If you edit, please say what and why. By the time I hit reply, your message has changed and there is no record of your edit. Regarding your previous post, my point is you are telling half the story. It is the 1 liner our association is putting out. Less overall is not more, plain and simple (re 777 analogy). We are getting something they don't want (50s), for something they want (70+) = concession. That something is mainline flying, not feed! These airplanes are much more capable than 50 seat jets. You don't know what flying it will do, but I'm confident it is much more likely to eventually replace our routes than feed them. And this whole early TA fiasco was hurried just to make this concession.

The argument you have been making is we can't do it profitably. How do you know? Continental has done it profitably for years with little RJ outsourcing, SWA etc..even as we lead the outsourcing. If this TA passes, we will soon be at a tipping point on mainline domestic flying. We will have wasted a golden opportunity. We are giving MGT a pass with this TA. They are not having to pay for their outsourcing ways because many of us are willing to give them 70 more large RJs. The only way to change their behavior is to allow them to reap what they sow. If they want to outsource our jobs and minimize our leverage, the result of these bad decisions go with the territory.

Scope is relative to what everyone else is doing. If we don't hold the line (an unreasonable line already), other groups lose leverage. What if the next group gives more and on and on it goes....325 large RJs are on the table in this TA. That is almost half our entire mainline fleet, made-up of aircraft capable of replacing our flying. When does it stop? UCAL management is giddy about this agreement! This is in the A4A playbook.

Either you believe our jobs are for sale in exchange for money (insulting money at that), or you don't. I just wish guys making this argument would own up to what is really going on here and not rationalize the outsourcing.

 

If I read slow's posts correctly, we are adding enough airplanes to trigger 3 to 1 language to get the 76 seat fleet to the same point we are in this contract TA. Same either way.

So then the play is the management of the 50 and 70 seat fleet which has some older airplanes which are coming off capital leases, operating leases and capacity purchase agreements. Some have big maintenance bills coming. ALPA and management have published that those airplanes start to go away in 2015. However, with this TA, some 50 seaters go away sooner and it is likely the 70 seaters will go away or be modified when their contracts expire.

The 70 seater is still economically relevant. Mostly it is being flown in a 66 seat capacity and it typically makes 40% more revenue on a 15% or so operating cost premium to the CRj200. However, the sector costs (gate leases, ground servicing, etc) work out better for a 76 seater or 717. I am not particularly fearful of the maintenance of the 70 seat fleet.

A no vote probably means management gets to the same point in their fleet management plan, just two and a half years later, with a slightly higher and less efficient DCI fleet mix.

The gray area is how much money management possibly can avoid paying by trading in the CRJ200's and flipping new aircraft as an inducement to modify capacity purchase agreements? How much money can Delta save by getting the contracts re-written to make the operators the Lessee's of the airplanes? The goal is clearly stated. Management wants Delta's debt below 10 Billion.

Seems like a good idea to me. Debt is risk. As a Delta employee I prefer my employer reduce its debt level.

I remain unsure why those who do not support this agreement don't. It is an improvement from current book. In some ways it is a very big improvement.

If you are frustrated by the lack of scope recapture, I share your disappointment. But, taken in isolation, does this agreement get us closer to our goal? More Delta flying performed by Delta pilots.

 

It is not the same either way. You leave out the fact that our current contact requires them to get rid of the 70 seater in order to obtain another 76 seater. The number of large RJs stays the same. They want to trade 50 seaters. Do they want to swap crj700s that already have been modified for first class? Big assumption that they would be able to get out of that many 70 seater leases or that they would want to.

 

Even after the game - now that's rich!

 

LOA 19 Frequently Asked Questions

9. Does LOA 19 permit more 76-seat RJs?7. Does this agreement provide for even more RJs?Merge, cap, 50 seat RJ's reduced.

Now, increase cap and we'll let those 50 seaters go away.

 

To those of you (apparently including our union) willing to bite and swallow hook, line and sinker at any fancy leather bound accounting books "Get a Yes Vote on C2012" management marketing group put together.....try to think back at least one or more years (see article below).

If you haven't learned anything yet, please know this:

Management will tell you virtually anything it needs to tell you to get what it wants. They know later they can simply say "things didn't work out as planned so we didn't end up growing and had no choice but to (fill in the blank)". We understand your frustration but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. I fully expect Slowplay and the management/ALPA sales group to unapologetically say the same thing.... probably with disdain in their tone for you not seeing how the economy later on changed the course of promises made.

To illustrate my point further, do you remember how the new flight time duty time rules were going to bankrupt the airlines and cause huge job layoffs according to ATA (now A4A), Delta Airlines and the consulting groups they paid large sums of money to produce?

Now that the FTDT rules are passed what are we hearing from management? "They won't appreciably effect our staffing or operation". Gee, now how could that be so when they were crying uncle less than a year ago? I will tell you the answer....THEY DON'T TELL THE TRUTH WHEN THEY ARE CHASING SOMETHING THEY WANT!

You are a class A1 sucker if you believe anything/everything coming from the management/ALPA marketing group. Even basic common sense will tell you some of the things you are hearing now don't add up. Go with your instinct, not the fairytale words of those selling you of "bigger exciting things" if we pass this (they will never materialize) and "it's best to always take the first offer and not complain".

Vote no and take a little pride in yourself and your career, not just lap up the scraps lying under the table. Good luck to all of us and the profession if we continue to give away our flying (large RJ's is our flying before someone trys to tell me again it is a victory to trade 50 seaters that are already headed for the desert for DC9 size airplanes that will never be flown by a Delta pilots and be around for many decades to come.).

PS- Remember this? Was it accurate in the end?

ATA: Airlines would cut 26,700 jobs if FAA implements new pilot rest regulations | ATWOnline

 

I don't agree. They would have 70 fewer large RJs.

As I have stated in previous post, I don't trust MGT to follow the intent of our contract as it relates to ratios and I don't believe our union will challenge MGT when they violate the intent. When the ratios go out the window, as I believe they will eventually during the life of this contract, we shrink....DCI grows. 1 event deemed beyond their control and the ratios are toast. Any protections you think we have, will be renegotiated by our union in tough times (no memrat...LOA). Trust and history being the issues that that they are, there is no other way to defend our flying other than to insist we do it. Having said that, I will not vote to outsource any jobs. We need to hold the line on big RJs. They are a direct replacement of mainline flying in this circumstance. I will not vote to make the same mistake others made previously. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst outcome or circumstance.

 

Agreed...wow! They say they wont release the survey results because they don't want to share our playbook, but then admit that there is no plan B??? Talk about setting us up for failure either way.

 

Very astute you are young padiwan

 

The dysfunction of this union combined with it's disdain for its constituents, overreaching secrecy and flippant attitude is unbelievable. Sickening really.

How many of you would keep an attorney, stock broker or consultant employed to work for you if they routinely kept secrets, didn't do what you asked of them, disrespected you and gave you the proverbial bird when you pleaded with them to do a better job representing YOU? Not I!