New flaw in TA scope
05-30-2012 | 04:29 PM
#71
Sho me da money!
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
From: B25, Left
FIIGMO,
As long as you understand the risks (and I maintain there is a large populations of DAL pilots that don't know or even worse, don't care). The information about this TA put out by the MEC and LEC reps is so one sided (like the 1000 hour a year pay argument by Tim O - I have never seen 900 hours under PBS let alone a 1000) that it's hard to believe anyone is making a really informed decision. This raise and the increase in their other benefits is good enough and don't care about the downsides. I fully respect your decision to make an informed decision and vote yes. I hope that before the final voting you may see that the risks actually out weigh the benefits (even though the benefits are definitely bird in hand).
As long as you understand the risks (and I maintain there is a large populations of DAL pilots that don't know or even worse, don't care). The information about this TA put out by the MEC and LEC reps is so one sided (like the 1000 hour a year pay argument by Tim O - I have never seen 900 hours under PBS let alone a 1000) that it's hard to believe anyone is making a really informed decision. This raise and the increase in their other benefits is good enough and don't care about the downsides. I fully respect your decision to make an informed decision and vote yes. I hope that before the final voting you may see that the risks actually out weigh the benefits (even though the benefits are definitely bird in hand).
) but I see how that view can be taken with anyone with a yes vote in this very important TA. I have heard comments on the other side that can be viewed as arrogantly dangerous by flat out rejection of any compromise and a burn it all down mentality. Both extremes will serve no one in the long run. Carl, I do not see it as a weak position to accept this TA that will further erode any progress going forward or prime mgts objectives in the future. What is the cost to us as a group and our families by rejecting the TA and getting less. RA has a plan B and when we do go back it will not be with any gains in this TA. A risk for sure. Still listening.FIIg
05-30-2012 | 04:35 PM
#72
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
I really appreciate the respect all of you have shown with regard to my decision going forward. Carl, BAR, DAL73 et al; all good inputs and interesting perspectives. The basic point is we can have this good exchange and not sling insults. I will keep listening, it is the smart thing to do and I hope all share any info that is gleaned from all sources. I dont think Carl was attacking my manhood (was he?) but I see how that view can be taken with anyone with a yes vote in this very important TA. I have heard comments on the other side that can be viewed as arrogantly dangerous by flat out rejection of any compromise and a burn it all down mentality. Both extremes will serve no one in the long run. Carl, I do not see it as a weak position to accept this TA that will further erode any progress going forward or prime mgts objectives in the future. What is the cost to us as a group and our families by rejecting the TA and getting less. RA has a plan B and when we do go back it will not be with any gains in this TA. A risk for sure. Still listening.
FIIg
) but I see how that view can be taken with anyone with a yes vote in this very important TA. I have heard comments on the other side that can be viewed as arrogantly dangerous by flat out rejection of any compromise and a burn it all down mentality. Both extremes will serve no one in the long run. Carl, I do not see it as a weak position to accept this TA that will further erode any progress going forward or prime mgts objectives in the future. What is the cost to us as a group and our families by rejecting the TA and getting less. RA has a plan B and when we do go back it will not be with any gains in this TA. A risk for sure. Still listening.FIIg
When this is over, the TA passes or fails, we go to the next step, and move on with the will of the group. It is merely the opening act in a five act play.
Hindsight will be 20/20 just like C96 and C2K. We will learn from it. There will be some procedural changes on the way the MEC operates as well. It is important to have differing views to come to a consensus. Keeping it respectful and level headed is the key.
05-30-2012 | 04:35 PM
#73
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
[QUOTE=scambo1;1201247]
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?
Bar with the 717 delivery schedule to end about the end of 2015 and the 76 seaters probably being on property by then; Does it not set the stage of DAL hitting their DCI limits at the time of another bargaining round? What is the history on the property at these pressure points?
These new RJ's allow DAL to fly the sublease lift another 15 years. Changing out the 70's for 76 seaters under the current agreement would allow the same. In the current agreement the 50's are unlimited, and in the new one they get capped. In the near and mid term the 50's are going to go away. With this agreement 76 seat jet count will go up, 70's are static.
In five years the 70's leases will come up, 50's will be retiring, and DAL will want to offer a lower DCI cap by parking more 50 seaters and returning 70's for a mere six extra seats for those 102 aircraft. What's the harm? See where this is going? Does it offer the solution you seek?
*You wanted a counter point, look in to the future and see that the timing of our next round works well for more scope redos, an overall lower level at DCI, but in turn more aircraft operated as 76 seat aircraft.[/QUOTE]
Dam skippy.....
These new RJ's allow DAL to fly the sublease lift another 15 years. Changing out the 70's for 76 seaters under the current agreement would allow the same. In the current agreement the 50's are unlimited, and in the new one they get capped. In the near and mid term the 50's are going to go away. With this agreement 76 seat jet count will go up, 70's are static.
In five years the 70's leases will come up, 50's will be retiring, and DAL will want to offer a lower DCI cap by parking more 50 seaters and returning 70's for a mere six extra seats for those 102 aircraft. What's the harm? See where this is going? Does it offer the solution you seek?
*You wanted a counter point, look in to the future and see that the timing of our next round works well for more scope redos, an overall lower level at DCI, but in turn more aircraft operated as 76 seat aircraft.[/QUOTE]
Dam skippy.....
05-30-2012 | 04:35 PM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From: A330
You forgot to include AMR
AMR 1113C proposal:
255 88 seat RJ's or 1/2 of mainline fleet (currently allow 300 88 seat RJ)
APA agreement with USAirways (at current fleet size)
308 81 seat RJ's
352 up to 70 seat RJ's.
The judge is supposed to rule on the 1113C motion late next month. AMR/APA are in court supervised meidation right now, and a deal is possible before the ruling.
AMR 1113C proposal:
255 88 seat RJ's or 1/2 of mainline fleet (currently allow 300 88 seat RJ)
APA agreement with USAirways (at current fleet size)
308 81 seat RJ's
352 up to 70 seat RJ's.
The judge is supposed to rule on the 1113C motion late next month. AMR/APA are in court supervised meidation right now, and a deal is possible before the ruling.
Well, here is AMR's CURRENT CONNECTION numbers and not a PROPOSAL. This is what they are currently at.
CRJ700 - 47
EMB135/140/145 - 221
ATRs (going to be parked) - 36
AMR has ZERO CRJ900s or E175s compared to DCI's 153
AMR has 47 CRJ700s/E170s compared to DCI's 102
AMR HAS 47 LARGE RJ's compared to our 255.
05-30-2012 | 04:36 PM
#75
Banned
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
This is what DCI will look like in 2020...
2020 with new TA
111 50 seaters
325 70+ seaters
450 total RJs
2020 without this Ta
111 50 seaters
255 70+seaters
366 total RJs
So with this TA, DCI will actually be bigger!
These numbers are based on known lease numbers obtained from alpa rep.
2020 with new TA
111 50 seaters
325 70+ seaters
450 total RJs
2020 without this Ta
111 50 seaters
255 70+seaters
366 total RJs
So with this TA, DCI will actually be bigger!
These numbers are based on known lease numbers obtained from alpa rep.
Also, do you want to keep planes that don't make money for us? I want Delta to make money on each route so they can eventually buy us more widebodies to fly to exotic places. Maybe you don't? A 70 seater going to Dothan may make more than a 50 seater.
A lot of you guys are mad. You are mad at the initial reaction for the pay raises or lack of pay raises. I can understand that. Try to look at what is going on with our peers, the ones the NMB is looking at. Then look at the duration of this contract, and the improvements, there are many. At the end of this new contract, our 737 pilots will be paid more than SWA pilots are paid now (including our DC contribution which is added even if we don't add a dime, vs they have to contribute) and they will try for more, but recent quarters for them haven't been great. Our scope will have limits and ratios that will help us. And, those 717s should fly on routes that CR9s are flying now.
05-30-2012 | 04:38 PM
#76
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
One more point Bar. The DCI carriers are probably less willing or unwilling to modify the 70 seat CPA's whereas they are more than willing to take a sustainable 76 seat jet for a few 50's.
05-30-2012 | 04:40 PM
#77
Banned
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
Well, here is AMR's CURRENT CONNECTION numbers and not a PROPOSAL. This is what they are currently at.
CRJ700 - 47
EMB135/140/145 - 221
ATRs (going to be parked) - 36
AMR has ZERO CRJ900s or E175s compared to DCI's 153
AMR has 47 CRJ700s/E170s compared to DCI's 102
AMR HAS 47 LARGE RJ's compared to our 255.
CRJ700 - 47
EMB135/140/145 - 221
ATRs (going to be parked) - 36
AMR has ZERO CRJ900s or E175s compared to DCI's 153
AMR has 47 CRJ700s/E170s compared to DCI's 102
AMR HAS 47 LARGE RJ's compared to our 255.
05-30-2012 | 04:42 PM
#78
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 827
Likes: 10
From: metal tube operator
I havent seen any indication that this mgmt team wants the publicity, or the possible labor dispute that could carry on for many years to happen here. RA wants his team all squared away to chase the big bucks, and we are his star quarterback. I wouldnt sell ourselves short in any case.
05-30-2012 | 04:43 PM
#79
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
They will when their lease are up, but I do not suspect they would do that now. If they would you will have 255 76 seaters not 102 70's and 223 76 seaters, or 325 70+ seat aircraft.
If they swapped out 70's for 76 seaters and we assume the 70's all operate at 64 seats its 1224 more seats, and that assumes no 50 seat jets get parked, which will not be the case. I also do not think that Bombardier will do a swap of 70s for 76 seat jets. Not with removing the entire early termination penalty. Not even close. If that was the case or even was possible, I suspect we would have seen that sort of thing to 255 in the TA; We don't and that is proof in the pudding. They want to keep the 70's on their current leases because the market is gone. The market for the 50's is gone, all that is left is the 76 seat market and they prefer to keep the production line open versus lease swapouts.
What the current TA does is allows the company to park 50's that are not quite up for their lease terms, swap them for some of the 50's that are newer and reduce their debt obligation. It lowers DCI's seat count sooner but at the expense of airplanes that are viable for 10-15 more years.
As you have constantly stated, every time we hit a new scope limit, its moved. That is the point of my last post. We are moving/modifying it now and have previously for some level of protections. The last time was for furlough protections. This time it is for a production balance that will force parking more 50 seaters(part of my concern is that these CPA's will not be adjusted and if the ratios force a pulldown, the existing language will not allow it to occur-beyond the company's control) Next time it will be the 70's and more 50's. I ask you, is this plan acceptable to one that wants unity? Do the next few steps ensure that for this group and pilots as a whole?, or are you going to fail safe mode because it appears it may do something that we want, but you cannot put your finger on what is missing?
I really want to know? My biggest concern is with the non-compliance language and how it is not specifically written for this part of the PWA but is a term that has been used for other items and has not been modified.
DCI does get reduced overall. DCI gets more larger sustainable lift. DCI may need something like this again in the next round. If it looks the same is it something that you and the pilot group should support even if it extends the life of DCI and does not necessarily sunset the outsourcing?
If they swapped out 70's for 76 seaters and we assume the 70's all operate at 64 seats its 1224 more seats, and that assumes no 50 seat jets get parked, which will not be the case. I also do not think that Bombardier will do a swap of 70s for 76 seat jets. Not with removing the entire early termination penalty. Not even close. If that was the case or even was possible, I suspect we would have seen that sort of thing to 255 in the TA; We don't and that is proof in the pudding. They want to keep the 70's on their current leases because the market is gone. The market for the 50's is gone, all that is left is the 76 seat market and they prefer to keep the production line open versus lease swapouts.
What the current TA does is allows the company to park 50's that are not quite up for their lease terms, swap them for some of the 50's that are newer and reduce their debt obligation. It lowers DCI's seat count sooner but at the expense of airplanes that are viable for 10-15 more years.
As you have constantly stated, every time we hit a new scope limit, its moved. That is the point of my last post. We are moving/modifying it now and have previously for some level of protections. The last time was for furlough protections. This time it is for a production balance that will force parking more 50 seaters(part of my concern is that these CPA's will not be adjusted and if the ratios force a pulldown, the existing language will not allow it to occur-beyond the company's control) Next time it will be the 70's and more 50's. I ask you, is this plan acceptable to one that wants unity? Do the next few steps ensure that for this group and pilots as a whole?, or are you going to fail safe mode because it appears it may do something that we want, but you cannot put your finger on what is missing?
I really want to know? My biggest concern is with the non-compliance language and how it is not specifically written for this part of the PWA but is a term that has been used for other items and has not been modified.
DCI does get reduced overall. DCI gets more larger sustainable lift. DCI may need something like this again in the next round. If it looks the same is it something that you and the pilot group should support even if it extends the life of DCI and does not necessarily sunset the outsourcing?
Carl
05-30-2012 | 04:46 PM
#80
On RSV
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: Gear Puller
Gentlemen,
I am an RJ driver for PSA on the US Airways side of things. Please Please Please for the love of god and this industry DO NOT give up SCOPE. I for one did not see myself sitting in the right seat for five plus years flying an RJ. My aspiration was to move on and continue my career with a legacy carrier. If the Legacy's continue to give into management and outsource mainline flying to these cut throat cheap operators that fly the most uncomfortable POS in the sky, the hopes of all regional pilots will be lost, because there will be nothing to move onto or into. I know that pay is important to all pilots and I for one would never tell you guys what to do, but please just look at the bigger picture. Do not sacrifice the product. Republic Holdings and TSA already fly the E170/175 for you guys. Next thing you know it will be the 190 then the guppy at $25.00 an hour, and you know what, all the Embry Riddle Grads and everyone else out there with Shiny Jet Syndrome will chomp at the bit to fly it. Who would not want a chance, but it all comes with a price. I am not putting anyone down here, all I am asking is that you gentleman take a hard stand on outsourcing and please keep the flying in your house! I would like to fly with you someday, and I will not have that opportunity if the majority of your flying is outsourced to the lowest bidder.
Thanks for listening and fly safe!
I am an RJ driver for PSA on the US Airways side of things. Please Please Please for the love of god and this industry DO NOT give up SCOPE. I for one did not see myself sitting in the right seat for five plus years flying an RJ. My aspiration was to move on and continue my career with a legacy carrier. If the Legacy's continue to give into management and outsource mainline flying to these cut throat cheap operators that fly the most uncomfortable POS in the sky, the hopes of all regional pilots will be lost, because there will be nothing to move onto or into. I know that pay is important to all pilots and I for one would never tell you guys what to do, but please just look at the bigger picture. Do not sacrifice the product. Republic Holdings and TSA already fly the E170/175 for you guys. Next thing you know it will be the 190 then the guppy at $25.00 an hour, and you know what, all the Embry Riddle Grads and everyone else out there with Shiny Jet Syndrome will chomp at the bit to fly it. Who would not want a chance, but it all comes with a price. I am not putting anyone down here, all I am asking is that you gentleman take a hard stand on outsourcing and please keep the flying in your house! I would like to fly with you someday, and I will not have that opportunity if the majority of your flying is outsourced to the lowest bidder.
Thanks for listening and fly safe!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
