The rumor that, absent this deal, Delta will simply send the 50-seaters to the desert on their own is at best partially true; over time, it will probably happen, but not for well over a decade.

 

Hah! Priceless! I'm kind of grudgingly proud of RA right now, although I hate the result. Clever bugger is about to get the pilots to pay for something he's been itching to do, and get to outsource mainline-sized planes in the process! Too bad that all the various other suppliers and financiers RA deals with are smarter than pilots.

 

No, they're just not as fearful as some here.

Carl

 

Great post 73n.

Never underestimate: management's ability to get more than the "estimators" thought out of a change, or: a lesser amount than the "estimators" thought we would get in benefit from some changes. The typical responses would follow: "we never thought.....we'll get them next time....we did not anticiapate....."


Not to mention one of the "mitigators" to the loss of pilot postitions caused by the ta is based on people taking a retirement package. Something they have absolutely no real idea of the impact of without knowing how many, if any, will take it.

There seems to be a little too much "blind faith" being used around these ta discussions. Especially in light of past history.

Yep. Not much of a payraise to be had if you are getting bumped from the little bus or 757 to a 717 pay scale. It could very well end up being an effective pay decrease when taking the loss of profit sharing into account.

 

Translation: I got nothing here so I've no other choice but to name call.

Translation: You're not even a real Delta pilot so shut up.

Translation: I still have nothing, so now I have to mention a bunch of things that have nothing to do with why DALPA took the side of management when determining the intent of the language.

Translation: Man I hope that ignorant greenskeeper doesn't highlight that statement of "other than permitted aircraft"...and I REALLY hope he doesn't point out that the RAH loophole allows Delta to subsidize and keep afloat a competitor that would probably fail without Delta's help. And I REALLY hope he doesn't mention that this TA now makes this RAH loophole a permanent part of Delta's Section 1.

Translation: Especially when a single ALPA national lawyer says publicly that you've got no leg to stand on because the language written by ALPA national was so weak...BEFORE a grievance was filed.

Translation: There may still not have been enough name calling in this post. I'll add a few more to make sure people will not focus on what I've said.

Translation: I prefer my treated effluent so much better. Back to putting Spackler on the ignore list along with the elected reps.

Carl

 

I didn't say they rolled over. Since we are in extra early openers right now, regardless of how full blown Section 6 goes and our timeline in it, we don't have the leverage of even a potential strike down the road. IOW, this round the ball is all in the company's court. So I believe the NC when they say "this is all we could get right now"...the operative part being right now. This is all the deal is worth to them, right now, with zero strike leverage on our part even theoretically. If the company wanted to offer one penny per year to be split 12000 ways, then technically that's "all we could get", right now. But "right now's" offer may or may not be the best long term deal for us, especially considering the numerous give backs and quids in the TA.

My issue with what you said is your implication that basically any offer to increase DCI size/weight/seat counts automatically becomes a new era starting point where we then have to "negotiate it down". That is rediculous.

As for me being a hypocrite for not running for NC, well, doesn't that standard apply to anyone with an opinon on the TA? Unless we have 12000 pilots on the ballot then everyone that didn't run has to shut up and color and take everything presented to them without challenge? Really?

 

But that's exactly what management offered Gloopy, and we took it. They offered a cost neutral TA and we took it. The company demanded every gain be paid for by an offsetting concession to fund the gain...and we said yes.

Carl