Delta TA impact on Delta Connection...

[General Lee]

We've never heard that one before! This profession is screwed...

It is actually tied into the new 76 seaters. For every 1.25 new planes (717s or A319s), DCI gets a new 76 seater, up to 223 total (there are 153 now). But, there will be 125 total 50 or 70 seaters, TOTAL. That is a big reduction. And, the mainline numbers will be tied to DCI numbers. When Delta decides to dump the remaining DC9s (in 2014 now supposedly), that will be tied to any new planes coming in.

In better news, according to the TA, 35% of all newhires in upcoming classes will come from ALPA DCI carriers.

I am still looking at this TA, and I should be getting a summary from ALPA shortly. It should make it easier to understand, rather than just reading the TA which has a lot of lawyer speak.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

The CR2's were going away before the TA. It sounds like there is a big SPIN being put on the idea that you were able to use negotiation capital and leverage to simply memorialize something that was going to happen any way! Smoke and Mirrors, mi Main Line Brothers!

I agree they were going away, but supposedly they will still be on lease. Someone (?) signed a long lease agreement that lasts for awhile longer. I guess you could keep them parked, and still pay for them. The rub is the company and the manufacturer came up with a deal to trade SOME OF THEM up for newer ones. GENIUS! But, what I am concerned with is the TOTAL number. Yes, high oil is helping to remove them, and that isn't anyone's fault. I want to listen to Dalpa and the spin they put on it. I am sure it will be entertaining.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Overall the contract is a net reduction of DCI, more mainline flying, pay raises and only a 3 year contract which means that in 3 years you will negotiate again. IF you say no, you will be negotiating for the next 3 years in mediation anyways. I hope people dont get too caught up in the 76 seat thing. It is important i am not denying that but the amount of mainline flying you will get in exchange will outweigh it.

There is truth in what you say. But, a lot of the mainline pilots currently have sticker shock. A lot was promised pay wise, and scope wise. A few days to calm down and literature from ALPA describing this with a roadshow or two will do all of us some good. I have a few questions I want to ask too.


The following is something copied from the Dalpa internal website and I think it explains, in one guy's view, what the SCOPE section of the TA may say. He is famous on the website, and his first letter in his first name is J. Anyway, more will have to come from that Negotiator's Notepad. Here is what he stated, and it doesn't mean he is exactly right, but I think he made some good points, and here they are:



"First, under the current agreement the company has the authority to grow the 76 fleet to 256 hulls, under this one they are capped at 223 (153+70)

Second, The company has a financing problem with the 50 seat leases and can park them to lose 100% of potential or keep them and lose less than 100%. There are options where the lessors could take the 50 (losing some income) and replace them with 76's (and insure a longer revenue stream). IOW, the 50 IS going away, we can create an environment to accelerate that fact to our benefit our not. This agreement does...

Third, they can only take advantage of this exchange under 2 simultaneous events. They must FIRST place 1.25 NEW narrow bodies into action for each new swapped 76 AND they must remove 2-3 50's. At that point a snap shot is taken to establish a hard block hour ratio which can not be reduced. As they add more NB, they get more 76 (1.25 to 1) and they remove more 50's, a new more favorable mainline ratio is established. In the end of the day, should they chose to shrink ML for any reason, they will be required to shrink RJ by a greater degree (simple math).

Fourth, should they entertain a furlough, before the first pilot hits the street, they would have to pull 6 seats out or EVERY 76 plane being flown (not one, but ALL)

Fifth, they have finally achieved access to the JV/CS world and are in position to place defined limits."




Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[nimtz]

GL if you still put faith in literature from ALPA then you might as well vote YES now...

 

[Flyprdu]

Overall the contract is a net reduction of DCI, more mainline flying...

Incorrect. It may be a reduction of airframes, but it is a marked increase in Available Seat Miles for DCI.

This is bad news for the industry. I suggest to Delta pilots to vote NO.

 

[777forever]

Incorrect. It may be a reduction of airframes, but it is a marked increase in Available Seat Miles for DCI.

This is bad news for the industry. I suggest to Delta pilots to vote NO.

Negative. Check your math. Overall block hrs flown by DCI stands to be reduced significantly

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[Flyprdu]

Negative. Check your math. Overall block hrs flown by DCI stands to be reduced significantly

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Yeah.. block hours.. but SEAT miles are going to be up. You add 150 more planes with 50% more capacity, then there's going to be more lift flown by DCI.

 

[79%N1]

Isn't it better for Delta pilots to have it that way? Less airframes at DCI, but the ones that are flying have more seats/first class? It's about revenue and costs, right? If the plane is going to fly, isn't it better to have more people on it, more revenue? This makeds DAL's bottom line healthier and increases your profit sharing check. A profitable company means more stability and possibly growth, no? You have protection by the overall (less) number of planes flying for DCI, and have capped the size at current levels. Sounds like a win. You geta all balled up by the seats. The plane is going to fly DCI from MEM to GPT anyway. Isn't it better to have it carry 70 people - maybe some paying a higher first class premium - than have it fly with 50 people.

 

[777forever]

Yeah.. block hours.. but SEAT miles are going to be up. You add 150 more planes with 50% more capacity, then there's going to be more lift flown by DCI.

Negative. Your facts are exaggerated, and math still off. They are adding 70 76 seaters MAX while reducing 200ish 50 seaters. At the same time they are adding 88 SNB jets to mainline.

70*76seats= 5320 seats
-200*50= 10,000 seats
---------------------------
Total= -4680 Available seats

You can bet that the new SNB jet flying will cover some of that loss, increasing the ratio of block hours towards mainline's benefit

"First, under the current agreement the company has the authority to grow the 76 fleet to 256 hulls, under this one they are capped at 223 (153+70)

Second, The company has a financing problem with the 50 seat leases and can park them to lose 100% of potential or keep them and lose less than 100%. There are options where the lessors could take the 50 (losing some income) and replace them with 76's (and insure a longer revenue stream). IOW, the 50 IS going away, we can create an environment to accelerate that fact to our benefit our not. This agreement does...

Third, they can only take advantage of this exchange under 2 simultaneous events. They must FIRST place 1.25 NEW narrow bodies into action for each new swapped 76 AND they must remove 2-3 50's. At that point a snap shot is taken to establish a hard block hour ratio which can not be reduced. As they add more NB, they get more 76 (1.25 to 1) and they remove more 50's, a new more favorable mainline ratio is established. In the end of the day, should they chose to shrink ML for any reason, they will be required to shrink RJ by a greater degree (simple math).

Fourth, should they entertain a furlough, before the first pilot hits the street, they would have to pull 6 seats out or EVERY 76 plane being flown (not one, but ALL)

Fifth, they have finally achieved access to the JV/CS world and are in position to place defined limits."

 

[DoinTime]

http://biz.yahoo.com/n/y/y0002.html