That's just wrong. Was that supposed to be humorous? We have a seat limit that still hasn't been affected, even though they supposedly wanted more. Call ALPA and please ask good questions, that should help.

 

Hi Bud,

You keep on bringing this up on a lot of posts. Your question is valid, but Delta can and does employ mainline employees to service these aircraft, currently (minus FA/pilots). They can "man" the 76 seaters at mainline, profitably. Put 90 seats in them and let us fly them..The 14 extra revenue seats will allow this.

Please answer these questions I always bring up and no one answers:

1)What will you do if Delta decides to put 82-90 seats on the expanded fleet of 76 seat DCI jets? More than likely, imho, we will allow them to. Looking at the past 2 decades, this seems to be the trend, would you agree?

2)The 76 seaters are 90 seat hulls; what is the difference between the 76 seater (90 seat Rj) and the 717 (110 seat jet)? My answer is, on the next downturn or "bird in the hand"/"time-value" argument, we will lose that flying to DCI. Do you see why this TA is upsetting?

Bill, I agree with you about the 50 seaters. THey are gone. The pay, too, is ok for me (although I wanted more than 30%). What I am having a hard time understanding is the continual allowance of bigger, more effective and capable DCI aircraft.

This has and will to continue to degrade our profession.

What is 18.8% pay raise in 3 years? especially after inflation, taxes and mainline career erosion? Is it worth it? Remember 18+% is the compounded rate. All of the sudden people round it up to 20%.. Why the spin?

TEN

 

Couldn't help myself! Back to lurking...

Denny

 

Thanks Denny. Some people think this deal means a rollover on all subsequent deals. Outsourcing is actually reduced here, but people are focusing on only one part of the agreement, the additional 70 76 seaters, and can't see the rest of the deal, which parks a huge amount of RJs, provides a favorable ratio going forward for mainline, and brings along 88 717s.

 

Don't forget the JV protection, Codeshare tightening, inclusion of large turboprops, tightened ALK language, improved holding company language, etc. Scope is not just a small-jet issue.

We are simply trading something they can almost do anyways under our current PWA (increase the # of 76 seaters) for a lot of BIG improvements in Scope in general. To me it's a win. Others not so much. That's why we get to vote.

 

Let me answer by asking you a question. When you need work done on or around your house do you use the local handyman/ plumber/ carpenter or do you head down to the local Home depot to get the cheapest labor possible?

 

For the hundredth time, this TA says nothing about 717's. This TA does not require the purchase, lease or acquisition of even ONE 717, or any other aircraft. Not one.

Carl

 

Contrails, you could be right. The company can park whatever they want. They will also need to comply with the ratio, which means that if they keep the fleet of RJs unchanged, they fly them inefficiently at a low utilization rate. Not going to happen.

I'd go back and read Section 1 and the changes.

 

I don't think it is complex at all.

1.25 717s allows 1.0 RJ76.
1.0 RJ76 removes 2.7 to 4.7 RJ50s.
1.0 RJ76 forces ratio compliance.

Too hard to understand?

 

Have you read the rest of the TA? Or section 1 for that matter? Please tell us where the 717s can be found in this TA?