Section 1. It's actually new SNB fleet(it's been announced they'll be B717's)

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.

SNB fleet will be defined as B717's or A319's. If management wants to have all 70 additional 76 seaters they must first have 88(based on the RJ:SNB 1:125 ratio) SNB aircraft delivered.

There is nothing in the TA requiring them to purchase that many. Keywords "if" and "up to".

Wow, you got me there. They came to us with this plan, they committed multiple Executive Vice Presidents to negotiate in an accelerated time frame, they gave us 20% pay rate increase, all in the end to say "woops, don't want those aircraft anyway." Does that make any sense to you?

If that is the plan, then we get the money and the improvements to scope, they don't get the new RJ's and we should all be happy then.

You said they were mandated. I did not say that management would back out. They are not mandated to purchase them though. They may only lease half of them. You never know in the end but there is nothing in the TA requiring them to bring in all 88.

You can give all the anecdotal evidence you want (ie VP's meeting and whatnot). If it is a done deal then it shouldn't be too much trouble to line out a couple words and guarantee your understanding of what will happen right? I think that is one thing a lot of no voters are saying.

Clean up and tweak a lot of these little open ended wording blips and it instills more confidence. Why the union or Delta wont do that starts to tell a story especially when one reviews the history of side letters and "good intentions" that never came to fruition!

It doesn't and alfaromeo knows it. The TA does not mandate the purchase, lease or acquisition of even one 717 much less 88 of them. Alfa is an unelected MEC bureaucrat that continually lies to us even though it's easily proven that he's lying. He just doesn't care. He's so convinced his job as an MEC admin is secure, he is simply not concerned about lying.

Carl

First, with the sale/lease thing, I don't know what the answer is but from a pilot's perspective it doesn't matter much to me. Boeing would never give Delta a short term lease so either way if they come they will be here awhile.

They only get to the 76 seaters through the 717's. I don't think we should mandate they get all 76 seaters. If you accept the premise that they started this whole deal so they could reconfigure their fleet then the 76 seaters are the linchpin. No 717's, no 76 seaters. No 76 seaters no incentives to get others parties to dump 50 seaters. So if you want to assume they will change their mind from the whole purpose of this agreement then yes it's not mandated. As I said before, in that case there is no concession in scope and it makes the deal that much stronger.

When someone commits this much money to get us to accept the 76 seaters, you would assume they would go ahead and get them. Either way, if the TA passes, we get the money.

No concession in scope = 70 more large airplanes that will be around for 20 years replacing smaller less viable aircraft that will be gone on their own very soon?

If this TA passes it will go down in history as another large negative milestones taking the career and industry down. A huge missed opportunity. Instead, our own dam union is selling outsourcing 2.0 as a victory. How bout in ten years when the reality of this TA finaly sinks in we go get the guys who pushed this thing out of their easy chair and put their nose in it.

They probably wont care. They got a few more dollars before they retired and could care less what those left holding the bag have to deal with. Up to 99 hours on reserve. You have got to be freaking kidding me. Dont bother telling me it cant happen in any given month regardless of "protective ratios".:mad:

So now the DPA shill is down to class warfare....got any more inaccuracies you wish to spread?:rolleyes:

They CAN'T get the 70 additional 76 seaters UNTIL they get the B717's/A319's. The ratio requires MORE mainline jets to be purchased then RJs.

If you want to vote NO because you don't want to give up more RJs then fine, but quit grasping at straws.

Pot meet kettle. As usual you twist the truth, 717's are not mandated BUT no new 76 seaters until the 717's start arriving.

Finis,

What happens when they want to put 82 seats in the 76 seater? or even worst 90 seats? What happens after they get the 717s and they decide to park old 757, A320s, 747s etc?

Please think about the long term. If you vote this TA down, you are still going to get paid. You are still going to pick up GS. You are still able to make that 19% up.

After taxes, how much is that 19% anyway? Is it worth the potential for Scope degradation?

One Group,

TEN

Again long term I think this TA is an improvement in scope, we can agree to disagree on that. You can play the what if game from both sides, we have a contract that does not allow anymore than 76 seaters, period ! What if Europe tanks, what if we get hit by a meteorite then you will never make up the lost income from this TA. Let's deal with current facts. You don't like the section 1 of this TA, I got it, no what if's.

First of all, DALPA should not use any mention of caps on DCI, especially in BOLD font in 2015, presumably, because they fail that promise. Second of all, how are we "capping" 76 seaters? Maybe i need to reread the definition of the word, but last i checked, there will be 70 NEW LARGE GAUGE RJ not flown by DL pilots. They will be entered into looooong term lease, probably much longer terms than 717. So how does it put us at an advantage in the long term? Do you think the company isnt gonna borrow from the playbook and ask us for scope trade for a few shiny nickels?

Who says they will be in long term leases?

Long term leases are what got DAL in trouble with RJ's in the first place!

I take it you think bankers are stupid.

Just a minor annoyance if management has to keep 50 seat RJs - can't claim that the entire system is equipped with Economy Comfort. Won't stop them from making the claim about mainline.

Does the TA say that the leases or the CPA's will have any sort of duration? Aka anythingn to stop it?

You know finis, you so blindly attack anything that upsets your little house of cards built upon the foundation of DALPA, you don't even bother to read people's posts. Here's the post where you said I "twisted the truth".

I do NOT twist the truth. I post the actual words of people and in complete context. The problem that you, slowplay and alfaromeo have is that I repost your actual words. If you don't like your own words, then edit them.

Carl

No it doesn't and worse yet DAL extended the Pinnacle CRJ-200 contracts five years to 2022 before we even sign...

On the flip side it might very well give us the edge in terms of timeline should the TA be rejected...

Cheers
George

And the furlough agreement will not protect the bottom of the list and DAL will get get the 717s (if they do will park the most unprofitable airplanes - the 50 seaters anyway, older 319s/320s, older 757s) - so worst case we'll all be in trouble and I'll be back on the bottom near furlough again.

I'm assuming you're referring to pilots NOT on the seniority list as of 7/1/12? Because the no furlough agreement & flow down most certainly protected the bottom of our list before the latest round of new hires. That was with oil over $145 per barrel! :eek:

Alfa,
Read the slide and you will find your answer:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25953519/TA%...9-Staffing.jpg

The slide is an example in response to the talking point:
"Don't worry, Delta can't fly you to ALV+15, because the staffing formula would require an increase in reserves"

Then I looked at the 60hrs/annual average. I sounds like it would do the trick, but does it?

The slide illustrates how flying 90hrs for three months of the year and 50hrs/month for the remaining months still keeps the average at 60/hrs anually.
The staffing formula would only kick in if all pilot exceeded 60hrs/month anually and one exceeded it by more...

Averages and percentages are sometimes hard to understand but often easier to grasp visually. The slide illustrates how the technical measurements of the staffing formula won't provide "protection" from flying ALV+15.

Cheers
George

Wow, that was sure some scary analysis for a hypothetical example. I mean let's not try to stay within the bounds of possibilities let's see if we can come up with the stupidest example possible and then try to scare pilots who don't understand your subtle complexities. Can you give one valid reason why reserve flying would increase by 80% from winter to summer? The current shift is 2%. The current change in block hours is 13%. Remember there are many other things the company does to deal with that shift including limiting vacation weeks available, decreasing training, and changing the ALV. How in the world did you come up with 80%?

I mean hypothetically, if this TA fails, Delta could buy 1,000 RJ-50's and 1,000 Q-400's and shut down the mainline domestic fleet. So why shouldn't I make some slide showing the hypothetical staffing for mainline getting cut by 2/3. That wouldn't be any different than your slide would it? I mean it's possible right?

Hypothetically, I could hit a home run every time I went to bat in a major league game. I can pick up a bat, I can jog around 4 bases, I can swing the bat with enough force to hit it over the fence. So what is the possibility that I could hit 500 home runs next year in the major leagues? How about even 1? How about that I could even get one base hit? That is the difference between hypothetically and possibility.

Your slide was so completely at odds with reality that it is nothing more than a scare tactic. Since there is only a 1 or 2% drop in reserve hours flown from summer to winter, what your slide should show is guys flying 90 hours per month in the summer and then averaging flying 88 hours the rest of the year. Now, how does that average out to 60 hours.

So in some mythical, hypothetical world where airplanes run on cotton candy, yes your scenario averages out to 60. In the real world where real constraints exist, your slide is nothing but propaganda. Propaganda that has no basis in fact, no basis in reality, no statistical backing. It is just a made up scare tactic and it is just a complete fabrication.

The title of your slide is:

"Staffing Formula Won't Prevent Loss of Jobs from ALV and Work Rule Changes".

That is just a lie. That has no basis in reality. This is just one example of how you try to present yourself as some teller of truth with insight and analysis. Instead you are just a propaganda artist that is trying to sway votes through deception.

Alfa,

I like your analysis and input that answers questions and counters arguments with facts and I generally agree with you. The above post though is beneath you. I've met George and believe him to be an honorable person. I don't believe George is one to stoop to name calling etc. (Unlike others, I cannot remember any of his posts where he has done this.) Show him and explain where he is wrong and refute his arguments with facts. Thanks for listening.

Denny

How many times on the line have you seen a situation where the company has gone against the "spirit" of some work rules to exploit a pilot, squeezing more out to the detriment of the QOL and health of that pilot? Oh yeah, you dont fly the line.

You accuse george of giving a silly example to illustrate a work rule. Have you read what your buddies are putting in the various NNPs lately? Give me a friggin break.

You said: "you are just a propaganda artist that is trying to sway votes through deception". Many would say this is precisely what DALPA has been doing from start to finish on this TA...."We have an opportunity.....we will not hurry or reduce our goals blah blah blah...." Again, the tilted selling of POS12 is disgusting and dishonest.

There is a history of guys like you stating how things are nailed down...."this work rule....you wont even notice it". Then in real life it goes completely sideways and the guys on the line pay the price. I can't tell you how much that pi$$es me off. Bottom line, this productivity work rule change is another set back for the pilots of Delta airlines regardless of what you are saying. If it goes through we will never get back the option we had to fly less as an in base reserve. You wont be on this board selling then though. You will be sipping margaritas with your FPL buddies. Take your nonsense elsewhere.

That is true. If the work rule goes sideways we will need to go back and ask for it to be returned to what it was. When you do that, you are giving up asking for an improvement somewhere else just to return back to what you gave up.

We're swinging for singles and hoping to get hit in the head and be allowed to advance to first while they hit grand slams when they're up to bat and if they don't, well, hope that we don't have an error.

I am sorry, but there is not other explanation for his presentation. Just from a common sense view, how could anyone assume that 20 DC-9s produce almost twice as many jobs as 30 MD-90's and half as many jobs as 88 717's? If there was one or two mistakes on his slides, then I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Instead, every slide contains gross errors that all fall on one side of the coin, against the TA. This can't be random.

I have shown him where he is wrong and he never attempted to fix even the most gross errors, instead he hems and haws and offers more misdirection. This was just an attempt to mislead pilots and scare them into voting the way he wanted them to vote.

I am sure he doesn't kick dogs or steal candy from little babies. In this case, his worst side prevailed, he did not attempt to give a balanced view of anything and instead mostly made up "facts" and then presented them in a very authoritative, well produced document to try to scare people.

It is funny, ALPA gets roundly criticized for using the 87 hour average for line holders, even though it is the ACTUAL AVERAGE. So we back off and use 80 to avoid this criticism and avoid misleading anyone. He puts out complete lies and is supposed to get a free pass. Not from me.

You've flat out lied to this pilot group when you posted: "This TA includes the addition of 1,000 plus mainline jobs." When I corrected you, you just continued the lie and misdirection.

Carl

The flow down to Compass prevented furloughs during the height of the recession in 2008. This TA has even better protections for pilots and hurdles for Delta like 90 days notice and the same standard Force Mejeur clause that prevents furloughs, like anything dealing with financial state of the company, high oil, etc. Watch out for the choppers over your house!! Run!

The slides are not DPA talking point slides.

You question my motives and claim I made the slides for the DPA. Those are tall accusations and they are without merit.

• Unlike you, I have actually voted in a representation election to be represented by ALPA. I have seen first hand the ugly tactics of MC's former law firm.
• My uncle Wally who passed away earlier this year worked at ALPA National for 40 years. So being ALPA is "in the family."
• I have not worked with, worked for or coordinated anything with the DPA, it just false and without merit to suggest otherwise.
• I made the slides without any input feedback or coordination with DPA, nor have I sent them to or provide them for the DPA to use.

As a Delta pilot it is my right and I feel my duty, to take a critical look at the impact the TA might have on our future.

If having an opinion different from yours is somehow "anti-ALPA" we are in deep trouble as a Union.


To the questions you raise:
I got my staffing numbers from Rich H. the E&FA guy.
He indicated a 717 delivery schedule of 4 in 2013, 36 in 2014, 36 in 205 and 12 in 2016.
He also indicated the 717 was to be staffed at 5.5 crews/aircraft.
Since then the delivery schedule was updated to 16 in 2013, 36 in 2014 and 36 in 2015. As a result I did update the slide to reflect the changed delivery schedule prior to publishing. Nothing nefarious, just the numbers from ALPA.

Since you questioned the DC-9 275 manning in a earlier post, I assume now everything is fine with that number, because it matches the latest Touch-and-Go. I showed 172 + 374 + 572 jobs added due to 717 addition by Jan 1 2015.

The MD90 numbers account for 5.5 crews/aircraft and are based on actual announced additions to the fleet, the 30 additional MD90s are authorized by the BOD but the some of those aircraft haven't even been purchased yet and others are taking years to join the fleet...BTW the April 1 Delta fleet info booklet (referenced on the bottom of the slide) shows the MD90 fleet count at 45.

A lot of the "discrepancies" you point out are based on continuously changing information about this TA.

Case in point the roadshow Slide 62 (referenced at the bottom of the slide) details staffing changes resulting from the TA.
The initial version of the slide and the printed roadshow hand-out showed a "slight" increase in staffing.
Later versions of the same roadshow slide show an "increase of 72."
The last roadshow I saw omitted slide 62 entirely and in it's place was a slide showing and increase of 175 pilot positions.
At some point I had to make my slide and used best available information at that time. My slide is no less incorrect as slide 62 on the road-show handout.

So short answer, some of the information provided by Delta and ALPA committee members has changed since the slide was made, if you are looking for it, that would be your "smoking gun..."

It does beg the question why, with all the analysis and costing resources available, the roadshow slide kept changing staffing projections long after the TA was agreed to. Were the original numbers the basis for approving the TA or the latter figures?
If the staffing number can change long after approval of the TA, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume some other numbers might change to our detriment...

I am certain we both want the same thing: What's good for Delta pilots.
Having a disagreement about what might have a positive or negative impact on our careers is to be expected. It would be foolish—after all that has happened in this industry—to assume otherwise.

Cheers
George

Classy post George.

Shack, George, shack! Keep bringing it brother.