Initial DAL pilot deal details

[FDJ2]

I personally think ASA will get the first batch of 70 seaters based on their last RFP. The new 70s will probably replace the standing order for 50 seaters they were going to get in 2005.

As to where a furloughed pilot would choose to go, probably depends more on where he lives than anything else, although CHQ might have a slight advantage if the upgrade time is short. I honestly don't think a large number of furloughed pilots will go to any of the DCI carriers, but some will want that option.

 

[e120pilot]

TBKANE,

I don't want to sound like an A-hole, but I think you need to ease up on the anger a bit. I understand it sucks to be furloughed, but what good is it to get recalled to a place with no future? In order to make Delta competitve, the pilots are simply going to have to become more efficient(along with the company as a whole). If DAL is forced to recall more than is necessary all that will do is waste more money (the last thing Delta needs right now). I certainly hope all you guys get back sooner rather that later, but I don't see how recalling pilots that aren't needed is going to help Delta survive.

 

[73belair]

#3 is interesting for ASA since we have 25 50-seaters coming in `05. I think DCI is currently capped at 57 70-seaters, so 82-57 = 25 (I doubt that is a coincidence).

Just what I was thinking.

 

[General Lee]

Well, there you have it. The next 25 RFP RJs will be CR7s for ASA. (At least that is what it looks like) Fins should be happy.





DAL737FO,

Hopefully not too much longer.



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[NYRANGERS]

It looks like the new limit on 70 seaters is 125. For every increase in 10,000 Company block hours, DCI can add a 70 seater up to 150. The limit on carriers flying other than permitted aircraft types for other than delta has also been lifted. I don't know how this will effect ACA's DO328's, but it looks like they can continue to fly them for delta if the agreement remains.

 

[NDM]

Also, just an interesting side note. CHQ has options for 27 more E-170's which could be delivered in 2005. This option, is one in which Delta would not have to put the money up to finance/purchase new aircraft. Our 170 operation is also now up and running. I have not been able to find in the Delta PWA where the 170 would not be allowed because of it being certificated for possibl more than 70 seats. I belive Embraer has made different classifications for the different seating config's. I.E: 78 seat version ERJ-170-XXX vs the 70 seat version with a first class ERJ-170-XXX. I could be wrong though. Just speculation, and I do not have any concrete evidence.

Dan

 

[Mach 80]

Right after 9/11 Delta's strategy was to immediately raise cash and liquidity using their relatively high credit rating by selling bonds and other methods to weather what they knew was an upcoming 'storm'. Most other legacy carriers went another route which was immediately cutting costs and labor expenses. So...Delta anded up in a high cash position which made it very difficult to later negotiate costs savings from employees who saw the high cash level and delayed what many would say should have been done a few years ago. Raising cash became a both a blessing and a curse. Of course ex-CEO Mullin didn't help things with the retirement scam thing. Finally labor got frightened enough to negotiate.

 

[On Your Six]

The way I see it, the alternative is USAirways pay levels set as a benchmark for everyone else... Did you see what they are paying A330 FOs? A CRJ-700 Captain at Comair can earn more than 80% of USAirways pilots now....

Take it and run.... The alternative could very well be much lower and the anxiety levels will climb through the stratosphere...

 

[surplus1]

Dan, I'm sure that Chq will continue to see growth at DCI. It would not surprise me to see an RFP for any 70 seaters. However, unless the definition of permitted 70 seaters has changed, the E170 would still not be allowed to be outsourced since it has a certificated capacity of over 70 seats. If managment was crawling all over it, I suspect they were more interested in what a E190/195 interior might look like in comparison to an A319 or 737-600/700.

FDJ2

Better check that contract again. Your current contract applies "certificated" capacity of over 70 seats only to ASA and CMR. The other DCI carriers are limited by configured capacity. Therefore CHQ or SKYW or anybody else could operate the EMB-170 for Delta as long as they do not install more than 70-seats. Your current contract descriminates against ASA and CMR and favors outsourcing of this aircraft to carriers that are not owned by Delta.

So, unless that is changed by the TA your alleged support for ALPA's "brand scope" is a myth, as many of us knew it would be.

If Delta wants the EMB-170, based on your contract, the logical carrier would be CHQ. They are already setup to operate this type and it can easily be configured to 70-seats with a 2-class interior. They are already operating it for UAL, have many options and could easily pick up the orders that USAirways can't pay for. This would NOT violate your current contract.

In contrast, operation of that aircraft by ASA or CMR would violate your current contract.

By the same token SKYW could operate the CRJ-705 for Delta within the terms of your contract. So could Mesa. Both have the financing; both have lower pilot payroll costs than either ASA or CMR. Either can configure with 2-class seating.

So much for the ALPA "brand scope" scam.

 

[jhflyhi]

I am the DALPA Duty Pilot

 

[surplus1]

It looks like the new limit on 70 seaters is 125. For every increase in 10,000 Company block hours, DCI can add a 70 seater up to 150. The limit on carriers flying other than permitted aircraft types for other than delta has also been lifted. I don't know how this will effect ACA's DO328's, but it looks like they can continue to fly them for delta if the agreement remains.

Interesting. As always, the devil is in the details.

 

[CF34-3B1]

It looks like the new limit on 70 seaters is 125. For every increase in 10,000 Company block hours, DCI can add a 70 seater up to 150. The limit on carriers flying other than permitted aircraft types for other than delta has also been lifted.

Great, here comes Mesa............

 

[DDpaysoff]

Never mind.

 

[KingAirKiddo]

Great, here comes Mesa............

Sigh. What a crappy business.

 

[~~~^~~~]

General:

It seems Delta management keeps bumping scope limits ( with DALPA's consent ) just in time to keep current orders rolling. While Skip Barnette repeatedly mentioned the possibility of the 25 airplanes being converted to -700's and that these airplanes were needed in ATL he did not give away anything that he knew this was going to happen ( must be a great poker player ).

He did mention quite a bit about ALPA's J4J being tied to scope concessions on the CRJ700 and that a deal was in the works. Given that this did not happen, I am left to conclude that the ( currently unconfirmed ) reports we heard that the RJDC litigation stopped the J4J provisions tied to the -700's is correct.

If the RJDC litigation is performing its intended goal of changing ALPA's behavior - good. The second step is for the Delta MEC to achieve what they want by working with the Comair and ASA representatives on proper terms to secure protections for Delta pilots who wish to fly at DCI. I would think getting rid of the rediculous first year pay for those coming over from Delta would be a first.

I will not deny that I am pleased that ASA has a good shot at these -700's. But even I can see that something needs to be done for your pilots - something to end the rediculous war between union members. Unfortunately your MEC keeps screwing up by approaching this in a predatory fashion. Cooperation would have worked five years ago without the furloughs.....

~~~^~~~

 

[General Lee]

Fins,


I really don't know exactly what the MEC has offered in the TA, but I did read somewhere that our furloughs have to be offered jobs (probably FO jobs) in those new CR7s. I may be wrong on that, but I thought I saw that. I don't know if the RJDC litigation did anything to sway the final outcome of the TA. I always thought that there would be an addition to the CR7s, since they are better aircraft than the 50 seat RJs.

As far as what will happen with our current furloughs, I have a feeling there will be some sort of recall, at a slower rate, and that same rate may increase if we have a large exodus of pilots retiring, which may very well happen. Dec 1st looks like the time most will jump ship, but I would guess 75-100 will leave by Monday.

I have always said there is a place for RJs, and certain routes do deserve them. But, there are also certain routes (like all of the long ones from DFW) that obviously did not work. It will be interesting to see where Delta places your new CR7s. (if you get them) (Didn't Grinstein say no RJ flights over 2 hours???)


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[73belair]

I don't know that its the "range" that is the best part of the crj700. But the fact that it burns somewhere around 500lbs pr hr more than the 50 and can seat 20 more people. Plus it goes faster and higher.

 

[TonyC]

Tony C,


Simmer down now, ya hear? You are wrong on many fronts. First of all, I have been an advocate for our furloughs since they were furloughed. If you didn't know that, then you have NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION. I have been doing whatever I can to try to get them hired at DCI temporarily, I have stressed the importance of insuring their prompt return, and even TBKANE knows that. Don't make me look like the bad guy here, it makes you look stupid. Ask Fins and all of the other people on this board. You are wrong and I have always thought of them FIRST.

...


Bye Bye--General Lee

Oh, I know, you always SAY you want them back, but ...

Post Retirement Pilots was NOT the only solution to the senior pilot exodus problem, but you supported it. Tell us how eliminating the no furlough clause during bankruptcy (part of that LOA) affected that problem.

Taking a 32% pay cut hurts you, but not as much when the CAP is raised. How does raising the CAP help the furloughees?

How does removing the No Furlough clause (part of this deal) stave off bankruptcy?


Indeed, you always SAY you want them back, but ... actions speak louder than words.



.

 

[General Lee]

Tony C,


That No Furlough Clause would have been lost in any Chap 11. Our MEC knew that. It was a lost cause. The only way to ensure less furloughs or to ensure our recalls to come back faster was to make sure we "funneled" our senior guys out the door. How could we do that? By giving them a "drop dead date" of Feb 1st for their lump sums. Sure, by doing that we had to make sure we didn't park the fleet by having the guys all leave at once. The only way to solve that was to give a "LIMITED" time that some senior pilot could stick around, until he/she is replaced. Do you want to know who actually is overlooking this process? The IRS. Yes, the tax man. They were brought in to make sure senior guys were not "double dipping"---and if they get their lump sum---they can't come back after Dec 31st of 2005. That was a good way to ensure no extra furloughs and that the recalls would continue in some form. This situation is not easy, and I want all of the furloughs to come back as soon as possible. I thought that retirement TA would help, and it will, eventually.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[e120pilot]

Tony C,

This was a concessionary deal. The sole purpose was to reduce pilot costs. This was accomplished by reducing pay rates and changing work rules. Delta can't afford to have an agreement that doesn't give them more productivity. This stinks for the furloughees, but hopefully this will allow Delta to be more competitive in the future.