shiznit

DAL had 16 MD-90's at SOC also, which will be up to around 70 when this is done. Increase of 54 airframes with a longer avg stage length than a DC9 = more avg. daily block hours = more pilots.

And how those 739 also are replacing about 40-50 old A319/320 which pay less.

johnso29

Thanks. I was in a mood.

acl65pilot

Correct. Again how many DC9s at SOC? How many more 70/76 seaters do we have since SOC? How many of those replaced DC 9 routes? We were at 767 mainline jets at SOC, how many will we have without another announcement after all of the 90's, 739's and 717's are delivered and the 767's 757's, 319/320's, 88's and DC9's are parked. What is the net positive? The net positive is probably a lot less than the number of new 76 seat aircraft that will be allowed.

Also how many 777's and 737's have we take delivery of since SOC?

How many and what type of jets have been parked? The net will be close to the SOC jet count but on lower paying equipment.

tsquare

Are ya'll ever gonna listen?

johnso29

Longevity based pay?

slowplay

Sounds like Mettler math...stuff based on fantasy, not reality.

He (wrongly) says that the company will save $2-$2.5 billion in maintenance...that means that management would be spending $9-$11 million PER AIRCRAFT for engines and cabins on a 50 seat plane. You might want to do a little website checking and see what CF-34 overhauls cost now...it's about $800k- to a max of $2 million. Compare Mettler's unsourced fantasy to what you can actually find on the interwebs.

There's no "billions" in savings. There's a couple of hundred million over the term of this deal, and about $400 million all in lifetime on the RJ's. All the rest is eaten by the Canadians/Brazilians in returned CRJ-200's that are offset by the production/purchase cost of up to 70 76 seat jets.

And the raises you call pathetic and a "slap in the face"...really?

As a reserve guy you're getting 8% up front prior to the 19.7%. You're getting 6 extra guaranteed days off per year. You're getting an 8% increase in vacation value. I'm guessing that the difference between current book and the TA are over $100K to you personally. That's a years additional wages for you over three years.

Your "epiphany" sounds more like a bad data hangover.

slowplay

Man, you're scraping for arguments.

I thought the discussion was about the TA?

How many and what type of jets will be parked with the TA versus without? How many and what type of RJ's will be parked with the TA versus without?

How about we keep the discussion in context and work from where we are, not where you wish us to be?

tsquare

rant deleted.

acl65pilot

Nope not at all, this is just a series of questions to frame this response.

As for your last. It depends on the term you are looking at.

johnso29

slowplay,

I'll give you that I wrote a rant while I was in a "mood". I can live with the payrates, but I still don't like the fact that I lose 3 days per week of vacation as a reserve. I don't like that I'm credited less time for the same job. I don't like that our TAFB rig didn't change. I do like most of Sec 1. The raise for reserves is nice, but I still feel like we as a pilot group got short changed.

For instance, is it true that management asked for 80/82 seats in the CRJ900's? Isn't that a cheap move? Don't they want/need the 2 class configuration for the revenue of our HVC's, and would the 82 seats allow for that? Basically, they threw it out there to force our hand knowing they'd never use that configuration anyway. Yes?

And why did we carve out the jumbo biz jets for DPJs? I know that job stinks. I know those guys get paid poorly. But we had a slam dunk win for that scope grievance, and we get LOA 31. Then we just give them back? Why didn't DALPA tell us anything about the DPJs grievance? We got one little blurb about a grievance being filed, and then never heard another word about it.

This management team has shown multiple times that they are willing to knowingly violate our Scope clause. We seem to do little in response to that. Accepting 33 more 76 seaters due to managements "interpretation" of the allowable 76 seat jet formula, followed by the DPJs grievance gives most of us junior guys little confidence in our Sec 1 language or our Unions desire to enforce it. I think this is where much of the uneasiness originates. This is why many are coming up with all these hypothetical scenarios. We lack confidence in anything but iron clad Sec 1 language.