I did forget about the ratio when I said 117 to 105. That would not work. You're right.
Now to furlough protection, I think my favorite protection was the Compass flow down. I think that costs way too much money for the company to swallow.

Someone mentioned the removal of 6 seats from the 82 seaters... 76 seaters... would cost $35M.

The removal of the seats is only part of the picture. At some point in time they would have to re-install them.. and even that doesn't take into account the lost revenue from those 6 seats. I would think that is pretty significant. Definitely not something that management will take lightly.

You can argue the numbers of airframes all you want, and I am sure that you can justify either position. What I do know is that right now... today... the block hour ratio is 1.19. Contractually, when it goes to 1.56, mainline HAS to grow vis a vis DCI. Has to. I have heard the planned number 1.76 bantered about, and I think it is a tactical mistake to parade that number around, because that is a PLAN. 1.56 is a minimum. An absolute. The block hour ratio is the key ftb.. At that point, it takes the number of airframes out of the equation and focuses squarely on jobs. If I were trying to convince guys of this deal, I would use THAT as a min, and anything else above that is gravy. But that's just me.

Even using Auburn math,:D you have to admit that 1.56 gives more flying to mainline than the current 1.19.

Good questions, by the way, FTB. I've been looking at this thing more in terms of the big picture, and I suppose some of the ranting makes it almost a religious discussion, but not enough in terms of details.

What?

Do you prefer Zoloft or Prozac?

Just when I thought Lumberg, slowplay, tsquare and their ilk had lowered our expectations to the point that living in North Korea sounded good, you give us this nonsense.

Seriously, if everyone cared as little as you about our pay, benefits, and career progression, we'd be making less than the 14 year old babysitter next door by next month.

Thank goodness there are some of us willing to man up to try to better our future prospects and improve our lot.

I don't really like ALPA putting the "planned" ratio out there. The PWA is to protect our jobs, I could not care less about the plan(in reference to PWA terms), the 1.56 is MUCH better than 1.19. Heck, even that is limited by the 450 cap, once the airline grows block hours over a certain point, the 450 limit will keep a lid on DCI.

Plus, who says we won't tighten the cap and ratio in the next round?

I mean we improve pay rates whenever possible, this is the same thing!

Ironically, in putting the planned ratio out there they show once again how much was left on the table. Why wasn't the ratio tightened up to where it is going to be with the full "growth" aircraft. We are leaving them significant flex on the downside from what is being spun by many as growth, whereas it will likely be marginal at best.

Actually, you have to be careful there. We usually improve pay rates, and make noise about scope. You have to rely on the pilot group's willingness to continue to emphasize scope. My experience is that we always put payrates first. So this can always be undone next time.

Delta's next move is to go forward with the subleasing of all 717's from Boeing, which will allow them to get to the coveted target of 325 90 seat mainline jets (configured to 76 seats).

Then Delta begins parking older jets all across the mainline spectrum to maintain the same sized fleet we currently have. All of us say, fine but now Delta has to start reducing the number of block hours on those RJ's. Thank God for those block hour ratios.

Concern begins to mount when many YES voters realize that the TA they voted in doesn't even require a measuring of the ratios until mid 2014. We scream to management that they're way out of balance. Management says: "We don't think we are, but we'll look at it in mid 2014". In mid 2014, the company finds out they are indeed out of balance. Concern mounts further as the YES voters realize that their TA doesn't require the company to even begin implementing a plan to bring the ratios back in balance until January 2015 (12 months to the amendable date). Delta begins to implement it's plan but says: "This may take a while". DALPA threatens to file a grievance (yes I know, stop laughing) over the imbalance. ALPA national reminds DALPA that such a reduction in block hours at DCI would cost thousands of jobs lost by our ALPA brothers.

Management comes to DALPA in March 2015 and says: "Let's talk about opening early and discuss this whole ratio thing...and the time value of money".

Carl

An interesting question. In a way, though, it's not rocket science: the union isn't selling the "plan" because it's just an estimate, based on a number of factors that might change. You would expect, in any negotiation, to only commit to what you're willing to guarantee, not what you think you might deliver. Isn't it normal to have a difference between the guarantee, and the plan?

The number we got is the guarantee. The union shouldn't try to "sell" additional growth, because we didn't "purchase" it. We may get it, but we didn't "buy it". If you accept the notion that we actually might have bought some scope in this TA, then I would say it would have been stupid to pay more. In a way, it actually looks to the company like money they left on the table (they're presumably going to deliver a higher number than we paid for).