Delta/DALPA-Let's lay it all out re: SCOPE

[General Lee]

I see these threads pop up over and over again and I am always left wondering what will replace the 50 seat aircraft? Can a 76 seater or something even bigger go into the smaller communities and pick up 30-50 passengers and make money?

Will we see the smaller operators like Great Lakes, etc. expand their operations using Beach 1900's? Will mainline give up some of this feed and leave it for a Southwest like operation to pick up?

There seems to be a vacuum left behind in all the contract talks and I wonder how the industry will adapt to fill it.

Great Lakes has taken up the slack left by Saab 340s leaving the DL system (Mesaba), at least in MSP anyway. Those cities mostly had EAS money, but somehow still couldn't support a Saab. Maybe Great Lakes can do it with a Be-1900.

As far as a 50 seater being replaced by a 70 or 76 seater, that is the idea. With high oil, the CASM is too high on the 50 seater. You have to be able to cover all of the costs, and apparently a lot of the 50 seaters can't do it, espcially when you put them up against a SWA 737 or something bigger that can charge a bit less, but has more seats and can cover the total costs. So, throw a bit bigger RJ on the route and try to lower the costs overall, and make a profit where the 50 cannot. If you can't do it with those planes, then I suppose the routes could be dropped. If the 76 seaters are doing very well, that might be an opportunity to upgauge the equipment to the next size, like a 717. You have to find the right sized plane for each route.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[waveflyer]

General, you're missing FlyerDan's very well thought out point. The market pairs must support 76 seats at 80%+ load factor to beat a 50. 50's are inefficient per seat, but they're still cheaper to buy, and suck less gas (albeit, not much) than a -900. The -900's are only more efficient if you fill them. This is the gaping wide hole in your argument that these aircraft will replace feed from smaller communities currently served only by 50's. Frequency stimulates demand. Take frequency away from smaller communities by running two -900's instead of three -200's, and you may not have 150 people who will buy that ticket every day bc they may not have choices that fit with their schedule. Run three -900's and fill them with 50 pax each and you lose all the efficiency of the larger airplane and DAL would've been better off keeping with the 50's.
On the flip side, the -900's are very well purposed to increase frequency on mainline routes (or FORMER mainline routes)

Admit it,general-
This airplane is not going to be running folks from Peoria to the closest hub. Outside of the TA offering no assurances that they would, (ie: you're just making that part up) it wouldn't make sense for them to.

 

[General Lee]

General, you're missing FlyerDan's very well thought out point. The market pairs must support 76 seats at 80%+ load factor to beat a 50. 50's are inefficient per seat, but they're still cheaper to buy, and suck less gas (albeit, not much) than a -900. The -900's are only more efficient if you fill them. This is the gaping wide hole in your argument that these aircraft will replace feed from smaller communities currently served only by 50's. Frequency stimulates demand. Take frequency away from smaller communities by running two -900's instead of three -200's, and you may not have 150 people who will buy that ticket every day.
On the flip side, the -900's are very well purposed to increase frequency on mainline routes (or FORMER mainline routes)

Admit it,general-
This airplane is not going to be running folks from Peoria to the closest hub. Outside of the TA offering no assurances that they would, (ie: you're just making that part up) it wouldn't make sense for them to.

Wave,

Maybe you don't know this, but a few "first class" seats bought on those 76 seaters could pay for those flights, even with lower load factors. Those 50 seaters couldn't offer that better product to DL's best customers. Some of those best customers live in smaller cities or towns, that just can't handle a 717 or larger. DL is paying a lot of money to standardize the RJs to have wifi and more roomy seats than those 50 seaters that will be on the way out. Almost 3 times the number of RJs will leave, compared to the amount coming in if the TA passes. The ones coming in, which would be operated by cheaper Regionals, will have more amenities than other RJs operated for other legacies to small cities.

The big question will be though, where will the 88 717s go? They will probably cover current, better performing 76 seater routes, and yes, those 76 seaters may get booted back to Peoria(isn't Caterpillar based there?) while the 70s and remaining 50 seaters hit Dothan and Montgomery. It's possible, and the 717s will likely compete better against your 737s compared to our current 76 seaters. That will be fun to watch. (if the TA passes, that is)


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Hamfighter]

Just remember this fact: no airline has ever been successful and profitable without RJs. It can not be done.
Also, no airline can be successful and profitable paying their pilots industry leading wages.

 

[General Lee]

Just remember this fact: no airline has ever been successful and profitable without RJs. It can not be done.
Also, no airline can be successful and profitable paying their pilots industry leading wages.

You may be hinting at SWA. They do not have a hub and spoke type system that hits smaller cities. There is no way they would do well if they used 737s to Montgomery and and places like that. The only "small" cities they go to are within Texas, and outside of there you are hard pressed to find one the size of Midland, other than "North Florida Beaches." I can't think of another small one, but that is for a reason. Airtran will be pulling out of a lot of them shortly, and so far they haven't been paid the same as their own counterparts in that merger.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[waveflyer]

Give me some #'s Then general.

This vote is important for the industry- DALPA will be validating delta's bk move to outsource -900's when none of the big 3 networks have ever allowed that-
So prove that the -900 CAN'T be flown at mainline.

Surely you aren't just trusting mgmt that it's not possible.

You have said 88 seats is the magic number, but never answered when I asked why?

So why? Give me data, not vagueness. Let's analyze it. It's important enough to do that work.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

This TA has quids for almost every gain. The ratios provide 40 growth mainline jets to get us to about 760; 7 less than the date of SOC abet lower paying jets, work rule concession that will effect a SLI, and many other good concepts that fall short in the fine print. Its a net positive contract, but not enough to get me to vote for it. I have looked for a reason to vote for this, and after a month of deliberation, I cannot vote for the deal as written.

Many could accept DCI getting more large jets, but only in the short term. There are no duration limits, and that merely kicks the real 100 seat battle down the road. The Holding Company provision is first rate, but the RJET cutout leaves an opening no matter how small. The JV protection is written very specifically and should be more broad based, but even for me that one item is not a deal breaker.

A lot of issues could be solved with the RJET cutout excluding them from Code Sharing with Republic, and DAL and DAL pilots being the Alliance carrier for the US. Then DCI still having some sort of sunset where agreements cannot be more than six year in length then can only have the jets renewed for four years in length and then half of those for two years, and then gone, totaling about 15 years in duration. Remaining non-modified agreements cannot be extended from their expiration dates today. That solves Section 1. The ratios are well below the business plan and as a result still make DCI the accumulator.

The work rule concession costs jobs and the early out does not guarantee that the staffing savings will be nullified in the short term. The work rule changes that effect staffing also could come to play in a SLI. IMO, dumb to give up those with more consolidation coming.

We did not touch reroute. We took profit sharing and made it hard pay; are we really at a point in time where our company cannot give us both. Retirement was only increased 1% over the duration, the commuting policy and reroute were not fixed, reserves are now on the hook for 7.5 hrs more than a line holder is in the month Line Completion window. Essentially the quids are not enough for the pro quos, pat does not pattern day 1.

More importantly that all of this is how accepting this hurts us and the industry going forward. Pay patterning will be lower going forward due to us not reaching parity until 2015, scope in the section 1 hurts UCAL and everyone going forward, but most importantly: Our surveys were complied and then time valued by the reps for an expedited process. The results are below their direction without redirection from the MEC. Voting this in sends a message that we as a labor group really are not willing to stand fast on our demands nor the mins the MEC set. Its a message that will keep giving. We are willing to accept substantially lower than what we state. How will that play our in future negotiations? It a message that should not be sent because the ramifications are far reaching. *

* Council 1, 20 and 54 Rep letters have all stated that the TA was below the the direction of the pilots and the Reps as well. No redirection was given before the TA. We have a process issue here, but we also have a final product issue.

Some will state that the risk is too much to turn it down. I disagree. What we have in this TA is a railroading of the process and a product that fails to meet the speific direction of the Reps; stated by many reps fwiw. Furthermore, the Reps I have talked to have specifically stated that they have not been briefed on the company's plan B. Is there a plan B? probably, but this whole TA and RJ redo is merely a side show to the real goals. Would DAL in their right mind forgo the opportunities they really want for the price of a 777? Very unlikely. Will DAL reengage with the union? Yes. They at a min, have to negotiate a traditional deal in good faith 270 days prior to the amendable date; that is now. Isn't it easier to clean up what is already created then to start over? Most definitely. Will they have severe egg on their face and be irritated? Yes. Will that cause them to cut of their nose despite their face? No, its business. The better option is having us on board going forward. We may see sick call questions from the CPO increase, we may see other items increase, but in the end dealing with us is the quicker and cheaper option. Just remember, absent this TA, we do not allow more 76 seat jets, the profit sharing does not change, the work rules do not change and thus the displacements are minimized. The only loss is a pay raise today versus down the road. Given the process issues and product issues, it is smarter to reengage the company and arrive at a better product that moves us forward with a great company.

Understand the far reaching implications of allowing this to go though. It is how I arrived at my decision. You can term it as good, but its not good enough.

 

[Scoot 11]

Bc I believe outsourcing hurts the entire industry.

So does undercutting the industry with lousy pay/benefits/pay for training/ no retirement........But you get it.

Yeah, it is a psychological problem-But it's grounded in reality. It's not about me. I have a lot of friends still hurting on furlough due in large part to our old jobs being outsourced.

And yet you had no problem taking one of those out sourced jobs. Do you know what that makes you? A hypocrite!

Gate agents, mechanics, flight attendants, all have their own scope sections- we only control pilots.

And yet you took a job knowing that you were outsourced, and took a job away from not just a mainline pilot, but yourself. Wow, don't know what to say about that one!

Why can't you answer the question why the new -900's can't create new mainline pilot jobs? Pretty generous tI give that away for as little as you're getting general.

When you say, "as little as you're getting," look no further than the mirror. Thanks to SWA pay, we have all resorted to scraping the bottom. Now that we're there, "bottom line," is that it is cheaper for the airline to "contract this out." Now, we can hold our breath, stomp our feet, picket, do whatever it takes, but those aircraft aren't coming to mainline due in part to costs. So rather than keep holding our breath, we can control how much flying those shiny new airplanes, you know, the one you took a job away from a mainline guy, including yourself, do, in block hour ratios tied to mainline flying, and the amount, while reducing the amount of 50 seat killers.

As for SWA and Swapa- it's pretty weak that you have to deflect everything to that. I have 17 years in the airlines- only 5 at Swa-
As for air tran- they'll be one list and 1 pay in less than 3 years- when will DCI be on the the DALPA list?

It's not weak, but when you call someone a sellout, you're a hypocrite. You took a job that was outsourced, either making you the dumbest *********************************** out there or you really don't know the damage you're doing. Now, how about this Mr. 17 years in the airlines. Stop tourretes(ing) about what DAL/DALPA are going to do, and start worrying about how SWAPA, who has done NOTHING to further the industry over the past 30 years, can stop undercutting the industry.
WE can start with------>pay for training.
Then--------> lack of retirment
Then--------->no international pay
Then--------->no higher pay for 737-800 vs. 700 pay.
I'll just stop there, mr. hypocrite.
Bottom line in all of this------->MYOFB! Take care of your own house before coming to my house and trying to tell me how to take care of business!

 

[redflyer65]

Says the guy that has 700 RJs on property! You ever think about that when your number 20 for takeoff and you look ahead to a sea of RJs?

 

[redflyer65]

Let's hope SWA creates their own CRJ operation and pays everyone SWA wages. That would be........FAN.....TASTIC.


Bye Bye---General Lee

Just in case you missed it General, Southwest has ZERO RJs. And they aren't allowed per the CBA. Zero, as in none.

WE FLY OUR OWN FEED.

 

[waveflyer]

All I heard out of that rant was: "I don't have the numbers, but I know mainline is too expensive to fly -900's- I can FEEL it. And Swa Swa Swa!!!"

Lay the numbers out.

As for taking an RJ job- is it scab work? Or did mainline vote it off the property? Mainline made a conscious, deliberate choice to outsource it- I disagree with that choice, but you guys did it and continually do it again. Necer thinking how that choice has contractual loopholes that can be exploited, how it sets precedent that judges can expand on.
(Any of those in this TA??)

All I can say is I'm glad you weren't furloughed and faced with that choice- it definitely sucked- but no RJ pilot ever got a vote- they'll always be whipsawed against each other in a system designed by mgmt to keep wages ARTIFICIALLY low- get too good a contract and the next small carrier with a certificate will be built up and awarded flying away from the overpaid employees at contractor A- this is a system mainline pilots like you endorse every time they vote- then try and deflect blame to the pilots flying in the market YOU created.

How idiotic are you to vote away flying then blame the pilots who fly it as if they should just leave their profession they are highly invested in?

So stop deflecting and give me some numbers?
A new -900 is $40M+, FL410, 320knot,.82M, 3 hour flight airplane- why would you vote to outsource that??

Isn't the responsibility there to have EXPERIENCE in the cockpits of airplanes that advanced?

 

[Scoot 11]

Says the guy that has 700 RJs on property! You ever think about that when your number 20 for takeoff and you look ahead to a sea of RJs?

And the new TA cuts that # in half. But keep deflecting. You guys who bought your jobs continue to undermine the profession, so focus on what's going on at DAL.

 

[redflyer65]

And the new TA cuts that # in half. But keep deflecting. You guys who bought your jobs continue to undermine the profession, so focus on what's going on at DAL.

I'm not deflecting Scoot. The fact remains that Delta outsources more than 2000 pilot jobs (along with thousands of supporting jobs), and the Delta pilots are about to give a thumbs up to the continued this precedent. With larger planes by the way.

If you don't see this coming next time around, your crazy...


DL - We can't make money with these 76 seat planes anymore, but we can trade them up to a 100 seat plane and have better feed and profit. We'll give you a 4 percent payraise if you agree.

DALPA - Wow, that sounds reasonable, let's do it.


The bottom line on this TA is two fold...

1- A sales job for larger RJ's (the camel is moving into the tent)

2 - Payraises that are paid for with a reduction of Profit Sharing. Why?

 

[aircombat]

All I heard out of that rant was: "I don't have the numbers, but I know mainline is too expensive to fly -900's- I can FEEL it. And Swa Swa Swa!!!"

Lay the numbers out.

As for taking an RJ job- is it scab work? Or did mainline vote it off the property? Mainline made a conscious, deliberate choice to outsource it- I disagree with that choice, but you guys did it and continually do it again. Necer thinking how that choice has contractual loopholes that can be exploited, how it sets precedent that judges can expand on.
(Any of those in this TA??)

All I can say is I'm glad you weren't furloughed and faced with that choice- it definitely sucked- but no RJ pilot ever got a vote- they'll always be whipsawed against each other in a system designed by mgmt to keep wages ARTIFICIALLY low- get too good a contract and the next small carrier with a certificate will be built up and awarded flying away from the overpaid employees at contractor A- this is a system mainline pilots like you endorse every time they vote- then try and deflect blame to the pilots flying in the market YOU created.

How idiotic are you to vote away flying then blame the pilots who fly it as if they should just leave their profession they are highly invested in?

So stop deflecting and give me some numbers?
A new -900 is $40M+, FL410, 320knot,.82M, 3 hour flight airplane- why would you vote to outsource that??

Isn't the responsibility there to have EXPERIENCE in the cockpits of airplanes that advanced?

You will never get numbers or research from ALPA. It is amazing how out of touch these delta pilots really are. The only comfort we will ever get is that the Delta baby boomers will always be known as the generation that destroyed this career.

I love how they fault people for flying RJs that they outsourced. What would they have done had they been furloughed? Just give up all the time and money they invested into their career. The proof that you guys destroyed the profession is in the future number of youngsters thinking of following in your footsteps. Unlike you we have numbers to back up our claims. The number of people obtaining their pilots licenses is down over 30% in just a decade. That is the legacy that you guys are leaving.