Nevermind......

Deleted !!

The agreement removes a massive amount of DCI capacity that allows these aircraft to be added. The 88 717's are mandated by the TA. Got it yet?

And how many MD-88s are mandated to remain in the fleet?

Bill, slow, or anyone: Chapter and verse in the TA for the 88 717s arriving before the 76 seaters are allowed, please!

I found it in the NNP, but no such luck in the TA.

annnd there's the crux. Sure would have been nice if there wasn't so much downflux allowed in the ratio...

you mean, wouldn't it be nice if the language in our contract was as good as protecting the number of mainline aircraft as it is in protecting the number of outsourced aircraft?

What I stated had nothing to do with a swipe at the longevity of the whales. :) Personally, I think they are around to stay because they are a great machine.

My point was that basing their longevity on the fact that mgmt installed AVOD and other mods is proven to be a wildly unreliable source.

Enjoy your evening!

under construction....

I caught the 767 thingie after I hit send.

I hate this deviation from deadhead stuff.....sure hope it states in the TA:eek:

PS. I met sinca3 today commuting in...what a good $hit!!

Ferd.

Pink is for the all growth 717 scenario using the extra 717s that DALPA is mentioning in email. Which I thought would be fair game along with the 65 MD-90 number (minus the 3 operational spares crew planning said we'd be using this year knocking 48 down to 45).

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...d/Temp5-33.png

In the pink, we have to grow ASMs. It's a wonderful scenario and would be great for us in terms of hiring and total mainline size fleet. It's great. Could happen.

But it doesn't have to happen. They can remove the 88s for 717s, save money on pilot costs btw, and still meet the ratio and keep ASMs on their current trajectory of profit over market share.

1.B.46.f Exception one: If the Company establishes a fleet of new small narrowbody aircraft, the number of permitted 76-seat aircraft may increase on a one 76-seat aircraft for each one and one quarter new small narrowbody aircraft (1:1.25) ratio (rounded to the closest integer) up to a total of 223 76-seat aircraft.

1.B.28 “Fleet” means aircraft in service, undergoing maintenance, and operational spares.

Under the language they could "establish a fleet" at VCV...I take the company and ALPA at their word that the 717 will be delivered painted and with Delta blue leather seats, and it will be weeks from delivery to service entry, not months-years as is the case with the MD90s.



Cheers
George

Thanks, George!

The way I read that (and I'm very tired... so I could very well be wrong) is that there is no number of small narrowbodies required except the ratio. Is this NNP misstating that all 88 have to be on property prior to the acquisition of the first?

I'm intrigued as to where the 88 number comes from as a trigger...

(cleaned up your quote to take the line numbers out)

That's not what it says at all...
Again the relationship is specifically descibed in 1.B.46.f

I had a nice conversation with Tim O. Yesterday and we discussed that very point.

1.B.46.f ...the number of permitted 76-seat aircraft may increase on a one 76-seat aircraft for each one and one quarter new small narrowbody aircraft (1:1.25) ratio (rounded to the closest integer) up to a total of 223 76-seat aircraft.

The delivery schedule for 717s starts in late 2013 and varies depending on who you talk to, from 4/36/36/12 to 16/36/36, at any rate it's 3/month...

With 16 717s in service on January 1, 2014 the ratios in 1.B.46.f are triggered for the first time.
16 717 = 12 76-seaters
12 76-seaters = removal of 32 50-seaters

On January 1, 2015 we measure the second time
16+36=52 717 in the fleet =add 42 76-seaters (195 total)
195 76-seaters = removal of 27+27+28+29+3+3=117-32=must remove 85 50-seaters (117 total removed so far)

On January 1 2016 we measure again
16+36+36=88
88 717 = 70 76-seaters
70 76-seaters = 125 hard cap on 50-seaters

It's only the last 76-seater that establishes the hard cap of 125, in 2016 or 2017 depending on the 717 delivery schedule...

Since you mention the MD90s sitting, waiting to get the mods, you can probably interpret this language in context:

1.B.28 “Fleet” means aircraft in service, undergoing maintenance, and operational spares.

Cheers
George

H George,

Theses are important points.

The "narrow body floor" that was part of the NWA BQ langange failed to trigger because of something very similar.

Management took one or two RJs less than the cap, but it was at the cap where the floor language got triggered. They got almost all the benefit, but none of the restrictions.

Language matters a lot in those cases...look at the settlement of the 153 large RJ grievance.

Nu

So if they took delivery of all 88 B717's and 69 more 76 seat RJ's, how many 50 seaters are we left at?

That's being a little spinny. Retirements are not contingent on this TA passing, and IMHO, should not be used as relief for the reduced staffing that results from the reserve modifications contained in this TA.

If the first 50 seaters will not be removed until sometime in 2014, why the urgency to re-engine them now?

Does Bastian get a deal if he orders CRJ parts two years early?

I think they have to schedule the overhauls well in advance. I don't think they can just get squeezed in this year. Also, the 50 seater retirements scheduled in conjunction with this TA are contingent upon B717 delivery. So there is a timeline that's been created. 717's come, then 76 seaters come, then 50 seaters parked. Just my observation.

Thanks for the data, george. Either Bill and I were reading that line from the NNP wrong, or they were speaking out of turn in their wording.

The NNP states that 88 717's must come on property before any 76 seaters are allowed... and that is definitely incorrect.

80, which nnp is it?

Scope.


Page 2, paragraph 1, line 1:


"The tentative agreement allows Delta earlier access to an additional 70 76-seat aircraft,
but only if they first add to the mainline fleet 88 SNB aircraft (recently identified by the
Company as B-717s)."


That sure doesn't look truthful...

80kts,

This is directly from the NNP......

The tentative agreement allows Delta earlier access to an additional 70 76-seat aircraft, but only if they first add to the mainline fleet 88 SNB aircraft (recently identified by the Company as B-717s).*

I don't see where it says ALL 88 SNB aircraft must be delivered before ANY 76 seaters are allowed. It says the company must first add 88 SNB aircraft before they may have access to ALL 70 76 seat aircraft. That is a true statement. In order for the company to have ALL 70 76 seaters, they must first take delivery of ALL 88 SNB aircraft.

I'm sorry for the all caps words. I just feel they're key. Are you seeing different?

We did have these on the website, in the road shows, in the notepads, and in the handouts that are in every pilot's mailboxes. The graph was also in a document that was mailed to everyone's house. I don't think this is much of a secret or that anyone is trying to keep it a secret. They both clearly show that the 717's are phased in along with increased 76 seaters and reductions of 50 seaters.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/39382899/Gr...Reductions.JPG

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/39382899/Te...Reductions.JPG

I agree- and I'm not the one that was duped by it, Lumberg was.




That's what started all this- trying to figure out a. where he got that statement and b. what the truth is.

1.D.9.b

Once they hit 214 76 seat airframes the 1:1.56 MBH radio engages, so 222 76's will still trigger the 1:1.56.

Wrt removal provisions:

1.B.46.f.7

4.6 50 seat aircraft for each 76 seat aircraft added.

So in your "69 aircraft purchase scenario" the rounded number would be 5, therefore the 50 seat cap would be 130.

Gotcha. Thanks.

Just voted yes, end of discussion.

The small and large end Scope is just not enough. I voted "No".

Fortunately, should you have a change of heart, you are allowed to change your vote until the window closes.

I just can't help but notice the part about the unwanted jets that are no longer economical decreasing while the wanted jets that are more economical (or in Bill's words profitable) increasing.

What language in the TA reverses that trajectory?

I get there will be caps, but we have a cap right now and we're tossing it. So I am learning that caps are not to be taken seriously. So what language reverses the trajectory of an increasing number of large Lumberg jet hulls?

There's a DPA article coming out that will state that the voting software only allows you to change your no vote to a yes vote. It inhibits you from changing your yes vote to no. :D

It's so sad that this TA just plays toward the hate of 50 seaters (engendered hate of comair and the 50 seaters they started with) and not the real long term problem of outsourcing.

So placate the mob by tossing them some red meat like you're getting rid of the 50 seaters and reducing the number of 76 seaters by 32!!! Just as long as they vote for the TA and not question the details.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/hutch213/myblog/angry-mob.jpg

Here's a question, if I wanted 70 new 76-seaters tomorrow, how long would it take until Bombardier was able to fulfill that order? 2015?

Filling in for Lumberg:
So you're telling me you don't want to work for a profitable company? Are you sure you don't work for Southwest?

It's sad some of you guys dream about getting the Beech 1900 market back. Why stop at RJs? Every darn pilot should work for mainline, including the traffic watch guy in the C152! Especially that guy, he would look great in the hat and jacket.....

Some areas have already been outsourced, and it really would be cost prohibitive to recapture it. Routes to smaller cities, just won't make money with a 717. There is no way to compete with the whipsawed regionals to the smaller cities. So, cap 'em, ratio it, and concentrate on reducing outsourcing as best you can. But, if a route has to have an RJ, put one on there that does make money. Have a great day!

It's sadder that you don't understand the importance of that if there's Delta painted on the side of that Beech 1900.

If Delta is painted on the side of that 152, it should be a Delta pilot flying it. Period.

You know nothing of such a cost for the company. Prohibitive is your opinion.

You're in no position to know that. You do NOT have the data.

Sure there is. The company would rather have the whipsaw at any cost IMO however.

We tried that already. Now people like you are advocating a new larger cap.

Caps mean nothing if people just continue to Lumberg them.

Carl

Why stop with the RJs indeed! Bet those Skywest and Comair guys could fly the MD88 and 90 as well as we do, but cheaper. After all we want to work for a company that makes money, right?

It doesn't do that at all.

It removes aircraft from DCI
It provides a block-hour ratio

Neither of those two are measures of capacity.

Our AFKLM/AZ JV measures capacity expressed in EASK and has no block-hour provisions, yet we "win" on the block-hour side becasue we fly smaller jets.

Cheers
George

Where does it say in the TA that 88 717s are mandated?