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.

 

[777forever]

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

I have 100% respect for you now General. I like the way you think. You and Captain RM(author of the point paper) know how to think rationally, analytically, and realistically rather than emotionally. I hope the majority of the Delta pilot share your way of thinking.

No offense, but anyone who thinks this TA is a "sellout" on scope is just ignorant of the facts or delusional. As a regional pilot I want this TA to pass as it will shrink DCI overall and immediately add more jobs to mainline, allowing hiring and upward movement.





Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[Fly-By-Cable]

General I hope your yes vote will not be something you regret later, I mean that sincerely. I am just certain that there is a loop hole in the scope section, and you guys will later find your mad dogs being parked while the big rjs are continuing to fly. I really hope im wrong. BTW this isnt your problem, but the CAL/UAL guys are finished with this yes vote. Say goodbye to those 737-5 and hello to the E175.

 

[79%N1]

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.

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.

 

[777forever]

General I hope your yes vote will not be something you regret later, I mean that sincerely. I am just certain that there is a loop hole in the scope section, and you guys will later find your mad dogs being parked while the big rjs are continuing to fly. I really hope im wrong. BTW this isnt your problem, but the CAL/UAL guys are finished with this yes vote. Say goodbye to those 737-5 and hello to the E175.

You indeed are wrong, there is no loophole. The block hour ratio language is rock solid. Even if there was a loophole, 3 years is a very short contract. Back to the table in 2 1/2 years.

Going for the homerun each time on a contract every at bat you will certainly strike out. It's best to hit a single here, a double there etc.

That's why the Delta pilots have continued to make gains over the past several years while UNICAL pilots are monkeying around building websites and in picket lines passing out flyers to passengers like they care, and no pay increases to show for it.

Just take the Delta TA +1 and be on your way.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[GogglesPisano]

This TA is a net positive in regards to Scope.

DCI shrinks (currently 598 RJ's. TA will cap them at 450.)

76-seaters will be capped at 223. Currently the Company can add mainline aircraft, trigger a 3-1 ratio, and add 76-seaters up to the current max of 255. They can then park mainline aircraft and keep the 255 76-seaters. This TA reduces the potential number of 76-seaters.

The long-sought block-hour-ratio is back. If they park mainline aircraft, they park RJ's.

These additional 76-seaters only come if mainline acquires new aircraft.

The requirement that 35% of newhires come from DCI is a bone to ALPA national and, IMHO, the right thing to do considering there will be a bloodbath at DCI in the coming years.

The gains in vacation, sick pay and especially compensation are very disappointing. It gives us industry-leading 737 and 777 pay (excluding retirement, BTW) in 2.5 years as opposed to immediately. However it does give us a better foundation to build on for the next merger JCBA (when, not if.)

If this TA is voted down, it won't be because of scope, it will be because of pay.

In that case, if history is an indicator, we will likely spend the next 3 years negotiating like every other legacy, instead of negotiating 3 years from now with a better contract to build on.

Flame away, irrational chest-beaters.

 

[fam62c]

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.

It will pass with flying colors because if it doesn't you will be stuck in the RLA process for the next 5-10 years with nothing. You have a little leverage now because the company wants something and it allows you to get a few things. If the company can't get what they want for a price they are willing to pay you will be stuck with zero. The NMB is never going to allow a labor group from an airline the size of DAL to go on strike. This is the only little bit of leverage you will ever have, you can elect whatever union you want and it's not going to change this fact. This thing will pass with no problem.

 

[KarmaPolice]

This TA is a net positive in regards to Scope.

DCI shrinks (currently 598 RJ's. TA will cap them at 450.)

76-seaters will be capped at 223. Currently the Company can add mainline aircraft, trigger a 3-1 ratio, and add 76-seaters up to the current max of 255. They can then park mainline aircraft and keep the 255 76-seaters. This TA reduces the potential number of 76-seaters.

The long-sought block-hour-ratio is back. If they park mainline aircraft, they park RJ's.

These additional 76-seaters only come if mainline acquires new aircraft.

The requirement that 35% of newhires come from DCI is a bone to ALPA national and, IMHO, the right thing to do considering there will be a bloodbath at DCI in the coming years.

The gains in vacation, sick pay and especially compensation are very disappointing. It gives us industry-leading 737 and 777 pay (excluding retirement, BTW) in 2.5 years as opposed to immediately. However it does give us a better foundation to build on for the next merger JCBA (when, not if.)

If this TA is voted down, it won't be because of scope, it will be because of pay.

In that case, if history is an indicator, we will likely spend the next 3 years negotiating like every other legacy, instead of negotiating 3 years from now with a better contract to build on.

Flame away, irrational chest-beaters.

It's not an irrational idea to be opposed to allowing 70 more 76 seat aircraft at DCI. That isn't chest beating. We don't have to let the company do it, and certainly not that many. We have far more leverage here than we are using.

Management doesn't want the 50's, so we're letting them get 70 more 76ers to ease their pain, and they're giving us great stuff like block hour ratios in return.

We can get more than what we are getting though! They rushed this TA for a reason. I don't think we can demand mainline fly the 76ers, but we don't have to give them 70 more!

 

[KarmaPolice]

It will pass with flying colors because if it doesn't you will be stuck in the RLA process for the next 5-10 years with nothing. You have a little leverage now because the company wants something and it allows you to get a few things. If the company can't get what they want for a price they are willing to pay you will be stuck with zero. The NMB is never going to allow a labor group from an airline the size of DAL to go on strike. This is the only little bit of leverage you will ever have, you can elect whatever union you want and it's not going to change this fact. This thing will pass with no problem.

We have more leverage than you think. Management is faced with lots of bad leases on worthless 50 seaters. They also know we will get pay parity with SWA in any mediation. They want this contract done early so they can continue with their strategic plans. I'm not saying we could get all flying back in house, but giving them 70 76ers is quite the gift!

 

[waveflyer]

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.

I came from your end of aviation.

I never once considered attempting to make it a career. Regionals are unstable by their whipsaw foundation. The quicker you realize your cheese was going to be moved regardless the better off you'll be.

 

[General Lee]

It's not an irrational idea to be opposed to allowing 70 more 76 seat aircraft at DCI. That isn't chest beating. We don't have to let the company do it, and certainly not that many. We have far more leverage here than we are using.

Management doesn't want the 50's, so we're letting them get 70 more 76ers to ease their pain, and they're giving us great stuff like block hour ratios in return.

We can get more than what we are getting though! They rushed this TA for a reason. I don't think we can demand mainline fly the 76ers, but we don't have to give them 70 more!

So, do you want to keep the money losing 50 seaters around longer? Yes, there will be 70 more 76 seaters eventually (after all 88 717s come), and then there will be a ratio to maintain with regard to mainline vs DCI. If mainline decreases, then DCI has to decrease. Those 102 70 seat RJs out there will probably fill in for the 50 seaters on their routes that can't make money. That means they have a chance of making money for Detla, rather than losing it. Mainline growth tied in with DCI growth. It can't be one sided DCI growth anymore. That happened after BK and 9-11. This TA would prevent that. Ratios that can't be moved.

And you haven't explained how a 76 seat mainline operation would work? Who flies what, who are the FAs, who are the mechanics? How would that be funded? Maybe if we got ZERO raises, they could pay for that. Right now DCI operations are done at razor thin profit margins, with some going into BK.

Trust me, I initially didn't like a lot of this. Then, I tried to look at the whole deal, improvements in many sections, and then the duration of the deal. I wanted more pay too, and I wasn't thrilled about extra big RJs, until I heard about the ratios, the 150 less 50 seaters, and the better scope protection in INTL and Code Shares. Overall, it isn't a bad deal.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[waveflyer]

General-
Usair mainline flies the e190 even though republic flies a lot more e190's/175's &170's and can no doubt do it more "efficiently"

I'm trying to figure out why you can't add another aircraft in your fleet-
You fly a number of different aircraft- why would you think it would work any different than any other type??

 

[General Lee]

General-
Usair mainline flies the e190 even though republic flies a lot more e190's/175's &170's and can no doubt do it more "efficiently"

I'm trying to figure out why you can't add another aircraft in your fleet-
You fly a number of different aircraft- why would you think it would work any different than any other type??

The E190 at USAir is a mainline plane. Frontier uses E190s. I don't see any USAir Express (via Republic) E190s, or United Express E190s. You are getting confused. Delta does not codeshare with Frontier, and they don't use any E190s with a DL codeshare on it. But, they use smaller, permitted planes with Delta, USAir, and United. How is Frontier doing Btw? They have been up for sale for awhile now.

When you add a 76 seater to a fleet initially, you probably could start up your own training program, for your pilots, FAs, and mechanics. You can start from scratch, and try to keep the costs low. DL already uses 76 seaters. We know the costs, because Delta pays the regionals for their feed. In the last few years, the Regionals have gotten slammed by the legacies, who demand lower costs everytime a contract comes due. It used to be the Regionals were in command, flying for rates that gave automatic profits, and the legacies couldn't really do anything about it because half of their feed would be gone overnight. Now, there is more whipsawing, bringing costs down. Look at the BKs, and even the giant SKW has been posting losses. (although they are sitting on some cash they saved when they were overcharging the legacy partners) Colgan can't even hold on to the bigger Dash 8s because United wanted them for less. COLGAN couldn't do it. That should say something.

So, if Delta were to do it inhouse, could they do it for the same price, or for less? What if Delta pilots were the only ones doing it, and then had Comair FAs and PNCL mechanics? Can you see how confusing that would be? I would rather have over 70 more 76 seaters, keep 102 70 seaters doing 50 seat routes to try to make a profit on those, and then dump 150 50 seaters that do nobody any good. They are a waste. Then, add at least 88 717s, and fly them on current 76 seat routes. Tie all that in with a ratio that guarantees mainline will get more of the flying, and allows for 76 seaters to be parked if mainline planes are parked, and that is a good deal. We gain on DCI, we park 150 RJs and have a total of 80 fewer RJs than today, and the rest of the scope (INTL and CS) is better, plus a 19% raise in only 3 years, plus other work rule improvements, and I think the deal is pretty good. I will be looking forward to that roadshow to confirm a lot of this.



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[fam62c]

We have more leverage than you think. Management is faced with lots of bad leases on worthless 50 seaters. They also know we will get pay parity with SWA in any mediation. They want this contract done early so they can continue with their strategic plans. I'm not saying we could get all flying back in house, but giving them 70 76ers is quite the gift!

Do you know what mediation is? I think you need to brush up on the RLA process. Nobody is going to "give" you "at least" parity with SW, mediators don't have anything to do do with what's in a contract, they just steer the process. Increasingly their job is to make sure that negotiations are endless unless the unions accept the company position. Don't think if you overplay your hand here you will automatically get more. Each day fuel prices drop your leverage decreases as the 50-seaters become less of a problem. There is an amount the company is willing to pay to solve a problem but that amount has a limit.

 

[waveflyer]

General, I'm not confused- the 170/175/190 are ALL the same type and same training-
Republic flies all 3 -( not sure about your wording, but you know that Republic performs the 190 flying at frontier, right?) -Including flying the 170&175 for usair.

Delta is the strongest legacy that participated in such crazy outsourcing-

Are you saying that LCC can set up and operate E190's as mainline a/c while outsourcing 170&175's, but delta couldn't help move the scope bar by flying -900's even though it's regionals fly the -200's and -700's????

Please answer that last question

Then understand the reason your management won't do that is bc they know they have a weak dick pilot group who will accept more -900's going to dci.

Delta has made it a gray area on purpose-

To me- accepting those grays is what got you to such a sellout position- DALPA The undisputed leader on outsourcing.

Call this what it is and keep it simple- ---> More Large Jet airliners being flown by non delta pilot's for delta airlines.

NO AMOUNT OF MUDDYING THE WATERS WILL CHANGE THAT MORE 86,000lb, 320KIAS/.82M, FL410 JET AIRLINERS - WILL BE OUTSOURCED BY DELTA IF YOU SIGN THIS TA.

THIS IS A SERIOUS OPPORTUNITY IN THE ECONOMY TO GET OUTSOURCING BACK TO REASONABLE LEVELS- DALPA IS SIMPLY NOT STRONG ENOUGH ON THIS ISSUE-

YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. AFTER MANY YEARS NOW GENERAL OF YOU TELLING ME THAT YOU'RE DIFFERENT NOW- you still have tiny little penis's and lack the vision to see what this does-

More large airplanes is simply unacceptable.

 

[GogglesPisano]

Again, this TA reduces the potential number of 76-seaters. You can make all the arguments you'd like. But don't come up with your own facts. That's very ... Republican.

 

[General Lee]

General, I'm not confused- the 170/175/190 are ALL the same type and same training-
Republic flies all 3 -( not sure about your wording, but you know that Republic performs the 190 flying at frontier, right?) -Including flying the 170&175 for usair.

Delta is the strongest legacy that participated in such crazy outsourcing-

Are you saying that LCC can set up and operate E190's as mainline a/c while outsourcing 170&175's, but delta couldn't help move the scope bar by flying -900's even though it's regionals fly the -200's and -700's????

Please answer that last question

Then understand the reason your management won't do that is bc they know they have a weak dick pilot group who will accept more -900's going to dci.

Delta has made it a gray area on purpose-

To me- accepting those grays is what got you to such a sellout position- DALPA The undisputed leader on outsourcing.

Call this what it is and keep it simple- ---> More Large Jet airliners being flown by non delta pilot's for delta airlines.

NO AMOUNT OF MUDDYING THE WATERS WILL CHANGE THAT MORE 86,000lb, 320KIAS/.82M, FL410 JET AIRLINERS - WILL BE OUTSOURCED BY DELTA IF YOU SIGN THIS TA.

THIS IS A SERIOUS OPPORTUNITY IN THE ECONOMY TO GET OUTSOURCING BACK TO REASONABLE LEVELS- DALPA IS SIMPLY NOT STRONG ENOUGH ON THIS ISSUE-

YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. AFTER MANY YEARS NOW GENERAL OF YOU TELLING ME THAT YOU'RE DIFFERENT NOW- you still have tiny little penis's and lack the vision to see what this does-

More large airplanes is simply unacceptable.

Wave,

I know they are all the same type rating, but they only fly E190s on the Frontier side. Not for USAir, UAL, or DL. Scope clauses don't allow that. But, for their subsidiary Frontier, yes, yes they do. But, they don't fly any Frontier code shares with Delta or anyone else. Frontier is frontier.

I see where you are going with LCC flying E190s, and Republic flying E170/75s for USAir. It's essentially the same flying, except Republic does NOT fly E190s for USAir, and the E190s at USAir make more money for USAir than the E170/75s. IF you tried to equate the same thing with us, you could say we would fly the E190 and Shuttle America or Compass fly the E175s, or we fly the CRJ1000, and SKW or PNCL fly the CR7/9. None of those things are going to happen. No such orders. The more seats they have, the lower the CASM. The deal is the 50 seaters are junk and have a high CASM. The 70 seaters are marginally better, and they might be able to swing a profit on current 50 seat routes that do not. The 76 seaters have a few more first class seats, and they are even better than the 70 seaters on certain routes, thin routes that may need to be tested before you fly a 717 on it. If significant demand is there, then it is time to throw a 717 or A319 on it, and a mainline route is born. Some cities are just smaller, and probably can't sustain a 717 or larger. You guys are pulling out of 17 cities all together as you give us your 717s.

When you try to ask if we could do the same, fly 76 seaters instead of DCI, all we have to do is look at the current financials of what the current 76 seaters at DCI cost. We have it right there. LCC has E190s because LCC has a scope clause, so they aren't allowed to fly FOR USAIR by Republic. We look at how cheap it is to fly those CR9s, and we try to see if we can match or beat that low cost. If we cost twice what DCI costs for planes THEY ALREADY OPERATE, then I don't think that would float with anyone. Sure, they could fly 757s for $40 an hour, but we have a scope clause currently that forbids that. So, looking at CR9s or E175s, can we pay pilots, FAs, mechanics, rampers, etc the same as it costs DCI to do it? Probably not.

So, instead of trying to grab 76 seaters and reinvent the wheel, why can't we just get 717s and bigger, and keep a nice ratio that allows us to grab back a higher percentage of overall domestic flights, and also dump 150 50 seaters that we know don't help us. We give 70 76 seaters, but we tie that to our own growth, and if our growth stops, so does DCI growth. AMAZING. We all win---mainline grows, DCI 50 seaters go away, Delta makes a bit more money on money losing routes by putting larger RJs on those same routes that probably are a bit too small for a 717. Your own company again is dumping 17 cities after you give us the 717s. Why didn't GK just say "Hey, Tunica, we'll be baaaaack...." Maybe because even Tunica couldn't support a 737. You should grab some 50 seat RJs to do it. I know where you can buy some.....(cheap)


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Jar Jar]

So, do you want to keep the money losing 50 seaters around longer?

...

Those 102 70 seat RJs out there will probably fill in for the 50 seaters on their routes that can't make money. That means they have a chance of making money for Detla, rather than losing it.

RJs making money only keeps them around longer.

 

[redflyer65]

Yep. And Delta will move the cheese again next time. It will be the same thing....the 76 seat won't be profitable so they will need to trade them in for 100 seaters. The Delta pilots will bite off on it again and again and again.

 

[SWA Bubba]

...

YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. AFTER MANY YEARS NOW GENERAL OF YOU TELLING ME THAT YOU'RE DIFFERENT NOW- you still have tiny little penis's and lack the vision to see what this does-

More large airplanes is simply unacceptable.

Wow.... straight for the "tiny penis" remark. That's kinda' low, Wave. The General's doctor says that the technical name is "micro penis." It's not his fault. :blush:

Bubba

 

[xjhawk]

Hey General, just so you can get your facts straight about Colgan's (Pinnacle) Q fleet. The offer they gave United was lower to operate than the winning bid that is now going to operate the Q's. Yes, I have had a couple long talks with one of the union negotiators and he said it was a three part deal. In order for Pinnacle to not go into bankruptcy they needed three things. United to increase the service agreement to a profitable point, Delta to do the same thing for the ATL CRJ 900's, and the pilots would have to give 5%. United agreed but Delta said no and we all know that the pilots did not get a chance to vote on it. Forcing Pinnacle into bankruptcy. There has also been a lot of talk about Delta not making payments to Pinnacle to cover costs associated with the Merger when they bought Mesaba. The cost at which Colgan was to provide the Q service was lower than the other bids. It was Delta who forced the issue. Eliminating both the United and US Air flying at Pinnacle. Giving Delta the control during Pinnacles bankruptcy. Sound familiar? SOunds like the 05 Bankruptcy where NWA forced Mesaba into bankruptcy and what was the outcome of that? I think the TA that was just penned has a lot to do with Delta being in the position it is in for Pinnacles situation. Now they can control the loss of 50 seaters at Pinnacle or anything else they want to do.