TA 2012 Contract Highlights
 

From our good friend Georgetg.


http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...d/GTGTitle.png

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/25953519/TA...n-01-Rates.jpg

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...toBid/GTG2.png

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...toBid/GTG3.png

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/25953519/TA...ason-04-JV.jpg

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/25953519/TA...-05-JV-Pie.jpg

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/25953519/TA...n-06-Ratio.jpg

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...toBid/GTG7.png

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...toBid/GTG8.png

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...toBid/GTG9.png

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...oBid/GTG10.png

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/25953519/TA...ccelerated.jpg

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/25953519/TA...2-Pinnacle.jpg

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/25953519/TA...3-Timeline.jpg

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/25953519/TA...gotiations.jpg

Ouch! A picture is worth a thousand words and the devil is truly in the details.

Interesting.

It certainly is. Thanks George.

Talk about spin....

George, why don't you draw the bar with the actual pay raises in it rather than what 1% of pay is? Or the other actual cost increases, like sick pay, vacation pay, training pay, reserve guarantee...you know, those things that cost the company over $400 million per year additional? Then you could compare it to the one time investments you've got listed.

That would look pretty different now, wouldn't it?


Instead you chose to be disingenuous. Why? :confused:

slowplay,

Care to address reasons 5-10? This is much different then what DALPA has been telling us.

I don't have time to draw powerpoints right now as I'm packing to leave for a funeral, but suffice it to say that every single one of George's "analytical" slides is as misleading as his pay slide.

It is pretty, though.

George doesn't take into account any hiring and training with regard to staffing or minimum 50 hours per month. Just think about how much training, sims, waiting for IOE, etc with 88 717s, more MD90s, and 3 737-900s coming per month. I have a feeling 60 hours will be broken, and the reserve manning will have to be increased per the TA. Then throw in retirements in a few years, for a decade. If you are a reserve then, when 700 guys retire per year, then that will be by your own choice.

Slowplay, sorry to hear about the funeral, my condolences.

As for Reason#2, I am not attempting to be disingenuous. It's just an illustration of where we are.

The baseline on the bottom is the "cost neutral" to the company contract.
Yes, the proposed raises in the TA are "money in our pockets, no question."
And in the final year—2015—the additional pilot contract cost of the pilot contract to the company is above $400M. That's all part of the baseline of "cost neutral" to the company.

I'm showing the balance sheet comparisons for headroom in the budget.
The items are all above and beyond "normal annual budget expenses" So is the 20M/1%. I really don't think that is a mischaracterization, is it?

Cheers
George

I like colors. :D

Sorry you're headed to a funeral. If the deceased was close, I'm sorry for your loss. :(

Bill,

If you are talking about the Reason #9 Slide, you have misread it.

The sole purpose of that slide is to show how the staffing formula of 60/hrs reserve doesn't provide nearly the "protection" it is rumored to have.

The 60/hrs/reserve average for all reserves is a catastrophic protection in our PWA. I'm glad we have it. But if breaking the 60hrs annual average for all reserves is what it takes to get Delta to start hiring, then God-bless-us-all!

Cheers
George

Talk about massive misdirection and outright fabrication as well as sloppy analysis.

Reason #2: Delta's investment in the pilots is $1 billion in this deal and yet he shows $20 million. Sure that is not intentionally misleading.

Reason #5: It is clear he hasn't read the TA. There is no provision for a domestic Joint Venture, it is international only. So why is he talking about sharing revenue with Alaska, Republic, and whomever? That is not allowed. Currently we 0 protections. So maybe he can redraw the graphs and show how much flying Delta pilots have to do under the current contract. Oh yeah, ZERO. Why didn't George show that. Deception?

Reason #6 and 7: His math is completely wrong. Imagine you have to share 150 units of something. If you start at a share of 90 to 60 the ratio is 1.5 to 1. If you change the share to 100 to 50 the ratio is 2 to 1. The amount of decrease from 60 to 50 was 17% and the ratio changed by 33%. Notice he tries to do all his math on ratios to mislead you into thinking that he is calculating block hours.

Secondly, he argues for a grossly shrinking airline. I think the Touch and Go that was released showed quite clearly that Delta could shrink. Under our current contract, Delta could shrink mainline in half and still grow DCI. Now under gross shrinkage, Delta has to spread the pain out. Which scenario is better for mainline pilots? The Touch and Go showed how even at a 6% system shrinkage, the mainline fleet has a small amount of growth. That is because DCI capacity is being cut so much.

Those two slides show that he is purposely trying to deceive you, or he is incompetent as an analyst. You decide, either way his analysis is false.

Reason #9: The change in block hours now from winter to summer is going to be 13%. Yet his reserve analysis shows an 80% increase in reserve flying from winter to summer. How is that possible? In 2011 the average for Jun-Aug was 72,276 reserve hours flown while the Jan-Mar average was 71,376. The difference is 1.25% Somehow, the average is now going to jump 80% between winter and summer. Just because you put numbers on a pretty graph doesn't mean there is anything behind them other than a spreadsheet. A fourth grader can make an Excel graph, there has to be logic and analysis beyond a fourth grade level to make them valid as a decision tool.

Reason #10: First, he admits that this TA will produce more mainline jobs. Second, he shows that losing 21 DC-9's will produce more job loss than adding 30 MD-90's. That is deception pure and simple. Then he maintains that the loss of 21 DC-9's cause 275 jobs to be lost but only shows 572 job gains from 88 717's. How is that? Deception pure and simple. Never on his graph does he show pilots leaving from the early out. Why?

Reason #11: Much of the loss in DCI in the previous few years was Saabs and Comair. Well Comair is down to almost nothing and the Saabs are all gone. The majority of the rest of the fleet is contracted out through 2015 and beyond. You must understand the reason behind the trend line to then try to project that into the future.

Reason #14: He talks about the new SWA deal, but he doesn't mention that the follow on deal was WORSE than the first one. Yes he has a happy talk quote from the SWAPA president but it fails to mention the other aspects of the TA that got much worse. FEDEX did a deal that was a smart move at the time, but they got two 3% raises and basically nothing else for a two year extension. Is that what George wants? Because, Delta management would oblige him on that one.

Thanks for the reply alfa.

Just for Alfa:

100 + 119 = 219 (1.19 ratio)
85 + 133 = 219 (1.56 ratio)

both examples have the 219 number of block hours.

100 reduced to 85 = 15% reduction
119 increased to 133 =11% increase

Cheers
George

Reason #4 : George leaves us thinking that somehow Delta is 11% below capacity across the Atlantic or grossly out of compliance on the code share. He also mischaracterizes MOU 16 either purposely or through inattention.

Before Alitalia (AZ) joined the code share, Delta had a 50/50 share of the JV with AF/KLM. For illustration purposes, let's assume that we both had 50 units of capacity for a total of 100. AZ joins the alliance and brings 12 units of capacity for a total of 112.

MOU 16 now says that Delta's share of the JV is still going to be 50% of the alliance, but now our 50% share equals 56 units rather than 50. Only a fool would characterize that as a bad thing. What MOU 16 does is allow Delta a few years to grow into that increased amount of flying, while AF/KLM/AZ has to shrink from 62 to 56 units. Does that sound like a reasonable compromise to achieve gains or is that a concession? I will let you decide.

Delta currently is moving towards their 50% share, they are now around 48%. Yet that graph somehow leaves the impression that we are way out of compliance or that MOU 16 was anything other than a victory for Delta pilots.

If we ever get there, how many block hours would DCI 450/325 produce?

I think 1.245 million based off an average of 2,775 hours per DCI aircraft based on Alfa's math equation from a week or so ago.

Anyone else have a number?

Because 1.245M x 1.56 = 1.948M.

Which is barely above our current 1.940M block hours we do right now on the mainline side.

Would we keep the 76 seaters at a 255 number if we did it?

The chart show YOY reductions as it says in the title.
Delta showed that slide at the investor conference.

Transatlantic JV down by 8 YoY
AFKLM/AZ down by 5 YoY
Delta down by 11 YoY

The current compliance period began April 1, 2011 and ends March 31, 2014.

Those cut occurred in the current compliance period
More cuts are ongoing

We just cancelled
ATL Barcelona
JFK Prague
We added one more ATL Paris flight

What is our share so far for the 15 months starting April 1,2011?

Cheers
George

This is so intriguing. I mean that is with The SWA on the other side of the table.

So we've shrunk DCI from 2009 to now, without a swap for larger jets?

Anyone else notice that none of the unionoids on here will give any specifics on the very vague AMR proposal on the large RJs as well?

They threw the numbers out there with no qualification of what would allow such a large fleet...

(nicely done presentation, btw... quite a few people I know will be getting this!)

What I bolded above just tickles me given alfaromeo's previous post in another thread:

"We have an agreement that will add 1,000 new mainline jobs, but somehow that is a bad thing. Go figure."

I've asked alfaromeo to show us numerous times where this claim exists in the TA. But as expected, only the sound of crickets.

Don't you just hate shabby analysis and outright fabrications? :rolleyes:

Carl

Carl, things keep changing.

Back in April of this year (when the company had no idea that they might be able to acquire 717s from SWA :rolleyes:) we were told hiring in mid to late 2013.

Then the TA dropped. No mention of a change in the hiring plan so still mad to late 2013.

Then the rumors of 717s come with pilots was met with a late memo saying not true, but still no mention of a change in hiring.

Then people question whether the 717s are just replacement aircraft and now we may, may, have to hire in 2012 instead of mid to late 2013. The word pandering comes to mind since it was on the eve of the vote.

And now all of a sudden, those 739s are no longer 1:1 replacements as has been said since they were ordered. And we may exercise options for 30 more 739s and make those all growth.

In the batters box is probably the rumored 773 order, 24 more 717s and we'll upgrade the entire fleet of MD88s and 90s with new cockpits.

They ain't stupid and neither are we.

If the contract doesn't say it, it doesn't have to happen.

BTW, 773 orders, 24 more 717s and cockpit upgrades for the MD fleet are rumors I absolutely believe.

Problem is, it'd be 773s to replace 744s, 24 717s to bring the fleet to 112 to help replace 117 MD88s and the MD90 gets a cockpit upgrade.

Staffing, ASM and cost neutral.

Okay, that's easy, 30 MD-90's replace 21 DC-9's and then add 88 717's. That's 1,000 right there. Any other questions?

OK great. Where in the TA does it say Delta is obligated by our TA to acquire 30 MD-90's and/or 88 717's? Because remember you said:

We have an agreement that will add 1,000 new mainline jobs, but somehow that is a bad thing. Go figure.

Carl

Aren't they saying that you're currently over staffed and didn't some work rule changes cause extra staffing as well?

The 773s wouldn't replace the 744s for 10 more years. They are installing AVOD and sleeper seats on the 744s as we speak. They will be good for at least 10 more years. If they stopped doing the work, that might mean something. The other 717s are sitting in Marana or Mohave, a lot of them in Mexicana Click paint schemes. A new airline in Spain, Volotea, just got a few, but Spain isn't doing well these days. As far as the MD88s go, the leases achieved in BK were pretty good. I don't know how long they will last, but I don't know if anyone has heard that they are on the chopping block. Eventually, maybe. Maybe they will be replaced with 737Max or 320NEOs?

They staff here for the Summers, and are usually overstaffed for the Winter and late Fall. Delta makes most of their money in the Summer months. Throw in a bunch of retirements in a couple years, and the training department will be a zoo.

Bill- there are several 767s in the desert that had a million dollars of AVOD and interior upgrades installed in them.

None of what you typed is any sort of a guarantee... it's wishful thinking at best.

They have to get 88 717s or they won't get any of the 70 76 seaters. It states that in the TA. Most of the 30 MD90s are already here in the States. Since you fly your 744s to Manilla and don't go to Greensboro or Indianapolis much, you wouldn't know about that. A bunch of them are sitting, waiting to get mods right now.

Just like you thinking management will come back with more, or soon. Wishful thinking, at best. A bird in the hand is worth 19.7% and 200 fewer 50 seaters. All you got is.....a hunch. And they don't get any 76 seaters without 88 717s. It's in there, take a look.