Delta TA on SCOPE

[Fly-By-Cable]

I see where you are going with this, and I appreciate your comments. First of all, almost anyone can see things wrong, but only a few can explain why the came up with the agreement they did. I am still awaiting the roadshows, and the negotiator's notepad (our reports from the negotiators) are just now coming in with explanations.

If it were that easy, to just replace our pay raises with lost profit sharing, I don't think the Negotiators would have gone for it. My profit sharing last year was about $8000 (taxes took a chunk of that). The raises (13% starting Jan 1st (after adding the 4% July 1st), will exceed the $8000 by a lot. Then add extras like Vacation pay, training pay, a bit more per diem, a bit more INTL override pay, etc etc. Also, analysts are saying this company could make $2-3 billion per year in profits if things go well coming up here (none of the other legacies have their s%$t together, so we may blow ahead of the rest of the pack). If the profit sharing is $2.5 billion or more, then the profit sharing scheme (take away 1/3) is not applicable, and the pilots will share 20% of the profit. (today it is 15%, if less than $2.5 billion--the TA will make that 10%). Remember Delta made about $1.5 billion in profit last year, and ALSO paid down $2 billion in debt. Think what would happen if Delta could get everything in working order and started clicking on all cylinders. UAL and AA(US) haven't been able to do anything together because of the work group problems and slowness coming out of BK. UAL has had terrible press for their lack of consistancy with their product (look at WSJ today).

Next is scope. Yes, the 50 seaters were going away anyway. But wait, where were they going? We know they are inefficient, and gas guzzlers. But, according to people who supposedly know, many had leases for another 8-10 years. Some could be dumped in PNCL's BK, but those particular RJs are supposedly the "newest" of the bunch, and one reason these 50 seaters are also expensive is because many of them are in need of expensive checks due to cycles. That is just too costly, but again they are still under lease. Who made that lease agreement for another 10 years? I have no idea. You can roll your eyes all you want, it is what it is. So, the next question is what can be done about it? Maybe a larger airplane on the same routes WOULD make money? Should we go after the 76 seaters ourselves? How much would that cost? Other people on other forums are asking that too. Who would fly what? Who would be the flight attendants and mechanics? How much would that cost? All good questions. The thing I like about this TA when it comes to scope is it covers a few areas that all need addressing. INTL and domestic codeshares are HUGE. Both of those were tightened. Then the RJ scope does get rid of 150 or so 50 seaters. GONE. It does add some 76 seaters, which are tied in with mainline growth. The 76 seaters can't just show up all at once, they are allowed in as mainline grows. The current 70 seaters will probably just fly routes that unprofitable 50 seaters are doing now. If mainline shrinks, then the RJs also go away. Tying them together, and ensuring mainline gets movement in the ranks. I am a senior 767 FO here in ATL. I can hold MD88 Captain now, and close to 737 Captain. Let's say I bid 717 Captain when they come along next year. Starting two years from this upcoming January, I would be making $195 an hour on the smallest plane Delta would have, up from my current $133 an hour as a senior INTL FO. (with INTL override) Then I move up to a seat in a plane we didn't have before, and then someone junior to me can move into my 767 right seat. Lots of upward movement means more raises for people, and then newhires. Tying RJs in with mainline growth is important. I agree, 76 seat RJs shouldn't be flying between LGA and ORD, but you don't throw 767s in there either. Hopefully that could be a great route for future 717s. Sounds like that plane could do really well at LGA someday.



Bye Bye---General Lee[/QUOTE

I would be very concerned about mainline shrinking being tied in with rj shrinking. This is my main concern for you guys. What happens after the new rjs show up as well as the promised mainline growth, then delta decides to park all MD 80s? I would VERY sure that rjs get parked too. Im just thinking there is a built in loop hole in there somewhere. As far as getting rid of leases. If skywest and others dont get bigger DCI rjs soon, they will likely all face bankruptcy. Thats when delta can get rid of those airplanes.

 

[Fly-By-Cable]

Not sure if this already happened but you guys should have a team of lawyers, not pilots, go through the scope section with a fine toothed comb. If there is even one sentence with any inconsistency, you guys will find yourselves in grievance in front of an arbitrator eventually. And we all know how those usually work out.

 

[JOPILOT]

If you total all the 717,737's, and MD-90's there is room for at least 2600 pilots to come on board to staff new jets ( 12 pilots per A/C). If you include the retirements in the next 3 years...you would have to park every single MD-80 and nearly half of our 757's before a single pilot hits the street. Not to mention the removal of 6 seats from every shiny new RJ.


I am not happy about the rates in this TA, but I would have to say the improvements in Scope exceeded my expectations.

JP

 

[Skippy]

Just remember ual parked 100 planes and furloughed 1437 in about a year.
If u dont think they can park those mad dogs - regardless of them still getting them, urnuts

Can delta take delivery of 717's get all the 76 seaters, then park mad dogs, then furlough andntake out 6 seats after a yearor so or simultaneously do it or a combination therof?
Do a joint venture/ code share on some intl lights, and of course the domestic ratio increases. What about republics c series. Why would they get them with no place to put them- they codeshare to alaska, the dal thru alaska codeshares and voila 90-110 seaters? Are these not plausible scenarios? Im just asking?

 

[Rebound]

I will trade a potential profit sharing check for a hard fast pay rate any day of the week. This contract will exceed any profit sharing regardless.

 

[lakemead1]

I agree. A 12 percent raise would equate to about 12,000 bucks (73n fo) per year. My profit sharing check after taxes was only about 3800. This is guaranteed money. I must agree that the pay was below my expectations however the life of this contract is shorter and is at least a step in the right direction.

 

[Fly-By-Cable]

So lets recap. During a time that your airline is posting massive profits, 50 seaters are going away due to natural selection, (everyones wet dream), and your airline is anxious to sign a new contract; you are okay with relaxing large rj scope and thowing the regionals a life raft for a small payraise? Am I getting that right? Let me guess who you guys are going to blame if it blows up in your face. Yes the regional pilots for taking your jobs.

 

[lakemead1]

Does anyone know what the schedule will be for parking the 50 seaters if this ta goes through?

 

[General Lee]

I see where you are going with this, and I appreciate your comments. First of all, almost anyone can see things wrong, but only a few can explain why the came up with the agreement they did. I am still awaiting the roadshows, and the negotiator's notepad (our reports from the negotiators) are just now coming in with explanations.

If it were that easy, to just replace our pay raises with lost profit sharing, I don't think the Negotiators would have gone for it. My profit sharing last year was about $8000 (taxes took a chunk of that). The raises (13% starting Jan 1st (after adding the 4% July 1st), will exceed the $8000 by a lot. Then add extras like Vacation pay, training pay, a bit more per diem, a bit more INTL override pay, etc etc. Also, analysts are saying this company could make $2-3 billion per year in profits if things go well coming up here (none of the other legacies have their s%$t together, so we may blow ahead of the rest of the pack). If the profit sharing is $2.5 billion or more, then the profit sharing scheme (take away 1/3) is not applicable, and the pilots will share 20% of the profit. (today it is 15%, if less than $2.5 billion--the TA will make that 10%). Remember Delta made about $1.5 billion in profit last year, and ALSO paid down $2 billion in debt. Think what would happen if Delta could get everything in working order and started clicking on all cylinders. UAL and AA(US) haven't been able to do anything together because of the work group problems and slowness coming out of BK. UAL has had terrible press for their lack of consistancy with their product (look at WSJ today).

Next is scope. Yes, the 50 seaters were going away anyway. But wait, where were they going? We know they are inefficient, and gas guzzlers. But, according to people who supposedly know, many had leases for another 8-10 years. Some could be dumped in PNCL's BK, but those particular RJs are supposedly the "newest" of the bunch, and one reason these 50 seaters are also expensive is because many of them are in need of expensive checks due to cycles. That is just too costly, but again they are still under lease. Who made that lease agreement for another 10 years? I have no idea. You can roll your eyes all you want, it is what it is. So, the next question is what can be done about it? Maybe a larger airplane on the same routes WOULD make money? Should we go after the 76 seaters ourselves? How much would that cost? Other people on other forums are asking that too. Who would fly what? Who would be the flight attendants and mechanics? How much would that cost? All good questions. The thing I like about this TA when it comes to scope is it covers a few areas that all need addressing. INTL and domestic codeshares are HUGE. Both of those were tightened. Then the RJ scope does get rid of 150 or so 50 seaters. GONE. It does add some 76 seaters, which are tied in with mainline growth. The 76 seaters can't just show up all at once, they are allowed in as mainline grows. The current 70 seaters will probably just fly routes that unprofitable 50 seaters are doing now. If mainline shrinks, then the RJs also go away. Tying them together, and ensuring mainline gets movement in the ranks. I am a senior 767 FO here in ATL. I can hold MD88 Captain now, and close to 737 Captain. Let's say I bid 717 Captain when they come along next year. Starting two years from this upcoming January, I would be making $195 an hour on the smallest plane Delta would have, up from my current $133 an hour as a senior INTL FO. (with INTL override) Then I move up to a seat in a plane we didn't have before, and then someone junior to me can move into my 767 right seat. Lots of upward movement means more raises for people, and then newhires. Tying RJs in with mainline growth is important. I agree, 76 seat RJs shouldn't be flying between LGA and ORD, but you don't throw 767s in there either. Hopefully that could be a great route for future 717s. Sounds like that plane could do really well at LGA someday.



Bye Bye---General Lee[/QUOTE

I would be very concerned about mainline shrinking being tied in with rj shrinking. This is my main concern for you guys. What happens after the new rjs show up as well as the promised mainline growth, then delta decides to park all MD 80s? I would VERY sure that rjs get parked too. Im just thinking there is a built in loop hole in there somewhere. As far as getting rid of leases. If skywest and others dont get bigger DCI rjs soon, they will likely all face bankruptcy. Thats when delta can get rid of those airplanes.

I am pretty sure I read in the TA that parking planes meant parking more RJs, and I will make sure by asking that question at the roadshow coming up. You are right about the regionals and failing health. Everytime their contracts are up, they are asked to fly for less. The feed that costs the least gets the feed apparently. But, those numbers will be set before DL gets the last 717. They can only get those 70 76 seaters in bunches, as the 717s arrive. They don't get them all at once. And, there are dates when the 50 seaters have to be parked down to 125 total. I don't know which airline will have those 125 (could be a few).


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

So lets recap. During a time that your airline is posting massive profits, 50 seaters are going away due to natural selection, (everyones wet dream), and your airline is anxious to sign a new contract; you are okay with relaxing large rj scope and thowing the regionals a life raft for a small payraise? Am I getting that right? Let me guess who you guys are going to blame if it blows up in your face. Yes the regional pilots for taking your jobs.

No, I am interested in LIMITING the number of total RJs. If smaller RJs are parked, larger ones will fly the same routes the smaller ones were flying, and might be able to actually make a profit on that route (the 50s aren't cutting it now). That's the key. Which plane can make a profit to Charleston, WV? If a 50 seater can't, maybe a 70 seater can (lower CASM due to more seats, to cover the costs)? Add 88 717s to the mix, and those 117 seat planes will cover 76 seaters doing OKC, ICT, etc right now from ATL. There will be 80 fewer RJs when this is over, and 88 717s, 30 or more MD90s, and 100 737-900s added to the domestic schedule. If not, the additional RJs will NOT show up. It's in the TA.


Bye Bye---General Lee