Delta TA on SCOPE

[Jar Jar]

And you don't think ANY of those 70 seaters will fly current 50 seat routes? NONE? Only mainline routes?

I'm sure some will. The number is anyone's guess. But im also sure there will be basically zero 50 seaters going forward. Kinda like there are zero 37 seaters now, even though they are technically permitted.

Delta is also getting 27 (?) MD90s this year too, and 100 737-900s starting late this Summer.

I wouldn't expect all of those for growth. You gotta paint the whole picture, including retiring airframes and aircraft orders that could be swapped to SWA.

Also, I read on another board that any mainline drawdown of mainline planes will also cause a drawdown in DCI numbers. So, they are tied together. You can't just get a bunch of RJs and then park the remaining DC9s or older MD88s, and not add or keep the newer RJs.

I hope you're right!

Also, how many seats is 40% of an airfrance A340? I understand 40% is an improvement, but man thats a lot of outsourcing on the top end - i didn't realize it was that bad.

 

[Jar Jar]

The TA also stated 35% of all newhires in upcoming classes would come from ALPA DCI carriers.

And when you factor the first 28 per class from Compass/Mesaba that pretty much fills that quota for the next 4 years.

 

[General Lee]

Here is a response from someone on the Dalpa internal website talking about Scope issues and this TA. Anyone who frequents that site would recognize him. His first name starts with a J. Anyway, he has some good points about the Scope issues, and it has nothing to do with the payrates which are upsetting to many on here, including me.


"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."




Whether or not anyone believes this guy, he does bring up some interesting points, and a lot of that will be confirmed in writing when ALPA puts out the "negotiators notepad."



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[nimtz]

Sorry folks, but if you vote this I see us all heavily regretting it within 5 years ie same farking mistake made with the 50 seaters. The fact that my scumbag CEO sent all UAL pilots a letter TODAY telling us that this DAL TA is the new normal says it all about how management feels. Vote this and we ALL will regret it.

And for god sakes GL don't trust any "negotiators notepad". Bullet points sponsored by ALPA lead to numb nuts at CAL approving Contract '02

 

[waveflyer]

Why can't you fly the 717s? Probably the same reason. Thanks though for maybe giving them up....


Bye Bye---General Lee

You know that's a complete dodge-

As I slowly get more educated- this sounds like a lay down for a bit more pay- predictable-
50 seaters and RJs are going away due to economic pressures- and you're allowing them to be replaced with 90 seaters equipped with 76 seats...

But it's still early- I just don't have faith that the d-bag delta professionals aren't about to sellout the industry for a very small pay raise again-

Don't you have a mainline pay rate for 76 seaters? Why set a rate if you give away the flying? Why can't the replacement aircraft flying be done by mainline pilots?

It's pretty simple- it appears that is a non starter and dalpa pilots aren't willing to stand up for it.

Tell me why GL- why MUST it be farmed out. There is a natural, economically driven transition taking place- why not sieze this time to get at least all additional 76 seaters back in the fold?

 

[SIG600]

Rather than restore, this is working from the "new standard" (low bar).

Not even close to what your predecessors negotiated 12 years ago.

 

[Hamfighter]

There is who reason to allow DCI more large planes. I understand that it is a net reduction, but you are still giving away MORE LARGE PLANES.
And, what are we doing with all the money we are "saving" by giving away our flying? We're sure not paying mainline.

 

[Hamfighter]

How about we allow unlimited 76-seat planes...flown by DELTA pilots. Not enough DELTA pilots to fly hundreds of LARGE RJs? Perhaps we could hire hundreds of DCI pilots.

For once, quit diluting and DISOLVING Delta Air Lines.



(I'm going to, stick this in its own thread.)

 

[n757st]

You realize if you buy us ( JetBlue), you get 190ish mainline jets added and now gain a bunch of Rjs in the process... Oh, and no new pilots.

 

[PCL_128]

Don't you have a mainline pay rate for 76 seaters? Why set a rate if you give away the flying? Why can't the replacement aircraft flying be done by mainline pilots?

Because it's not economically feasible. Doing so would place Delta at an extreme competitive disadvantage against the other carriers who can outsource that flying at a much lower cost. Remember, it's not just the pilots. Even if the pilots agreed to do it at regional rates, they still have the FAs, rampers, mechanics, customer service agents, etc. Paying mainline benefits, wages, and work rules to all of those people to handle the 76-seat operation while all of their competitors are outsourcing that same flying for a much lower cost is not a recipe for profitability.

 

[Diesel-9]

More concessions to a concessionary contract. Many of the things missing in this contract were still in the NWA contract AFTER CH-11 and the wizards in Hooterville elected not to take them. "Everything we do and have is better!" Yea, about 25% worth. Another decade lost just trying to get back what we had in the early 90's. The "Moak" mentality, O'Malley and all the "Old Delta Kool-Aide Klub" need to go fast. They're killing us with their loyalty, to Management! DPA is NOW an option!!!!! Competition is good...

 

[BID]

Can you just picture all those 90 seat jets flying around! (configured to 76 seats) wow!

It's no wonder our CEO at United likes this TA.

 

[amcnd]

FYI Currently you have outsourced:

348 50 Seaters
102 65-69 Seaters
153 76 Seaters
Total: 603 Aircraft / 35862 seats

Proposed outsourcing:
125 "70 seaters" (using 67 as an average again = 8750 seats)
223 76 seaters (16948 seats)
Total: 348 Aircraft / 25698 seats

Total seats go down by about 28%. But, when was the last time you saw a 50 seater running DTW-IAH, SLC-LAX, LGA-ORD, JFK-ORD, or MSP-YVR?

I think if you looked at the average miles flown by the 900/175 you'd see that the seat mile reduction is probably much less than 28%.

Your numbers don't have any 50 seaters??? Im sure some will stay around.. Routes like MSP-RST, SLC-SGU. Ect.. Pluss all the "pro-rate" markets... The way i look at it.. There will be more "pro-rate" crj200 flying. And atleast 50-100 will stay around for awhile...

 

[Crash Pad]

Because it's not economically feasible. Doing so would place Delta at an extreme competitive disadvantage against the other carriers who can outsource that flying at a much lower cost. Remember, it's not just the pilots. Even if the pilots agreed to do it at regional rates, they still have the FAs, rampers, mechanics, customer service agents, etc. Paying mainline benefits, wages, and work rules to all of those people to handle the 76-seat operation while all of their competitors are outsourcing that same flying for a much lower cost is not a recipe for profitability.

This dip$$/t sold scope for nothing. Riddle me this smart guy. How does SWA compete with no RJs? Thank god they bought us or we would be selling the 717 to Pinnacle so we could compete.

Your argument is that it is cheaper to put 76 seats in a 90 seater, then pay someone at a profit to fly them.

Which makes more sense than putting 90 seats in a 90 seater and flying it yourself. Maybe Delta is buying leverage on the cheap.

 

[AirMike]

It all sounds good until the next cyclical downturn. Cue Delta bankruptcy and the limit on 76 seaters goes away. Then the majority of Delta's mainline narrowbodys get parked in the desert and the bottom of the seniority list goes to fly at DCI as a first year FO.

Naw, that could never happen..... (cough, UAL, cough). That scope section is a non-starter. If Delta votes yes on that, they will be the catalyst for the destruction of mainline domestic flying.