Well then I guess 2 of the DTW LEC reps decided to go flying instead because according to the letter from the DTW LEC it said 2 of them had "flying commitments" Hard to believe they wanted to go to work as opposed to attending their own councils road show.

 

Try to follow me on this:

331 50 seat jets in current operation at DCI
102 70 seat jets
153 76 seat jets
70 76 seat jets proposed to be allowed

125 50 seat jets doing what they have already been doing

206 50 seat jets to be parked 5-8 years EARLY (What will replace these routes/block hours?)

To replace the parked lift:
All 102 70 Seat jets + 50 of the 76 seat jets (being conservative, reduced freq., etc.)

The previously 70 seat jet routes (flown by the 102 airframes) are now uncovered.

Take 102 of the remaining 76 seat jets to backfill the old routes the 70's filled.

That leaves 1 remaining 76 seat jet to fly 153 jets' worth of flying.

The company is allowed to backfill 70 of those "old 76 seat jet" routes with the TA change.

They now have 71 jets to fly what used to be done by the original 153.

153-71= 82 jets worth of flying that will not be flown at DCI.

What will backfill 82 jets worth of flying that Delta still needs to operate, but cannot operate at DCI?It increases to 82+54=136 jets of flying if DAL decides to backfill ALL of the old 50 seat routes (which I seriously doubt they would).

So how is this a bottom end scope concession?

 

Anybody's schedule is up for viewing.

 

Complete logic fail here.

Delta controls the revenue of those aircraft. The DCI carrier contracts have no revenue clauses, only cost clauses. The DCI's do not market or sell Delta code. Delta does that. The DCI's are paid through cost reimbursements, cost margins, and performance margins. Revenue has nothing to do with how the DCI's make money. They're paid on cost and performance.

In the analysis done for the MEC, additional revenue was added back into the equation and all the DCI margins were stripped out. We still couldn't make it work.

Capisce?

 

I'm voting NO. My question is this: why is early retirement of the 50 seaters tied in to a TA? It's because management wants you to think it makes a difference. It doesn't. Those things are going away regardless. I guess their spin is that need relief on the 76 seater cap to replace those 50 seaters with more, bigger, RJ's. So they are spinning it as a net reduction in RJ's, but more mainline-replacement type aircraft are coming.

Why our pilot group is buying this is beyond me. I don't even know why ALPA is selling it.

 

I also understand why people who get fired release emails stating: "After much soul searching and discussions with my family, I've decided to leave my position to spend more time with them."

We have 3 reps in DTW. All 3 "couldn't" be there. I know what happened and so do you alfaromeo. I probably would have done the same thing when asked by the MEC to NOT be there. I would have probably thought the MEC would just use our presence as an excuse as to why things went so badly...especially since the MEC bureaucrats openly refer to council 20 as an arm of the DPA. You're the one trying to deceive...as is your job on the MEC.

Carl

 

They need to do that. It's not enough for them to say: "We can't be there, but we're counting on you guys to ask the tough questions." It apparently didn't happen with the crowd that represented a small fraction of the DTW base. I hope they don't draw the wrong conclusion from that. They NEED to do their own roadshow.

Carl

 

They did it to give you MEC bureaucrats free reign at your sell job. Now you can't possibly say your sell job was torpedoed by the presence of those 3 malcontent reps who are really nothing but arms of the DPA.

Carl

 

Actually, it's very simple. We are currently over staffed so between the work rule concessions (ALV + 15, 30 day months during peak flying for reserves, + 2 hour ALV increase (which means an LCW during peak flying of 77 - 91 hours during the summer and 67-81 during the low months and 7 short calls). So the additional 88 717s will be absorbed by 21 DC-9 retirements and the additional 67 717s (normally about 670 pilots) will be adsorbed by the current over staffing of Wide Bodies, work rule improvements and therefore we will see displacements (another pay cut that no one is talking about) to fill the new 717s that are being touted as growth A/C.

 

Because DAL has no way to reduce the contracts with the 50 seat jet providers without offering a deal to allow those companies an alternate way of staying in business.

If you owned/ran a DCI would you allow DAL to shrink/eliminate your company even though they had a contract but felt like abrogating it 5-8 years early?

All this does is placate the DCI operators in order to get them to become smaller but remain slightly profitable so they will agree to modify the terms of their agreements.

By the time the end of 2015 hits there will still be 553 jets under contract for DAL. This agreement will make the DCI fleet number 103 LESS at the 2015 point versus if we do NOTHING. I'll take 450 instead of 553(with the ability to increase that number) any day of the week.

(BTW, DCI won't shrink to 450 by parking the 50 seat jets until sometime in late 2018/early 2019.)

This TA restricts DCI flying, what says DALPA won't seek to restrict that flying AGAIN (in less than 3 years with this TA)?