Question with a disclaimer... I'm not a Delta pilot, just a military guy who wants to fly for Delta in a couple years. I read the above quote after reading this quote:

Just wondering what the displacement situation is at Delta?

I bring it up because it's here, and this is where the DAL guys appear to be hanging out for the next few weeks, but I have no dog in this fight... so take it easy on me.

No that is a fair question. The only displacements on the foreseeable horizon are the 747 guys. Who knows where they will displace, but hopefully the company will carry any category staffing overages created. Other than that, we will probably be seeing modest growth and retirements are ramping up at an increasing rate over the next few years. Come on in, the water's great. Seniority is everything, your date of hire is paramount, so don't get cold feet. Get here as soon as you can and you will ride a great wave. Thanks for your service by the way too.

He represents instructors, and its not an instructor issue!

Yes it is. We fly at least 3 months a year with most of us being FOs.

GS or lack thereof should not be considered when discussing a pay cut or raise.

I find it strange that some no voters are upset because if the TA is ratified then that cuts into their GS opportunities, thus a pay cut, etc.

Usually the sentiment on these and similar message boards is how GS are "bad" (sometimes called greed slips) how anyone flying them hates their family, has no life outside work, can't see the big picture due to their selfishness ("just think how many more pilots would be hired if no one flew GS!") etc.

If you get a GS, that's great! Ride that train while it lasts. But I don't buy the company's line that opportunities for premium pay somehow constitute a pay raise, nor the pilot upset at seeing GS potentially drying up claiming it is a pay cut.

Herk......I wonder how many here will recall the mec negotiating the vacation sell back......and then telling us it was a pay raise?

Keep in mind that C48 is the Instructor corps. They don't get the benefits of LCA trip drops and they can come to work sick.

I remember it, and I remember WHY we got rid of it...until PBS.

With PBS you can sell back 100% of your vacation, under POS 96 you could only sell back 50%.

Yep. I remember that. It was actually a concept called vacation pre-sell, one of the gems from our 96 contract. Pilots could decide prior to the beginning of the vacation year to "pre-sell" or liquidate up to half their vacation. The real problem was that the company then took the amount of vacation weeks liquidated and reduced the staffing numbers based on that. Then for the next few years come pre-sell time the MEC would then strongly urge pilots NOT to presell, which of course would lead to "then why did you negotiate that in the first place?"

The really funny part for the presellers was that they didn't even see the money for something like 15 months!

DALPA did successfully get rid of that with our C2K contract.

They are touting this a lot but its worth re-mentioning we already own the E190 flying 100%. If they want it, we have to fly it. We didn't "capture" it with this TA. We captured it several contracts ago and owned it ever since. Same for the 380 or anything else. If they want it here, we have to fly it. Period.

The TA does put the rates at a better place than current book, mostly because current book was inked a while ago and never updated to reflect even JB rates. If they forced them on us at current rates they would have a mutiny on their hands, and likely some first year captains, and a lot more churn within the fleet anyway. Nearly 100% of FO's would churn after 1 year at current book rates not ot mention morale would suffer as the most profitable airline in the galaxy flew the at pay rates significantly less than JB. The company doesn't want that either.

They claim they envision this demand for 50 of these "hundred seaters". OK, fine. And they absolutely under no circumstance will (at this point) say the 190's are replacements for anything other than RJ's. Once again, great. The TA reduces DCI seats by 2%. OK, again, fine. So:

If we don't sign then they are either getting the 190's anyway, or they are going to cancel them and try and cover 50 E190/195's worth of lift with 2% DCI in the form of 50 seaters that they can't staff anyway. Or abandon otherwise profitable markets to the tune of 50 "hundred seaters" worth of lift as a penalty. LOL. No way.

And the 40 extra 737's that are all replacements are going to come regardless because they have to replace what they are replacing anyway.

We're being asked to buy what we already own, and the only thing we're really getting out of it are better 190 rates sooner (there is some value to that) and the 1.81 MBHR (also an improvement). In exchange we are breathing more life into DCI particularly helping them out of their severe and worsening staffing crisis.

I guess the real question here would be: is the 1.81 MBHR sufficient enough to insure the 50 E190's couldn't be used to replace any significant amount of current mainline lift and still allow them to enjoy the full compliment of the newly revitalized DCI fleet?

I honestly don't know the awnser to that and am hoping someone does. As of right now I don't like it and until my concerns are alleviated it is a huge tic mark in the no column (along with others).