Delta TA on SCOPE

[PCL_128]

Hey Einstein - ALPA facilitated (in more ways then one) all the outsourcing.

Pilot groups facilitated the outsourcing. ALPA is just a collection of resources. Those resources are used for whatever individual pilot groups want. If they choose to allow outsourcing, then that's their business. If they choose to reign it back in, again, that's their business. Individual pilot groups made the decision beginning in the late '80s to allow outsourcing of their flying in exchange for other things that they wanted, primarily rates of pay. It was a stupid decision, but hindsight is 20/20. Now it's up to those pilot groups to make the effort to recapture that flying. It won't happen all at once, but if they make the commitment to get it done, then the ALPA resources can be used to make it happen.

 

[PCL_128]

In your incremental approach, of delta reaffirms its position on outsourcing -900's what position will that place United- who are fighting like hell to keep <50 seaters on the CAL side and <70 seaters on the UALside??

It actually helps their bargaining position. It sends the message that the first large legacy pilot group in this bargaining cycle spent negotiating capital on scope recapture. It kills management's argument at UAL that they need bigger and more RJs to be outsourced in order to be competitive. Clearly, the line in the sand has been drawn at 76 seats. There will be no bigger airplanes outsourced, which is what UAL management wants. And the outsourcing of even 76-seaters is being strictly limited. The UAL and CAL pilot groups now take their turn to jack up their corner of the house. That means holding tight on their demands that no more outsourcing take place, and the existing outsourcing be reigned back in. They won't be able to draw the line at 50 seats, because that's a bridge too far this cycle, but they could very well demand a slow phase-out of the 70-seaters over a period of years. That is a reasonable position to take, and it's one that they may be able to accomplish if they're willing to forego pay rates far exceeding DAL's new rates.

Delta is profitable, if they double down on 76 seat -900's what message does that send American who is asking for 80+ seats??

It still isn't clear what Doug Parker is offering the APA in terms of scope if USAirways is able to acquire AMR like they want. But if Parker doesn't get his way, and AMR management is able to get their 1113(c) motion approved by the judge, then the DAL TA is actually helpful to the APA. A month ago, I would have said that it was highly likely that the judge would approve a massive increase in the number of 70+ seaters. After all, that has been the trend up until now. But with the DAL TA, the trend is reversed, and the APA can point to the new TA and show the judge that the bargaining trend is not bigger RJs, but actually tighter restrictions, and a line drawn at 76-seats.

Your turn and a sincere apology to all for going crazy- this subject tends to get me

Understood. I'm right there with you on the goal of ending outsourcing. It's just a matter of how to get there. It won't be easy.

 

[waveflyer]

I understand your argument, I do not understand how the DAL TA has the affect you're saying-

I think you're misunderstanding the economic pressures and the arguments mgmt's are making-

Mgmt's are saying that 50's are too expensive, (and hitting their cycle limit) therefore we need -700's and -900's to replace them. The delta TA gives them exactly what they want. If the most profitable legacy gives them this, how does unical have a leg to stand on to not allow -900's?- its not a tightening of scope to give mgmt the types of airplanes it wants.

Please, don't assume I understand this TA in its entirety- lay it out for me-

I view this TA as a give in bc it allows larger planes just as 50 seaters become unprofitable-

the question is, why on earth is it unreasonable to have the -900's at mainline???

If not now, when?

And why would you think Unical is better positioned to take back more scope than delta right now?

 

[79%N1]

I understand your argument, I do not understand how the DAL TA has the affect you're saying-

I think you're misunderstanding the economic pressures and the arguments mgmt's are making-

Mgmt's are saying that 50's are too expensive, (and hitting their cycle limit) therefore we need -700's and -900's to replace them. The delta TA gives them exactly what they want. If the most profitable legacy gives them this, how does unical have a leg to stand on to not allow -900's?- its not a tightening of scope to give mgmt the types of airplanes it wants.

Please, don't assume I understand this TA in its entirety- lay it out for me-

I view this TA as a give in bc it allows larger planes just as 50 seaters become unprofitable-

the question is, why on earth is it unreasonable to have the -900's at mainline???

If not now, when?

And why would you think Unical is better positioned to take back more scope than delta right now?

Why do you obsess so much about this? You don't work for DAL and your company has no RJs. What the hell do you care? Do you have anything else to do in life? Get a hobby or something.....

 

[Cpt Oveur]

Delta is giving away 70 MORE regional jets in exchange for 88 717s and a 20% pay raise over 3 years? Do you realize that without this TA, Delta would have to add those 717s and an additional 122 mainline aircraft to get 70 more RJs on property?

Is Delta going to add those airplanes regardless of this TA? Yes. Is Delta going to reduce the number of 50 seat RJs regardless of this TA? Yes.

Just out of curiosity, what would you need to do to your current contract to start flying CRJ-900s tomorrow? I believe you already have a pay rate, don't you? It appears as though you gave up on the 50 before, you're giving up on 70 seaters, and the next time around you're going to give up on 90 seaters at this rate?

 

[Chairman]

Age 65 is why our friends at united are furloughed this time PCL- the outsourcing furloughs blamed on 9/11 occurred years before-

As a Furloughed UAL pilot I disagree. I am furloughed because Tilton parked 100 airplanes realizing without the reduction the DOT would have never approved the merger. I may be on the street longer because of age 65 but don't blame that for putting me there. UAL said the 737 were not profitable although the were paid for aircraft. But funny how then they open a 737 base in Denver using CAL aircraft.....

 

[PCL_128]

Mgmt's are saying that 50's are too expensive, (and hitting their cycle limit) therefore we need -700's and -900's to replace them. The delta TA gives them exactly what they want. If the most profitable legacy gives them this, how does unical have a leg to stand on to not allow -900's?- its not a tightening of scope to give mgmt the types of airplanes it wants.

To be clear, it isn't truly -900s. It's -900s modified to include only 76 seats. Airplanes with 76 seats have been outsourced for years, so that's nothing new in this TA. But this TA does put strict limits on them, including a block hour ratio that requires the number of 76-seaters to be reduced if mainline flying is reduced. That's a first, and it's an important development.

I view this TA as a give in bc it allows larger planes just as 50 seaters become unprofitable-

Again, these aren't bigger airplanes. It's airplanes of the same size that have been allowed for a long time. They're just allowing a small number more of them, but getting a lot in return, including a block hour ratio and guaranteed parking of 50-seaters.

the question is, why on earth is it unreasonable to have the -900's at mainline???

It's not. But it is unreasonable to expect it to happen immediately when all of the other legacy carriers are still able to outsource all of that flying. There's a path to get to where you want, but it's not a single step.

And why would you think Unical is better positioned to take back more scope than delta right now?

Several reasons. First, the CAL pilots already have 50-seat scope. Management is wanting relief, and when it comes to permissive areas of bargaining, the party that already has the language in their favor is the party with leverage. Second, collective bargaining is all about patterns. In a stable economic environment, being able to show a positive trend or a change in the industry status quo gives you leverage in bargaining. The UNICAL pilots can show where SWAPA has recently improved scope with the new side letter, and the Delta pilots have improved scope with their new TA. That's a positive trend emerging. It allows negotiators to paint a picture at the table that makes it far easier for management to accept scope recapture. In the previous environment, when each successive CBA involved more and more loosening of scope, management would have never agreed to any scope recapture, because they were worried about their competitive environment. They're not going to agree to reduce outsourcing when their competition is likely to increase it. The positive trend makes it easier to convince management that they will not be at a competitive disadvantage by agreeing to reasonable scope recapture.

 

[aircombat]

It's not. But it is unreasonable to expect it to happen immediately when all of the other legacy carriers are still able to outsource all of that flying. There's a path to get to where you want, but it's not a single step.

I don't see why it's so unreasonable. negotiate a rate for 76 seaters that is an average, or even well below average, of what the current DCI rate is for those aircraft. What ever it takes to get the aircraft on your property and give you the ability to negotiate better rates on the next contract.

A joint effort between all mainline carriers is going to happen as soon as a national seniority list happens. NEVER.

Your excuses are the typical ALPA we can't do that, instead of looking for ways to do it.

 

[SLUF4]

Delta is giving away 70 MORE regional jets in exchange for 88 717s and a 20% pay raise over 3 years? Do you realize that without this TA, Delta would have to add those 717s and an additional 122 mainline aircraft to get 70 more RJs on property?

Is Delta going to add those airplanes regardless of this TA? Yes. Is Delta going to reduce the number of 50 seat RJs regardless of this TA? Yes.

Just out of curiosity, what would you need to do to your current contract to start flying CRJ-900s tomorrow? I believe you already have a pay rate, don't you? It appears as though you gave up on the 50 before, you're giving up on 70 seaters, and the next time around you're going to give up on 90 seaters at this rate?

You are absolutely correct

 

[Speedtape]

If I read the TA correctly (a big IF, but I think I did), it said a TOTAL of 125 50-70 seaters. Then 223 TOTAL 76 seaters. Currently DCI has 255 70/76 seaters, of which 153 are 76 seaters. So, there are 102 or so 70 seaters currently flying. If they choose to keep them all, and 125 total are either 50 or 70 seaters, then that would mean 23 50 seaters left. I don't know which ones Delta would keep, they may keep 125 newer 50 seaters? That could be wrong, but I think the TA said that. I am waiting on a summary from ALPA, it should be out soon.

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


Bye Bye---General Lee

You said:
Then 223 TOTAL 76 seaters.

Currently DCI has 255 70/76 seaters, of which 153 are 76 seaters.

I think the number of 76 seaters is much lower than 153.