More planes added....
06-20-2012 | 04:59 PM
#31
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
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?
The company already asked for 82 seat RJs, and we said NO. Actually I was told we said they could have them, but mainline would fly them. Management said NO. Ask your Rep. That's what mine told me.
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?
Why? Did we give up a higher seat limit in this TA?
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
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?
The company already asked for 82 seat RJs, and we said NO. Actually I was told we said they could have them, but mainline would fly them. Management said NO. Ask your Rep. That's what mine told me.
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?
Why? Did we give up a higher seat limit in this TA?
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
Not going to disagree that the pay is disappointing. The large RJ battle will be never ending, but worse the outsourcing will be never ending as well. We have to protect ALL flying. Unfortunately, I feel it's unlikely we will ever recapture that flying. We may have a chance until AMR filed BK.
06-20-2012 | 05:01 PM
#32
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Carl, you are right. If they don't buy any 717s the beauty of the agreement is that upon ratification, then RJ76s are stuck at 153.
Hey, also, do you think you could post some of the golf videos of yourself that you show all the FOs?
06-20-2012 | 05:06 PM
#33
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
See my post to Carl. If they don't buy any 717s then the RJ76s are stuck at 153. Even better, right?
I have read the entire Section 1 and understand it. Have you and do you?
06-20-2012 | 05:09 PM
#34
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
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
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
Bud,
I can see where you are going with this, but I respectfully disagree. You know an operation is a lot more than just pilots and FAs. It's mx, sims, ramp people at out stations as well as hubs, etc. Huge costs, and DCI is already doing it for cheap. And these 90 seaters, are you talking about the CR9s? I flew on a Mesa CR9 in CLT once and I think it had 84 seats (?), and it was horrible. Delta likes the "first class" option for it's best customers, so I think the 76 seaters are big enough. It appears DL isn't very interested in the E190, and I read that the C-Series planes are fairly expensive. So, if that is the case, then what are some other options for that "100 seat" market that has eluded us for the last decade? I think it is the 717, which is cheap used, but can recapture a lot of the routes we used to fly. That is huge! The MD90s are supposedly under $10 million each, and I bet the 717s are close. You can't be those deals, on the -90s and 717s.
Then, park 200 plus 50 seaters. That alone is huge. You have to admit that some other RJs will have to fill in for those routes that the 50s were on, and logically that would be one step up, the 102 70 seaters, plus some 76 seaters. Add a good ratio that favors the pilots, make it a short duration, and almost 20% in 2 1/2 years, and it's a good deal, especially compared to a hunch.
06-20-2012 | 06:50 PM
#35
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 868
Likes: 18
From: Starboard Side, weekends & holidays.
06-20-2012 | 07:06 PM
#36
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Plese explain that 70+ seat mainline operation. Will there be only mainline pilots, and DCI FAs and mechanics? How about the ramp? Mainline usually pays a lot more with benefits. That would be cost prohibitive compared to the cheap regional feed we have today. Again, explain how you would do it please.
First, why do you think DCI should be allowed to not only operate but grow a DC9-10 sized fleet but not be allowed to operate a DC9-30 sized aircraft? You say because DCI is cheaper, but if they're cheaper on a DC9-10 sized airplane why not a DC9-30 sized airplanes?
Why, outside of "because the (flexible/amendable) contract says so" do you argue in favor of outsourcing the 76 seaters but not 117 seaters?
The second is just a personal observation; when it comes to the ramp, why would a CR9 operated by mainline be any different than it is now? Most of the outstation ramps I go to are not Delta employees. If I am not mistaken, all of ATL above and below the wing are Delta employees whether it is mainline or DCI. So what would change in regards to above and below the wing on a mainline operated CR9 as opposed to a mainline operated 319?
06-20-2012 | 07:58 PM
#37
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Then, park 200 plus 50 seaters. That alone is huge. You have to admit that some other RJs will have to fill in for those routes that the 50s were on, and logically that would be one step up, the 102 70 seaters, plus some 76 seaters. Add a good ratio that favors the pilots, make it a short duration, and almost 20% in 2 1/2 years, and it's a good deal, especially compared to a hunch.
I think the logical way to look at this TA is we’re providing relief for the company that the PWA would not have allowed.
Per the PWA, no more than 153 76-seaters until the mainline fleet grows from today's 715 airframes to the mergers 767 airframes and then continue to grow to trigger the 3:1 ratio that required 70 seaters to be removed.
Per the TA, we allow more 76-seaters without requiring mainline to grow and we do not require the 70 seaters to be parked at any point. In exchange for doing that DCI in the year following the TA’s amendable date shrinks from around 500 airplanes to a cap of 450 airplanes. All of that is contingent on acquiring more 717s, which the company evidently has wanted to do anyways.
So if the company’s plan is not to grow mainline, to get rid of unwanted 50 seaters ahead of schedule, to acquire more 76 seaters and to acquire 717s as replacement aircraft, then, the TA allows them to do all of the above whereas the PWA had more restrictive limits.
06-20-2012 | 11:16 PM
#38
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
Bill,
I think the logical way to look at this TA is we’re providing relief for the company that the PWA would not have allowed.
Per the PWA, no more than 153 76-seaters until the mainline fleet grows from today's 715 airframes to the mergers 767 airframes and then continue to grow to trigger the 3:1 ratio that required 70 seaters to be removed.
Per the TA, we allow more 76-seaters without requiring mainline to grow and we do not require the 70 seaters to be parked at any point. In exchange for doing that DCI in the year following the TA’s amendable date shrinks from around 500 airplanes to a cap of 450 airplanes. All of that is contingent on acquiring more 717s, which the company evidently has wanted to do anyways.
So if the company’s plan is not to grow mainline, to get rid of unwanted 50 seaters ahead of schedule, to acquire more 76 seaters and to acquire 717s as replacement aircraft, then, the TA allows them to do all of the above whereas the PWA had more restrictive limits.
I think the logical way to look at this TA is we’re providing relief for the company that the PWA would not have allowed.
Per the PWA, no more than 153 76-seaters until the mainline fleet grows from today's 715 airframes to the mergers 767 airframes and then continue to grow to trigger the 3:1 ratio that required 70 seaters to be removed.
Per the TA, we allow more 76-seaters without requiring mainline to grow and we do not require the 70 seaters to be parked at any point. In exchange for doing that DCI in the year following the TA’s amendable date shrinks from around 500 airplanes to a cap of 450 airplanes. All of that is contingent on acquiring more 717s, which the company evidently has wanted to do anyways.
So if the company’s plan is not to grow mainline, to get rid of unwanted 50 seaters ahead of schedule, to acquire more 76 seaters and to acquire 717s as replacement aircraft, then, the TA allows them to do all of the above whereas the PWA had more restrictive limits.
Throw in the fact that no other legacy is helping our cause at all, and things are ripe for other interesting "plays" in this industry now, I think this TA is a good deal for us right now. That's why I went from a NO on any deal a month ago to a YES today.
06-21-2012 | 02:38 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 784
Likes: 0
From: Still in one
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.
The problem is the company always asks for more, and ALPA always justifies more, and every time it's a win, victory, strengthens careers, etc.
Except it sure doesn't seem that way.
I also always hear that the next contract or Scope agreement is not our concern at the moment.
Where does its stop? Given our history shooting down this TA will not only prevent this further outsourcing, it will prevent us from the next giveaway in 3 years.
06-21-2012 | 04:04 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,629
Likes: 15
From: blueJet
The second is just a personal observation; when it comes to the ramp, why would a CR9 operated by mainline be any different than it is now? Most of the outstation ramps I go to are not Delta employees. If I am not mistaken, all of ATL above and below the wing are Delta employees whether it is mainline or DCI. So what would change in regards to above and below the wing on a mainline operated CR9 as opposed to a mainline operated 319?
Why did Delta fire 800 Comair (oops, Regional Elite) CVG ramp employees in 2010 and hire 150 extra on the Delta side to make up the difference? They could have fired the Delta side if cost was such an issue.
Why did Delta create Regional Holdings Systems (aka red headed stepchildren) in 2009 then change the name to Regional Elite, combining Comair and Mesaba ramp services into a single Delta subsidiary? Those same guys currently park and service DCI and mainline, makes no difference.
If Regional Elite (owned by Delta) is cheaper than (real) Delta ramp employees, why haven't they taken over ramp operations all across the Delta route structure? Do Delta's ramp employees have "ramp scope" preventing the Delta beancounters from outsourcing their jobs to REAS?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
