What Happens if this TA Passes?
 

We don't seem to have a what if this TA passes thread. So outside of the pay rate tables and contract language, thoughts on Delta's next moves if this passes?

I'll give one. After securing 88 717s, maybe a few more, 70 more 76-seaters and bringing the fleet total for the 90s, there will be more than enough lift and "right sizing" of the fleet to cause the ROI on upgrading the 88 cockpits to be deemed to expensive.

They've been evaluating the ROI on that for almost 2 years and when you press for an answer it is "we're trying to evaluate if this is worthwhile." Well, to me the evaluation is based on this TA.

They'd rather have 175 additional jets that give them a 160 seat, 117 seat and 82 seat mix than to have 117 jets that seat 149 passengers and possibly require 120ish to B/E. So that would mean in 2020 the 88s are parked.

And unfortunately in that scenario, we'll replace 117 mainline jets with 105 mainline jets.

That's my guess. Feel free to give yours pro or con.

The TA passes and then an AE will come out late summer early fall and hopefully I can get reinstated as the 88B plug in ATL and stop wasting my day watching movies on SC in a crappy house full of people I don't know in Queens. That would make my life happier.

What happens is that we go to work, and we perform to standards; no more, no less. We live with a TA that was designed to pass, but not to motivate, or to inspire excellence. If anyone of us does a really good job, we do it for the personal satisfaction.

We trade in unrealistic hopes of something truly great for the reality of something useful, but not much more. Just as before, we anxiously wait to see how the fleet plan unfolds, and how the industry moves forward (or not).

We realize all TA's we've ever seen are controversial, and only judged in hindsight. Because I don't know what the economy will do, I can't tell you whether this is viewed as a gross failure to get enough, or a specatcular victory. All I can say now is that this contract has very modest upside if Delta does great, but conversely has very solid downside protections we don't enjoy today, in Sections 1 and 3.

We step up whenever opportunity arises, and we make modest gains. Hopefuly modest gain after modest gain, after modest gain. We dream big, but cash in small achievements.

We sleep at night.

The Restoration Plus Inflation crowd starts drinking heavily. The ALPA crowd quietly mopes around. The DPA continues to [deleted] up everything they touch. The DTW reps vote no on everything and anything that might be controversial: never for, never against; quite the contrary.

TSquare argues for LBP.

Underboob returns.

At home, the children play, and our respective wives await our return with a new honeydew list.

We smile a contented smile, for all is well is the world.

Truly deep thought Sink. I love it. And how about a early return of UB



http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFil...9/81756591.jpg

And so the "I never promised anything" post is made to point to later when things go sideways after this POS TA is voted in.

You have been selling the he11 out of this thing. You sir and your used car salesmanship are the antithesis of excellence. Goodday.

Great stuff sir. But hopefully my days of arguing for LBP are over. (I am really gonna try to refrain) The old adage of "You can lead a horse to water..." Come to mind. As things get smaller, maybe people will realize things are getting smaller. But I am sure all are consoled by knowing that the Ninjas have their retirement and disproportionately high pay... (Couldn't resist THAT)

Your entire scenario is a huge leap.

But.. if you want to go with that, with no TA, we will need fewer pilots. Pump and dump is a real concern because... as you said.. the lift will NOT be needed because of the large (in number) RJ fleet. Furlough will entirely be possible.

With the TA, block hour ratios must be maintained. Even if the 88s are parked, the company must fly the remaining airplanes enough to maintain that ratio OR start parking RJs. That ensures jobs will be maintained. (Of course the 717s are paid less because they are smaller.... oh no I di'int) And if they furlough one... single... pilot.. they have to remove 6 seats from ALL the 76s. THAT is punitive, and THAT is some serious furlough protection...

Disclaimers and selling? That's what you think is going on with my posts?

I think your post is more revealing of your own mindset than anything to do with me. I supect it shows the way you approach your ALPA/DPA mission. Where your paranoia is getting the better of you is that you conclude that a customer that doesn't buy your sales pitch, or anyone else that has an argument to make is necessarily a competitor engaged in similar practices.

What you fail to account for is the independence and awareness of many, probably most, of us here on APC. It's obvious to me some are affiliated, and for the most part, they're honest about it. Conversely, it's obvious many of us are favorite targets, simply because we have a different perspective, or draw different conclusions.

If you can't handle differences of opinions, let me suggest an internet forum isn't the best place for you to hang out. You don't seem suited for open-ended conversation, where people might accidentally disagree with you. And this TA discussion, as important as it is, is bound to attract a whole bunch of people.

Meanwhile, I'll update my Ignore List. If you can't discuss this stuff intelligently, or with respect, please do the same.

I updated mine a long time ago. He is just a donut shill, and has nothing of any value to add to any of this. You'll be much happier not reading any of his nonsense.

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).

Haha this guy is funny. You have to at least give some credit to these guys for always trying to churn lemonaid/koolaid out of virtually any argument. Good stuff man. Now just vote NO!

2014 is 18 months away oh enlightened one. Since the 717s don't start arriving until next summer, and the 76s are inextricably tied to they arrival, that means there is no way that they will be any kind of large number by that time. No panic... Go stir your donut batter. Nothing to see here.

t, you said you'd stop with the mud throwing, yet your favorite inclusion is still throwing the donut term about. Come on...

That's not correct tsquare. Read the language and you'll see that the additional mainline aircraft only have to be "established"...whatever that means.

Carl

Every NNC ends with them urging us to ratify the TA. The pie chart on planned ratio is always included before the actual contractual ratio (remember the law of primacy?).

Your logic on that it looks like the company left money on the table is lacking, to say the least. How? They are planning to do more, and we failed to hold them to their word. How is that the company leaving money on the table?

Friend tells me work rule changes and rejection of the early outs results in yet another fall displacement bid. He says 717's staffed through displacements. Have not run the numbers myself yet.

That sounds about right from what I've seen with the numbers as well.

A junior pilot's TA, eh? :)

Soooo.....are you a YES, or a NO?

Carl

Sounds really scary, think I may change my mind now.

The Compass flow down is still in affect in this TA. It does not go away.

FTB never said that it went away. It is very obvious the company doesn't believe there is any possibility of a furlough, however that does not guarantee any sort of growth or progression, nor does this TA.

Man up Bacon! Demand 2005 prices too for the house you bought back then from a prospective buyer. You deserve it! Forget everything that has happened, that all of our legacy friends haven't gotten a new dime in years and one is BK. Go for the homerun, you deserve it. By the way, Air Koryo is hiring TU-204 captains based in Pyongyang. Go for it!

Is there a guarantee of growth today? We still need a healthy airline, a tightening of international scope and domestic code shares, and fewer RJs to possibly grow. Those things will facilitate growth, not hinder it.

Don't give up scope. Money is easy to bargain for, scope is not. Learn from the past.

The RJ's that are being parked in this TA are what the company wants to park ASAP. The RJ's that they are being traded for will be around for several decades.

That is what facilitates the continued and profitable outsourcing of mainline jobs, not what provides mainline growth.

The charts at a roadshow state more than 300 50 seaters are on lease through 2015, decreasing slowly after that. Why keep planes around that don't make money? You could park them and just pay the leases, or just use the money we could've had to pay for them and complete the expensive maintenance checks required on a lot of them. They will continue to use RJs on thin mainline routes that cannot support a 717. A 70 seater or a 76 seater may be able to make a profit for the airline, whereas a 50 seater just won't, but they don't want to give up the feed. You just won't see 717s going to Meridian, Killeen, or Elmira.

Unions have lost a lot a clout as a result of yesterday's recall election in Wisconsin.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303830204577446523049315132.html

This is borrowed from the UAL/CAL merger, but it is relevant to all comercial pilots now. We have to consider not just ourselves but the future of our careers. We must not relax scope at all, ever!
Let RA get rid of the 50 seaters, but dont let him add any new RJ's to the fleet. Scope the regionals out of mainline flying. Vote no and make scope the one and only issue, the one and only cornerstone of all future negotiations. If ALPA was not bargaining in bad faith and representing both sides of scope, they would understand this. Alas, ALPA has always divided the pilot group more effectively than it has unified it. They are always playing both sides against the middle and pocketing the difference.

SCOPE IS THE FOUNDATION!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-why-wisconsin-matters_646501.html

Initially, yes. Past late 2013 no.