Now Biff.........

 

A general observation: The no voters are divided into 2 groups, one being the pilots who feel this TA s not good enough and we can do better, the other group are agenda voters who just post rumors, half truths and downright lies and when called on it they either switch subjects or revert to anti ALPA slogans. Anybody with a little knowledge and half a brain can figure who's who. DPA is doing everything possible to discredit this TA and ALPA because it furthers their cause, they don't give a rats a$$ about DL pilots, they just want power.

 

I am an avid ALPA supporter. I contribute to the PAC. And respectfully, I think this TA is very dangerous for most of our pilots. I know you will not be effected by outsourcing, so I respect your view. I just can not support a continual erosion of our mainline flying to DCI. Pay, now, I can live with. Outsourcing, no way.

With this TA, Alpa failed to represent us. I understand why; DCI is ALPA. Rightfully so, ALPA can not turn its back on fellow ALPA pilots. There is no easy way about this. I need my "dues" dollars to work only for my Delta Pilots, no one else. But can u see the conflict of interest?

I see ALPA discrediting DPA as much as DPA discrediting ALPA. I also see the NN and roadshow suger coat some very ambiguous clauses in the TA. (Scope,Pay,SICK). Please FINIS, read this TA knowing a very shrewd/pro-company attorney wrote it. Regardless, ALPA will get paid.

TEN

 

If you take into account lost revenues/costs due to Customer Loyalty(Most PAX dislike DCI). Labor Strife (REPUBLIC, MESA). Performance (DELAYS, SLOWDOWNS). MX (CRJ50). FUEL(We buy the Fuel). Separate Corporation (We help fund another entity). LIABILITY (accidents, Delta name etc.), Cheapening Delta Brand; I bet you we can operate the 76 seaters ourselves for a profit. Take into account, truthful 12 year data on the 50 seater, not conjured up numbers.

A solution is, put 82-90 seats on the 76 seaters and let us fly them. The extra seats will offset any perceived increases in costs.

TEN

 

Don't speculate, it's confirmed.
Slowplay ran the numbers:

So this is what a part of "plan B" could look like:

Take the 16 CRJ900 that are being phased out at Pinnacle in early 2013.
Find them a new home at another DCI provider and trade them at a 4:1 against CRJ50 capacity-purchase agreements (similar ratios in 1.B.46.f.6,7).
Add an order for 32 CRJ1000 and place them at mainline with the higher seat density. Use these new puchase CRJ1000s and financing to to unwind the loss of CRJ50 leases.

By Jan 1, 2014 "Plan B" would have reduced DCI by 48 aircraft while keeping the existing "jumbo RJ" cap of 255
By Jan 1, 2014 the TA will reduce DCI by 17 aircraft while increasing the "Jumbo RJ" cap to 325.

This is one small example, there are many other "creative" options to reduce the number of as-Ed-put-it "unwanted by all" 50-seaters...

Cheers
George

 

I think you missed the first part of the post and by the way I have read the TA and personally think you are wrong but I respect your no vote. Regardless of the outcome we are still one pilot group/

 

What about a 3rd group that believes the language on the TA does not adequately protect us from giving up a lot for nothing?

And a 4th group, not me, that believes the language on the TA is all fine except the pay tables.

As to the power issue, that's an issue. Does the DPA want the power? Sure. So does ALPA. If ALPA would just let us vote on the MEC Chairman and give us that power and disown ALPA nationals conflict of interest in representing both the regionals and mainline carriers, well, I could grow a fat stache and strike the pose:



I might even volunteer.

 

The ratio for the first 20 76 seat aircraft is 2.7-1. That means that the PCL CRJ-900 could get Deltea out of 43 CRJ-200 currently covered under a CPA, so you only have another 175 to go. Do you think that management might have modeled or presupposed what they could do with their variouis assets when they were negotiating with us?

 

One other thing...APA most likely will either get a deal or get rejected this week. Either way their scope will change and change substantially. They've already negotiated an agreement that has 308 81 seaters (CLA with US Airways). Their management 1113C proposal has 300 88 seaters. My guess is those are the bookends of whatever deal they reach with their management or whatever the court imposes.

 

slow- no one has answered the stipulations for those RJs... what are they? That is a very key piece of the puzzle.