Delta TA on SCOPE

[captain caveman]

So you won't be happy until EVERY regional pilot is out of work? I can't wait until my foreclosure. That will be fun! And lets get off our high and mighty horses and stop pretending you are doing us a favor. We all know that there are not enough spots for everyone at Delta. You want all the 50 seaters eliminated, and no additional flying to off set that. Seems you have a job and you aren't going to be happy until we all don't have one! Mindless hatred.

Cry me a river. Update your logbook and start applying. Majors will be hiring bigtime. This is better for pilots in general including you.

 

[captain caveman]

General, Thanks for taking the time to disect the TA and provide your insight. I tend to agree with you that 76 seaters can't be as efficiently flown at mainline. But, let's think outside the box, for a second. If we trade 50s for bigger Bombardiers to be flown at mainline, they won't be 76 seaters at all. We could see CRJ1000s with 90 seats and a first class config or even some C-series. So in a way we are giving management some great flexibility.

Karma, I agree with you, we need to send it back.

 

[anewunion]

A ton of people I talk with will vote YES, including me. I'm not going to gamble for the next few year for just maybe 5% more. As far as scope goes, I think that a cap on how many DCI is the key. I really think that DAL management has figured a thing or two from SWA, and Jetblue.

Do your own flying...

 

[General Lee]

General, Thanks for taking the time to disect the TA and provide your insight. I tend to agree with you that 76 seaters can't be as efficiently flown at mainline. But, let's think outside the box, for a second. If we trade 50s for bigger Bombardiers to be flown at mainline, they won't be 76 seaters at all. We could see CRJ1000s with 90 seats and a first class config or even some C-series. So in a way we are giving management some great flexibility.

Karma, I agree with you, we need to send it back.

Do you know how much a CR9 or a CRJ1000 costs new? Four times what a used 717 costs. RA wants to bring the debt down to $10 billion by the end of next year so Delta can save $500 million per year in interest on the debt. That is why we are buying MD90s for $8 million each including the engines, and used 717s from Southwest. The only big order we have made so far lately was for the 100 737-900ERs, and I bet Boeing gave a great deal thanks to the 787 delays. When it comes down to it, mainline flying CR9s or CRJ1000s is way too expensive. We can't create a mainline RJ operation that costs less than the current whipsaw over at the regionals. Instead, we are using ratios that will ensure Mainline gaining ground over something that was impossible 5 years ago. 150 50 seat RJs have to go away within a couple years. That plus a 19% wage increase in 3 years, plus many improvements throughout our terrible BK contract makes me lean a lot towards YES. Read the material from the union, go to a roadshow like I will. Get informed, and remember, going back for more doesn't always work. (ask the Airtran guys) It might work, but it might not, in a big way.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

A ton of people I talk with will vote YES, including me. I'm not going to gamble for the next few year for just maybe 5% more. As far as scope goes, I think that a cap on how many DCI is the key. I really think that DAL management has figured a thing or two from SWA, and Jetblue.

Do your own flying...

I agree. There are some markets that a 717 or A319 just can't fly to, and it honestly would be too expensive to create our own CR9 category. It would be a logistical nightmare. Instead, let's work on getting 88 717s that allow a lot of FOs to move up (even I may consider jumping to Captain---take a look at the rates in a couple years. I would get an $80 raise per hour if I got onto the 737). Throw on a ratio where if mainline shrinks, DCI shrinks, and then you got a darn good deal. We want Delta to be profitable, so in 3 years we can come back and ask for MORE. To do that, we need profits on current RJ routes that are not profitable due to 50 seaters. Throw a 70 seater out there to help cover all of the costs the 50 seater can't handle. Tied growth, pay raise, better scope, improved sick leave, improved work rules, and 3 year contract. Not bad.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[waveflyer]

RJs making money only keeps them around longer.

This^^^
Good general- that line of thinking proves at least 1 pilot who swore up and down on FI that he did get what was wrong with scope - doesn't.
I presume you just said that so I'd stop calling you sellouts??

The idea is this- if delta can't make $$ with an airplane without whipsawing 4 or 5 separate companies against each other to artificially keep labor wages low and violate the ENTIRE CONCEPT OF SENIORITY AND EXPERIENCE BASED PAY- THEN MAYBE THEY OUGHT NOT BE ALLOWED BY YOUR "UNION" (a joke of a union) to FLY THEM AT ALL.

If you need that false market and the thousands of disenfranchised pilots who will never have the leverage to improve their lot by much - then it is DALPA's RESPONSIBILITY TO STAND UP AND NOT HAVE IT.

You guys repeatedly fail in your responsibilities as a union- amazing considering the slippery slope you know scope tends to slide down

 

[PCL_128]

going back for more doesn't always work. (ask the Airtran guys)

Not sure what you mean by that last comment. Our 2007 TA was essentially cost-neutral. The meager pay raises were all offset by other concessions. Our 2010 contract represented an immediate 30% increase to pilot payroll. Rejecting the first TA was the right move.

But I do agree with you in general. Our situation was unique for many reasons. In general, though, sending a TA back in hopes of getting more is usually a losing proposition. Because of the time value of money, you usually lose far more than you gain from further negotiations.

 

[777forever]

This^^^
Good general- that line of thinking proves at least 1 pilot who swore up and down on FI that he did get what was wrong with scope - doesn't.
I presume you just said that so I'd stop calling you sellouts??

The idea is this- if delta can't make $$ with an airplane without whipsawing 4 or 5 separate companies against each other to artificially keep labor wages low and violate the ENTIRE CONCEPT OF SENIORITY AND EXPERIENCE BASED PAY- THEN MAYBE THEY OUGHT NOT BE ALLOWED BY YOUR "UNION" (a joke of a union) to FLY THEM AT ALL.

If you need that false market and the thousands of disenfranchised pilots who will never have the leverage to improve their lot by much - then it is DALPA's RESPONSIBILITY TO STAND UP AND NOT HAVE IT.

You guys repeatedly fail in your responsibilities as a union- amazing considering the slippery slope you know scope tends to slide down

Scope is heading in the right direction with this TA. No question about it. Not a homerun, but a significant still in the right direction

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[727RedTails]

I have only talked to one yes voter during a 4 day trip. I'm sorry the 4833 is paid for by productivity increases (ie less pilots) and a reduction in profit sharing. The 717's minus parking other airplanes and the productivity increases will mean little movement... Even the company negotiators are saying it's cost neutral. How is that a good deal?

Don't worry, RA wants to keep the momentum going and will look for a quick remedy if we vote it down. He thinks we are 3-4 years ahead of the other majors and wants to keep going forward with his plans.

VOTE NO!

 

[trip]

This^^^
Good general- that line of thinking proves at least 1 pilot who swore up and down on FI that he did get what was wrong with scope - doesn't.
I presume you just said that so I'd stop calling you sellouts??

The idea is this- if delta can't make $$ with an airplane without whipsawing 4 or 5 separate companies against each other to artificially keep labor wages low and violate the ENTIRE CONCEPT OF SENIORITY AND EXPERIENCE BASED PAY- THEN MAYBE THEY OUGHT NOT BE ALLOWED BY YOUR "UNION" (a joke of a union) to FLY THEM AT ALL.

If you need that false market and the thousands of disenfranchised pilots who will never have the leverage to improve their lot by much - then it is DALPA's RESPONSIBILITY TO STAND UP AND NOT HAVE IT.

You guys repeatedly fail in your responsibilities as a union- amazing considering the slippery slope you know scope tends to slide down

Somebody gets it!
This would require pain and sacrifice at the mainline level not gains, it will never happen.
With the passing of this TA RJ's at the lowest bidder airline have just been solidified by ALPA and the big players at mainline-again. Be sure to remind the next jagoff that give you crap for flying the RJ.

 

[captain caveman]

Do you know how much a CR9 or a CRJ1000 costs new? Four times what a used 717 costs. RA wants to bring the debt down to $10 billion by the end of next year so Delta can save $500 million per year in interest on the debt. That is why we are buying MD90s for $8 million each including the engines, and used 717s from Southwest. The only big order we have made so far lately was for the 100 737-900ERs, and I bet Boeing gave a great deal thanks to the 787 delays. When it comes down to it, mainline flying CR9s or CRJ1000s is way too expensive. We can't create a mainline RJ operation that costs less than the current whipsaw over at the regionals. Instead, we are using ratios that will ensure Mainline gaining ground over something that was impossible 5 years ago. 150 50 seat RJs have to go away within a couple years. That plus a 19% wage increase in 3 years, plus many improvements throughout our terrible BK contract makes me lean a lot towards YES. Read the material from the union, go to a roadshow like I will. Get informed, and remember, going back for more doesn't always work. (ask the Airtran guys) It might work, but it might not, in a big way.


Bye Bye---General Lee

My point is that if the company is going to buy 70 new crj900s anyways, the crj1000 probably only costs a little more and has lower seat mile costs. Those lower seat mile costs could partially cover the higher pilot costs. The C series would have even lower seat mile costs.

 

[Skippy]

Unfortunately the TA passes. Congrats to dal mgmnt for building the perfect ta and appealing to nearly every pilots needs for fleet seat and seniority. It has gets for near everyone! My prediction 70/30. Book it

 

[Mea25000]

I know there are many Delta pilots who think AS is flying a bunch of Delta passengers around but the truth is on AS flights with a Delta code Delta is selling 4.5 percent of those seats the largest number is sold between SEA-MSP AND SEA-ATL where the number is almost 17 percent.

 

[Jiminmem]

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.

Unfortunately it will. I was shocked while passing through NY how excited everyone was about it. Stunned is all I can say.

 

[waveflyer]

Scope is heading in the right direction with this TA. No question about it. Not a homerun, but a significant still in the right direction

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

IMO- all brand specific aircraft ought to be flown by the pilots of that brand-

But everyone has their line.

Do me a favor, will you?

Stand out in the terminal and ask passengers -

Watch a -900 taxi by a dc-9 and ask if they can tell which aircraft is a mainline aircraft and which is a "regional" (what's their "region"? North America??)

I've done this, most of the time they will assume the -900 is.

No one ever should have let a -900 off the propert.

You're compromising your compromise. You've given enough. You've hurt enough. Delta is the strongest legacy, at a time when fuel, profits, and the economy are helping you take back flying. Take a stand and fly that thing yourself. This is so basic it's incredible.

You have Stockholm syndrome.

 

[777forever]

IMO- all brand specific aircraft ought to be flown by the pilots of that brand-

But everyone has their line.

Do me a favor, will you?

Stand out in the terminal and ask passengers -

Watch a -900 taxi by a dc-9 and ask if they can tell which aircraft is a mainline aircraft and which is a "regional" (what's their "region"? North America??)

I've done this, most of the time they will assume the -900 is.

No one ever should have let a -900 off the propert.

You're compromising your compromise. You've given enough. You've hurt enough. Delta is the strongest legacy, at a time when fuel, profits, and the economy are helping you take back flying. Take a stand and fly that thing yourself. This is so basic it's incredible.

You have Stockholm syndrome.

So you're telling me, you're not will to take small steps back towards scope recapture, you want it all right here right now?

If it was all up to you, and you're sitting at the table to Delta, what are your minimum contract goals and how exactly will you negotiate for it?

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[waveflyer]

So you're telling me, you're not will to take small steps back towards scope recapture, you want it all right here right now?

If it was all up to you, and you're sitting at the table to Delta, what are your minimum contract goals and how exactly will you negotiate for it?

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

I'm saying this is a GREAT point in time to get one version of the RJ to mainline, and once you do, you'll have flipped the script and put the camel's nose in their tent.

The answer is not by guaranteeing more -900's go to DCI.

I'm all for incremental- id be thrilled if DCI kept flying the -900's they are currently flying and DALPA flew the new ones.
The camel would be pressing and sniffing inside with that.

 

[777forever]

I'm saying this is a GREAT point in time to get one version of the RJ to mainline, and once you do, you'll have flipped the script and put the camel's nose in their tent.

The answer is not by guaranteeing more -900's go to DCI.

I'm all for incremental- id be thrilled if DCI kept flying the -900's they are currently flying and DALPA flew the new ones.
The camel would be pressing and sniffing inside with that.

And if management tells you no way in hell(which they will) will you fly the new 900s while there are DCI contracts on the current 900s for 10 more years how will you counter?

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[waveflyer]

Wait, you're saying DCI has a contractual right to those NEW airplanes??

 

[PCL_128]

Wait, you're saying DCI has a contractual right to those NEW airplanes??

No, I think he's telling you that there is no way in hell that management will ever agree to make a business decision as stupid as operating CR9s at mainline at a loss while they still have the original CR9s outsourced to the DCI carriers where it's being done at a small profit.

 

[waveflyer]

You don't seem to understand the downward pressure on wages outsourcing places on our profession.

What would you say if management said there "is no way in hell we'll pay you more than a $100k". ?

You say to go hell too and stick to your line in the sand.

Again, Stockholm syndrome.

50 seaters are going away economically, and mgmt has framed you guys giving up more -900's as doing you a favor.

Kind of like when the kidnapper decides NOT to kill you after having the gun to your head

 

[PCL_128]

You don't seem to understand the downward pressure on wages outsourcing places on our profession.

What would you say if management said there "is no way in hell we'll pay you more than a $100k". ?

You say to go hell too and stick to your line in the sand.

Wave, what you don't seem to understand is that you can't stick your line in the sand on scope. Scope is a permissive area of bargaining under the law. That means that management doesn't even have to discuss it if they don't want to, and labor is prohibited from striking over it. The NMB is prohibited, by law, from releasing a pilot group to strike over issues of scope. Pay is a much different story, and that's why you can draw your line in the sand over that (within reason). The only way to get gains in scope is to make it worth management's while. In this case, management said that they would be willing to discuss an overall reduction in DCI flying, but only if the pilots took pay raises less than what they were expecting, and agreed to a small increase in the number of outsourced 76-seaters. That's a fair trade, and it's probably the best the Delta pilots can hope for in scope improvements without giving up a bunch more money.

 

[waveflyer]

PCL- those are the gray, muddy waters delta mgmt - (ie all legacy mgmt) is so good at creating.

I believe those jets ought to be flown at mainline and it's worth fighting for. But then again, you're too young to have been furloughed with demand and ASMs increasing in your network bc your peers at the mainline union you used to pay dues at decided you weren't worth fighting for.

There are thousands of us at every legacy who have experienced just that. Did you never have any in your right seat at PCL??

How did usair east pull it off with the 190 even though their express carrier flew other variants for you and the exact type for another carrier. I'll give credit where it's due- usair alpa sacrificed, and got the aircraft on the property.

That should have been done in 2006 when -900's were first allowed in the delta network.

DO NOT COMPOUND THE MISTAKE

 

[waveflyer]

Source????

That would be huge leverage- why hasn't mgmt then used that cherry to outsource 737's??

 

[PCL_128]

DO NOT COMPOUND THE MISTAKE

This TA doesn't compound the mistake. It starts to correct the mistake by reducing the amount of outsourced airplanes and seats. And significantly so, in fact.

 

[waveflyer]

I see you're still doing ALPAs bidding - defending outsourcing bc your weak dick bosses fail to prioritize it - you still work at alpa, right?

Then tell me what the master plan is? Tell me when you'll take back flying if you aren't willing to do it now when you have EVERY economic leverage you could reasonably hope for. It doesn't get to be a better time for delta to start flying -900's.

You're an ALPA apologist- like I've always said, you want a career in alpa, not in flying.

 

[PCL_128]

Source????

That would be huge leverage- why hasn't mgmt then used that cherry to outsource 737's??

Not sure what you mean. The contract that they have is enforceable, which prohibits the outsourcing of 737s. Scope being a permissive area of bargaining doesn't mean that management can do whatever they want, it just means that they are under no obligation to negotiate over changes to the existing language, and the pilots can't strike over it.

 

[PCL_128]

Tell me when you'll take back flying if you aren't willing to do it now

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. This TA does take back flying. A reduction in the number of outsourced airplanes from 600+ to 450 is significant.

 

[Jiminmem]

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. This TA does take back flying. A reduction in the number of outsourced airplanes from 600+ to 450 is significant.

Getting rid of 50 seaters that Delta wants to get rid of anyways. ALPA failed this one once again.

 

[PCL_128]

Getting rid of 50 seaters that Delta wants to get rid of anyways.

Wanting to get rid of them, and having the ability to get rid of them are two very different things. Right now, Delta has long-term contracts on those 50s with the lessors. In order to get out of them, the lessors want to Delta to swap them out for 76-seaters.