New flaw in TA scope
05-30-2012 | 04:50 PM
#81
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
From: No to large RJs
The ratios in Contract 2000 were based on economic assumptions which were pure nonsense. For instance:
Contract 2000 Block hour ratios:
(being edited)
Contract 2000 Block hour ratios:
- 34% - 2002
- 36% - 2003
- 37% - 2004
- 44% to 48% - 2002
- 50% - 2004
- Gone. Limits on 70 to 76 seat aircraft - 2006
(being edited)
Last edited by DAWGS; 05-30-2012 at 05:01 PM. Reason: spelling
05-30-2012 | 04:50 PM
#82
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Troof. It's absolutely incredible to me that we're even talking about outsourcing another 70 mainline-replacement jets. Two months ago if Carl had said DALPA was going to allow it he would have been thoroughly denounced by all comers including tsquare, shiz, slowplay, alfa, and sailingfun.
Heck, in 2009 I witnessed ACL65 take on Lee Moak over DALPA not trying to take back 76 seat flying, and he actually made the argument that if we don't recapture it, the line in the sand will just move again. Lee's response? "There's no way we'd ever give up any more airplanes, the line pilots would throw a fit! We're done giving up scope!" I heard it with my own two ears. Wonder what they'll say in 2015?
Heck, in 2009 I witnessed ACL65 take on Lee Moak over DALPA not trying to take back 76 seat flying, and he actually made the argument that if we don't recapture it, the line in the sand will just move again. Lee's response? "There's no way we'd ever give up any more airplanes, the line pilots would throw a fit! We're done giving up scope!" I heard it with my own two ears. Wonder what they'll say in 2015?
Carl
05-30-2012 | 05:10 PM
#84
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
I've not heard any rumors of a 76 seat aircraft order. There have been some proposals, but no contracts that anyone in my network is aware of. If you have details, share them.
As much as is possible, we have to deal with known facts. If extrapolate known facts to their farthest conclusion, DCI shrinks from 46% of our mainline domestic flying to 22% under this agreement.
To me that means more Delta flying by Delta pilots who are ALPA members and represented by my MEC.
05-30-2012 | 05:11 PM
#85
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
We're not going to just drop feed overnight. Management may use the money they would have spent on us on fixing the 50 seaters instead. Many have big mx checks due, and they will be able to afford them if they don't pay us more.
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.
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 | 05:12 PM
#86
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
The ratios in Contract 2000 were based on economic assumptions which were pure nonsense. For instance:
Contract 2000 Block hour ratios:
A ratio of 1.25 to 1 (new mainline narrow body to 76 seat RJ) is much more realistic. The ratios with additional 76 seaters are aggressive:
76 seat fleet = equivalent mainline flying percentage
< 153 = Slightly below status quo
154 to 163 = 55% mainline ... approximate status quo (no gain)
164 to 173 = 62.5% mainline
174 to 183 = 65% mainline
184 to 193 = 67.5% mainline
194 to 203 = 70% mainline
204 to 213 = 73.5% mainline
214 to 223 = 78% mainline
This at least suggests to me that Delta is not going to grow the 76 seat fleet beyond 183 or 193. Can you imagine DCI cut by more than half, all the way down to 22% of block? I'm not sure I can.
What makes this different than 2000, is that Delta has not committed to the 76 seat order, so we don't exactly know what management's intentions are.
At face vale these ratios begin more realistic, appear easier to enforce and provide growth for mainline pilots.
(double check my math, hot, tired and had a two year old screaming at me ... you try doing math while a two year old screams CATNHATDADDYDADDYAIRPLANEWERISMOMMYCATINHAT ... throws cookies at kid and types frantically)
Contract 2000 Block hour ratios:
- 34% - 2002
- 36% - 2003
- 37% - 2004
- 44% to 48% - 2002
- 50% - 2004
- Gone. Limits on 70 to 76 seat aircraft - 2006
A ratio of 1.25 to 1 (new mainline narrow body to 76 seat RJ) is much more realistic. The ratios with additional 76 seaters are aggressive:
76 seat fleet = equivalent mainline flying percentage
< 153 = Slightly below status quo
154 to 163 = 55% mainline ... approximate status quo (no gain)
164 to 173 = 62.5% mainline
174 to 183 = 65% mainline
184 to 193 = 67.5% mainline
194 to 203 = 70% mainline
204 to 213 = 73.5% mainline
214 to 223 = 78% mainline
This at least suggests to me that Delta is not going to grow the 76 seat fleet beyond 183 or 193. Can you imagine DCI cut by more than half, all the way down to 22% of block? I'm not sure I can.
What makes this different than 2000, is that Delta has not committed to the 76 seat order, so we don't exactly know what management's intentions are.
At face vale these ratios begin more realistic, appear easier to enforce and provide growth for mainline pilots.
(double check my math, hot, tired and had a two year old screaming at me ... you try doing math while a two year old screams CATNHATDADDYDADDYAIRPLANEWERISMOMMYCATINHAT ... throws cookies at kid and types frantically)
On the point about how many 76 seat aircraft they will by an operate; What is allowed? What has DAL done before? It comes down to what "can" they do or "can" they do that with this language? Its true for a few parts of this TA. If they can do it, and its not good for this group, my radar starts pinging.
That said, I do not suspect we will see the language tested in the next three years. Going forward a new shiny ball will appear, and we will focus on that. We will hit the retirement era and DAL will not be able to operate the schedule.......Look five to ten year down the road.
Also, if the 717 leases are assumed do not forget that the first ones start to leave in 2017. If we are well above the ratio as projected, the 76 seat aircraft that you assume they will not use will be put in to service and a mainline replacement may not be necessary.
*look at the previous posts from Slow. Look at the top end ratio then look at what he says is projected. I bet we can park a 20-30 jets before we would even come close to the ratio at the top end.
Just want to give a counter perspective.
05-30-2012 | 05:13 PM
#87
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
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.
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!
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.
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!
Thanks for listening and fly safe!
05-30-2012 | 05:20 PM
#88
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
The ratios are based on now growth, so if we go above them as slow as indicated we will, mainline can still be a accumulator before DCI would be forced to.
On the point about how many 76 seat aircraft they will by an operate; What is allowed? What has DAL done before? It comes down to what "can" they do or "can" they do that with this language? Its true for a few parts of this TA. If they can do it, and its not good for this group, my radar starts pinging.
That said, I do not suspect we will see the language tested in the next three years. Going forward a new shiny ball will appear, and we will focus on that. We will hit the retirement era and DAL will not be able to operate the schedule.......Look five to ten year down the road.
Also, if the 717 leases are assumed do not forget that the first ones start to leave in 2017. If we are well above the ratio as projected, the 76 seat aircraft that you assume they will not use will be put in to service and a mainline replacement may not be necessary.
*look at the previous posts from Slow. Look at the top end ratio then look at what he says is projected. I bet we can park a 20-30 jets before we would even come close to the ratio at the top end.
Just want to give a counter perspective.
On the point about how many 76 seat aircraft they will by an operate; What is allowed? What has DAL done before? It comes down to what "can" they do or "can" they do that with this language? Its true for a few parts of this TA. If they can do it, and its not good for this group, my radar starts pinging.
That said, I do not suspect we will see the language tested in the next three years. Going forward a new shiny ball will appear, and we will focus on that. We will hit the retirement era and DAL will not be able to operate the schedule.......Look five to ten year down the road.
Also, if the 717 leases are assumed do not forget that the first ones start to leave in 2017. If we are well above the ratio as projected, the 76 seat aircraft that you assume they will not use will be put in to service and a mainline replacement may not be necessary.
*look at the previous posts from Slow. Look at the top end ratio then look at what he says is projected. I bet we can park a 20-30 jets before we would even come close to the ratio at the top end.
Just want to give a counter perspective.
We could park that many under current language, but with the ratios it would appear impossible at the top (us 78% and them 22%) end.
If anything, these ratios have me thinking again about some sort of consolidation, or growth transaction.
The way I see it, we either get bigger, or it's status quo. This agreement does not work for a "pump and dump" or consolidation of mainline flying.
05-30-2012 | 05:21 PM
#89
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
That should go without saying. We are not in a bankruptcy environment. I would not know what to think if we didn't.
That said, it appears we will be growing mainline in the near term. I would like to see a commitment to keep the flying here, but that decision would be after the next contractual cycle. Those 717's are a 12 year fix tops, and not all of em. We need to find a replacement for that by 2016.
I could be assumed we went this route over the C-Series because no major wants to be the first to commit mainline to flying it. This still allows that debate to happen at a later date. Doesn't it?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
