Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Delta pilots - Thanks for raising the bar

  • Thread starter Thread starter JT12345
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 17

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Scoot, the industry really doesn't need another captain tricked out of the cockpit and taken down by the pax. Might want to simmer down a bit.
I'm perfectly happy letting my point in the thread die now- but you got to let it.
 
This agreement reduced the maximum number of 76-seat jets DAL could outsource from 255 down to 223.

The CRJ900 has been authorized at DCI since 2006. Since that time the Delta pilots have negotiated a JCBA and a new PWA and in neither agreement has the number of seats been increased.

Your suggestion that this agreement is a stepping stone to larger RJs, like the CRJ1000, is not at all supported by the facts.


You are correct it did, but in the process it allowed 102 70 seat aircraft to be taking out of the 255 matrix. The gain is that section 1 now limits aircraft and not "jets." What the cost of 102 70 seat jets/aircraft worth the quid; time will tell.

There are gains in section 1. Even though I voted against the agreement, there are some positives. Not enough nor tight enough to get my "yes" vote, but there were gains made. What we not have is a workable document, but as I stated, I would have preferred the ball to be moved farther down the field.
 
You are correct it did, but in the process it allowed 102 70 seat aircraft to be taking out of the 255 matrix. The gain is that section 1 now limits aircraft and not "jets." What the cost of 102 70 seat jets/aircraft worth the quid; time will tell.

There are gains in section 1. Even though I voted against the agreement, there are some positives. Not enough nor tight enough to get my "yes" vote, but there were gains made. What we not have is a workable document, but as I stated, I would have preferred the ball to be moved farther down the field.

Actually it allowed 70 70-seat jets. In exchange for that there are 32 fewer 76-seat aircraft that could be authorized, 200 50-seat jets will be retired earlier, the company no longer has unlimited access to 70-seat aircraft, unlimited access to 50-seat aircraft, the capacity at DCI is capped at 15.5% fewer seats, thereby limiting future DCI growth, there is a mainline-DCI ratio, domestic and international code sharing language is tightened and we have global JV protection.

We all want more bells and whistles, better scope, more pay, etc. It's easy to pander to those desires.
 
the company no longer has unlimited access to 70-seat aircraft.

it's my understanding that previous contracts limited large RJs to 255 70 OR 76 seat aircraft- is that not correct FDJ?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom