Delta TA on SCOPE

[General Lee]

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.

Trust me, I wanted more pay. I was shocked when I heard the percentages. But, I tried to relax a bit, then I tried to think about the WHOLE TA. I wanted to see if many sections were improved, not just the pay. I looked at Scope. I didn't really like the part about extra 76 seaters, but then I saw that 150 or so 50 seaters would go, and apparently many had long leases attached to them. (why? I don't know...) I looked at the INTL scope tightening. I looked at the code share tightening (Alaska Air). I looked at the sick leave improvements. I looked at the reserve improvements. I looked at the work rule improvements. There were a lot of improvements. Not a lot of huge jumps, but improvements over a broad area. That plus a 3 year contract (very short duration), and a 19.5% pay raise over that time. I saw the profit sharing scheme, which does not pay for the pay raises (as many people think). If the profit equals what some analysts think DL's profit could be in the next couple years, there will be larger profit sharing checks (over $2.5 billion in one year means 20% sharing for pilots). Overall, I like it so far, and will confirm that at a roadshow. If someone doesn't like it, then they can vote the way they want.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

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?

I don't think those are accurate. The code share language in the TA is tighter than the current contract, and I think they have that covered. Notice Bedford giving the names of all 3 large alliances. He is fishing, and hoping AA does not merge with US and so he possibly could bring some larger RJs AA's way I bet. There is also tighter scope with AK. The scope section in the TA is a big improvement compared to the current contract.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[waveflyer]

Of course you like it General-
You're part of a pilot group that's absolutely willing to compromise scope -
Let me get this straight- fuel prices dictate that mgmt would like to get rid of 50 seaters in exchange for 76 seaters- and you guys go for it simply bc they framed it as doing you a favor?
Of course: that's absolutely consistent with DALPA pilots "all about me" "all about widebodies" mentality.
If you guys pass this, I will absolutely slaughter you in FI for the next 3 years- randomly and without cease.
Your mgmt knows exactly who you are and crafted a sellout TA that weak dick DALPA pilots would go for.
What's the story:
MrLee asks his wife that DickA would like to screw her in exchange for $10,000.
"of course not!"
GenLee comes back and says 'DickA really wants you- he's offered $100k! With a lot of perks!"
"wow, that solves a lot of problems- what do you think?"
Husband goes to DickA and accepts the $100k when DickA offers them just $15,000-
"what!? You just offered $100k???!"
"Well, I now know what you guys are, now we're just haggling price."

I don't blame mgmt one bit with this group.

They know what you are.

No on this TA.

The 50 seaters will go anyway and Delta can have all the 76 seaters it wants with mainline pilots flying them.

You'll get what you stand for.

 

[waveflyer]

Amazingly naive General. Amazing.
Why in earth am I amazed? You had me holding out hope-
So disappointed the most powerful pilot union in the world still doesn't get it.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I am a no vote on the TA based on scope, but I understand where GL, and the other undecideds are at. It IS a step in the right direction, just not enough of a step for me (and lots of others here). We're trading 70 more 76 seaters for other scope limitations we never had before. I think we can do a lot better, and I wish GL, and the other pilots agreed, because if we shoot this down by 80 percent, it will send a clear unified voice to management on what we are willing to do.

 

[waveflyer]

I'm not usually uncompromising- there is wisdom in compromise within context. Premeditated murder and rape however- are uncompromising acts- you deal with those strongly with firm lines in the sand- and scope has absolutely driven the race to the bottom and the murder rape of our once great career.

DALPA allowed regional jets in the beginning bc they were willing to compromise what you should not have. Keep compromising and RJs will not ever go away. EVER: you do not dictate what airplanes delta flies. Your union has every responsibility to dictate WHO flies them.

Pass this and it will prove w/o a shadow of doubt that this previously esteemed group DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE IMMENSE DAMGE IT'S COMPROMISING HAS DONE TO OUR INDUSTRY.
COMPLETE SELLOUTS.
The fact that you "understand" , Karma, means that YOU do not understand this moment in time. Delta does not need to give up MORE 76 seaters in order to reduce the amount of 50's. Economics of fuel is doing that. Do you guys know what a -900 is??

 

[General Lee]

I'm not usually uncompromising- there is wisdom in compromise within context. Premeditated murder and rape however- are uncompromising acts- you deal with those strongly with firm lines in the sand- and scope has absolutely driven the race to the bottom and the murder rape of our once great career.

DALPA allowed regional jets in the beginning bc they were willing to compromise what you should not have. Keep compromising and RJs will not ever go away. EVER: you do not dictate what airplanes delta flies. Your union has every responsibility to dictate WHO flies them.

Pass this and it will prove w/o a shadow of doubt that this previously esteemed group DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE IMMENSE DAMGE IT'S COMPROMISING HAS DONE TO OUR INDUSTRY.
COMPLETE SELLOUTS.
The fact that you "understand" , Karma, means that YOU do not understand this moment in time. Delta does not need to give up MORE 76 seaters in order to reduce the amount of 50's. Economics of fuel is doing that. Do you guys know what a -900 is??

You were a sellout when you bought your type rating. Don't come to me an accuse me of something when the end result is 80 fewer RJs. That is a win. That is less outsourcing. You have to look at the overall deal, and try not to zero in on one section. There is a reduction, whether it was coming or not. Apparently it wasn't going to result in a "free parking" of RJs because most of them that will be parked still had time on the leases. Just like your 717s, it is very unlikely GK would have just parked them and continued to pay them down. GK would have stuck with them, and it would have cost you guys more money. You're welcome.

The scope deal is more than just adding 76 seaters and nothing else, it also sets ratios between mainline and regional flying, which for once will be solidly in mainline's favor. It reduces planes, down to a specific number, that do not make money for us. It adds 76 seaters only if mainline gets a larger number (70 vs 88) of mainline planes, and if the mainline ratio goes down (they park other planes, like old MD88s), then the RJ numbers will go down. So, a better ratio, and fewer RJs TOTAL. That is a win. Those 717s will no doubt fly current 76 seat routes, and those 76 seaters and 70 seaters will try to make profits on current unprofitable 50 seater routes. The lower CASM is needed to squeeze out that profit. And at the same time, it helps you and GK out. You're Welcome, again.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

I am a no vote on the TA based on scope, but I understand where GL, and the other undecideds are at. It IS a step in the right direction, just not enough of a step for me (and lots of others here). We're trading 70 more 76 seaters for other scope limitations we never had before. I think we can do a lot better, and I wish GL, and the other pilots agreed, because if we shoot this down by 80 percent, it will send a clear unified voice to management on what we are willing to do.

Karma,

I think ALPA saw the same thing that many of us are starting to see now, and that is there is no feasible way mainline can fly 76 seaters. It's just not economically feasible. You just can't justify it, even if you try really hard to say "we'll fly them." That's great, and then you have to figure out the rest of the team that will fly along with you, and how you pay them, and who they are employed by, etc. Instead, if you made a ratio that allowed DCI to fly more 76 seaters, reduce current 50 seaters, and then made sure that if ANY mainline planes (in your ratio) are parked, then DCI also has to park planes, it would be acceptable. If they are tied together, then the advantage goes to mainline. If they try to later on park more mainline planes, then they lose too. That is fair. The rest of the contract had lots of parts that needed improvements, and most areas hit that. I am still awaiting that roadshow.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[waveflyer]

Karma,

I think ALPA saw the same thing that many of us are starting to see now, and that is there is no feasible way mainline can fly 76 seaters. It's just not economically feasible.

This is DALPA's main problem^^^
Legacy airlines began flying B247's- when did we ever consider it not "economically feasible" to fly an 85,000 pound, 320knot, FL410 jet?
When did we not feel a responsibility to have EXPERIENCE IN THOSE FLIGHT DECKS?????


. The rest of the contract had lots of parts that needed improvements,

Along with lack of WILL ^^^ so easily paid off^^^

Bye Bye--General Lee

DALPA = Those who aren't easily convinced, are easily bought

 

[Shrek]

This TA will not pass..........
SCOPE needs to be airtight.
PAY needs to go up.

Some parts of the TA is good but the most important part - not strong enough IMO.