Delta TA on SCOPE

[FBN0223]

Voting No

 

[captain caveman]

So how does Republic buying 40 100-149 seat C-Series to possibly fly for Delta's Skyteam work into the new scope clause? This wasn't mentioned in the TA...

It doesn't have to be. The scope language explains the category of aircraft, maximum seats and weights and also block hours, not specific aircraft. The C-series must be flown by mainline in our current CBA and the TA if it is to be used by Delta.

 

[captain caveman]

Snap, Skywest orders 300 CRJ 900's to be operated as Alaska Air Express out of SEA, MSP and ATL.



65% of newhires to come from non ALPA DCI carriers.

No, it's at least 35% not a maximum of 35%. And, no the code share won't allow Alaska to do that.

 

[captain caveman]

I just can't bring myself to vote yes. Small pay rate increases would be easier to accept if they left profit sharing alone. ALV+ 15 for reserves, would be acceptable if it was optional. More 76 seaters would be acceptable if they came to mainline.

There are just a few too many concessions here, and with just a little clean up we could have a deal, that is not concessionary. I believe that Delta is highly motivated to strike a deal and that our union and pilots need a little more motivation.

 

[Fly-By-Cable]

I guess the membership could tell them NO, and we all could go back to the bargaining again. I just don't know if the next offer would be as good, it might be. That's a chance you have to take. I looked at our whole contract, and there were many problems. Not just one or two, many. I don't know how you can try to fix all of them to 100%, and still get a big raise and park all RJs. If this were a 5 year contract, for 19% and giving away RJs without tying them to any growth, then it probably would be a NO from me. Instead, I look around at what the other legacies have done for all of us lately (zero), then look at our rates within 3 year with this TA, look at better JV and CS scope, parking a lot of 50 seaters, and improvements on many parts of our current contract, and then try to think how much more can we realistically get? I guess we could try. I still am awaiting a roadshow here in ATL. I do have some questions.

You absolutely reserve the right to vote however you please. I'll just add my 2 cents. Your payraises are absolutely self funded by concessions in profit sharing. This is cost neutral to Delta.

On the issue of scope. The 50 seaters are going away whether you pass this TA or not. Delta wants to make you believe they are giving you this out of the goodness of their heart, but its happening due to economics. Relaxing 76 seat scope is a concession on the pilots' part. Delta wants to replace 50 seat routes with 76 seaters? Fine, there are plenty of those flying around now, they are just mis-used on routes like ORD-LGA. Markets that could easily sustain mainline aircraft. Looks to me like Delta threw this POS out there to see if the pilots would bite. I would vote NO.

 

[lakemead1]

I've read a few other posts that talk of a 300 pilot job loss because work rule changes etc. on this TA. Anyone else confirm this?

 

[General Lee]

I've read a few other posts that talk of a 300 pilot job loss because work rule changes etc. on this TA. Anyone else confirm this?

Not even close. There will be 88 717s added (17 DC9s replaced by 2014), 27 MD90s, and 100 737-900s (that will replace some old 757s) are coming soon. Think of the training involved, and how many people will be out for 6 week courses and then waiting for IOE. Then add retirements that will increase after next year. Also, any furlough would result in ALL 76 seaters losing 6 of the seats, immediately. How much lost revenue per flight (the 1st class seats) would that allow?


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[lakemead1]

Do we really know what the net increase will be? Is the early out really going to get some of the senior citizens off the top. I just worry about possible loopholes with these scope "improvements"

 

[General Lee]

I guess the membership could tell them NO, and we all could go back to the bargaining again. I just don't know if the next offer would be as good, it might be. That's a chance you have to take. I looked at our whole contract, and there were many problems. Not just one or two, many. I don't know how you can try to fix all of them to 100%, and still get a big raise and park all RJs. If this were a 5 year contract, for 19% and giving away RJs without tying them to any growth, then it probably would be a NO from me. Instead, I look around at what the other legacies have done for all of us lately (zero), then look at our rates within 3 year with this TA, look at better JV and CS scope, parking a lot of 50 seaters, and improvements on many parts of our current contract, and then try to think how much more can we realistically get? I guess we could try. I still am awaiting a roadshow here in ATL. I do have some questions.

You absolutely reserve the right to vote however you please. I'll just add my 2 cents. Your payraises are absolutely self funded by concessions in profit sharing. This is cost neutral to Delta.

On the issue of scope. The 50 seaters are going away whether you pass this TA or not. Delta wants to make you believe they are giving you this out of the goodness of their heart, but its happening due to economics. Relaxing 76 seat scope is a concession on the pilots' part. Delta wants to replace 50 seat routes with 76 seaters? Fine, there are plenty of those flying around now, they are just mis-used on routes like ORD-LGA. Markets that could easily sustain mainline aircraft. Looks to me like Delta threw this POS out there to see if the pilots would bite. I would vote NO.

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

 

[General Lee]

Do we really know what the net increase will be? Is the early out really going to get some of the senior citizens off the top. I just worry about possible loopholes with these scope "improvements"

Net increase of pilots? IF we add all of those planes, while dumping 17 DC9s eventually and some 757s when the 737s come, I would say they would have to increase pilots. The 717s will come at 3 per month starting next Summer. You have to have line check people, sim guys, and then the initial people bidding it. You would have to replace people flying it, or add newhires.

As far as early retirements go, I don't know if any would take it. Some may be ready to go now, but are waiting for a good medical deal. I don't know what the details are for the early out.


Bye Bye---General Lee