Initial DAL pilot deal details

[N2264J]

That's a no vote from me.

You think you could get a better deal than this TA in bankruptcy?

 

[michael707767]

You think you could get a better deal than this TA in bankruptcy?

No. Actually I am betting the GG does not want to go to BK, and that he would rather make a few small changes than throw the whole deal out the window.

But, if that doesn't work, frankly I say fine. I don't think Delta can avoid BK even with this TA. And I have seen the BK protection letter. It is worthless. So, we will go BK anyway and they will be back for more. I say lets get it all done now. Our deal, the creditors, the lessors, everything.

 

[DL_Infidel]

That question is getting old.

You think you could get a better deal than this TA in bankruptcy?

Probably not. What is disturbing is that everyone is not sharing the pain equally...this TA is a pilot solution, not a "Delta solution". This pilot group should not bear most of this burden.

The DMEC did it's job. Now I will do mine and let them know they need to go back to the table....voting NO.

 

[G4G5]

No. Actually I am betting the GG does not want to go to BK, and that he would rather make a few small changes than throw the whole deal out the window.

But, if that doesn't work, frankly I say fine. I don't think Delta can avoid BK even with this TA. And I have seen the BK protection letter. It is worthless. So, we will go BK anyway and they will be back for more. I say lets get it all done now. Our deal, the creditors, the lessors, everything.

That's a tough bet. I am betting that he does. At AA my guess is we are ch11 sometime next year. The biggest thing to remember is that BK is the only real way to wipe the debt slate clean. How else is GG ever going to get the $12-15 billion dollar ( at AA it's $13-15 bill) paid off. One trip into ch11 and most of those folks are getting 10c on the dollar. That's why I would (did at AA) vote No, all we did was lower the bar for the next round of negotiations.

 

[AMRCostUnit]

That's a tough bet. I am betting that he does. At AA my guess is we are ch11 sometime next year. The biggest thing to remember is that BK is the only real way to wipe the debt slate clean. How else is GG ever going to get the $12-15 billion dollar ( at AA it's $13-15 bill) paid off. One trip into ch11 and most of those folks are getting 10c on the dollar. That's why I would (did at AA) vote No, all we did was lower the bar for the next round of negotiations.

It's my understanding that the debt gets restructured in CH11 rather than written off completely. I also voted no here at AA because, as the Delta guys might find out, when bullet points are turned into contract language --suprize -- it looks nothing like what you voted on.

Same page from AMR's playbook.

Unit

 

[General Lee]

Even though agreements can be trashed in court, it is better to go into a Chap 11 with an agreement made. Sometimes there are side agreements made that can stick, but some do not---ask the USAir guys.....



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[FDJ2]

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. .

Surplus, I haven't had a chance to read the current TA, so perhaps the language will change in December. As for the language in C2K, you'll have to show me where it says configured vs certified for a non wholly owned carrier flying DL code in that aircraft, because I believe you are mistaken.

C2K

If a domestic air carrier operates both permitted aircraft types and aircraft other than permitted aircraft types, the exemption for that domestic air carrier provided by ​

Section 1 D. 1. will not apply unless: ​

​

a. the flying on aircraft other than permitted aircraft types is not performed for the Company within the meaning of ​

Section 1 C., and ​

b. there is no reduction in the level of the Company​

’s then existing system scheduled aircraft block hours of flying as the result of the performance of such flying on other than a permitted aircraft type, and ​

c. the aircraft other than a permitted aircraft type, is either a jet aircraft configured with 70 or fewer passenger seats or a propeller driven aircraft configured with 72 or fewer passenger seats, and is operated on its own behalf or pursuant to agreement with an air carrier(s) other than the Company or an affiliate.​

​

​

While I'm not sure of the exact language of the new TA, the negotiator bullet states the following:​

​

"Delta may now retain its connection feed with airlines that operate jets up to 97 seats as long as those aircraft with more than 70 seats are not operated for Delta and are not operated on a city pair served by the mainline"

 

[michael707767]

"Delta may now retain its connection feed with airlines that operate jets up to 97 seats as long as those aircraft with more than 70 seats are not operated for Delta and are not operated on a city pair served by the mainline"

this quote is from the summary of the TA and is incorrect. (I confirmed this with the union) The last part actually reads as long as it's not operated on any city pair served by Delta or an affiliate.

 

[michael707767]

Surplus, I haven't had a chance to read the current TA, so perhaps the language will change in December. As for the language in C2K, you'll have to show me where it says configured vs certified for a non wholly owned carrier flying DL code in that aircraft, because I believe you are mistaken.

FDJ2,
he is correct, currently language allows, for example, CHQ to operate a E-170 and remain a DCI carrier as long as it is configured for 70 seats or less, as long as it's not operated on the Delta code. New language does allow any aircraft configured for 70 seats and 85k t/o weight or less, to be flown as a DCI airplane. So, new language, CHQ would be free to fly the E-170 for DCI (and my bet is they will end up operating this aircraft for DCI)
Michael

 

[FL990]

FDJ2,
he is correct, currently language allows, for example, CHQ to operate a E-170 and remain a DCI carrier as long as it is configured for 70 seats or less, as long as it's not operated on the Delta code. New language does allow any aircraft configured for 70 seats and 85k t/o weight or less, to be flown as a DCI airplane. So, new language, CHQ would be free to fly the E-170 for DCI (and my bet is they will end up operating this aircraft for DCI)
Michael

Michael,

Up to this point I have agreed with pretty much everything you have said (opinion wise) but i must disagree with you on this one.

Lets look at the big picture or the "writing on the wall" so to speak. How many 70 seat aircraft do non-subsidiary companies currently operate for DCI....Answer...zero. Why is this? Because this airplane is actually profitable. The profit margins are much higher than they are on the smaller jets.

When delta pays ASA or Comair to operate an aircraft for them, anything above and beyond the operation costs is like taking money out of there right pocket and putting it into there left pocket (this is primarily due to the consalidated financials method that delta uses to report earnings/losses). Therefore, in order for it to be more profitable for CHQ to fly these aircraft, they would not only have to operate them cheaper, but would have to operate them cheaper, add in a profit, and still be under what ASA and Comair could operate at. NOT LIKELY, again, given the high profit margin on this plane.

Also, Skip Barnet (ASA President, and DELTA EXEC as well) has been saying for months...since about late july or so...that he and delta were trying desperately to convert the 50 seaters next year for delivery over to 70's and not only that, but bombardier has said that we (ASA/COMAIR) have placed orders for many more of these aircraft through 2007. Finally, the number of 70 increased on scope for next year...82-57=25...the number of aircraft ASA is slated to get next year

"the writing is somewhat on the wall"

 

[FL990]

OH, one more thing...

The TA also puts in a percentage clause....At least 50% of the delta flying must be mainline and at least 25% of whatever is left over must be at ASA/COMAIR. This would mean that if Delta flies goes from 50 to 60 percent, ASA/Comair could not drop below 25%, and therefore CHQ/Skywest would have to shrink down.

Also, I don't know what the current percentages are, but i don't believe that ASA/COMAIR combined currently fly 25% of the BLOCK HOURS for Delta Inc. This would mean that any growth would have to go to ASA/COMAIR before CHQ/SKYWEST in order to bring them up to that 25% margin.

Just at thought

 

[jetflyer]

The TA also puts in a percentage clause....At least 50% of the delta flying must be mainline and at least 25% of whatever is left over must be at ASA/COMAIR. This would mean that if Delta flies goes from 50 to 60 percent, ASA/Comair could not drop below 25%, and therefore CHQ/Skywest would have to shrink down.

Also, I don't know what the current percentages are, but i don't believe that ASA/COMAIR combined currently fly 25% of the BLOCK HOURS for Delta Inc. This would mean that any growth would have to go to ASA/COMAIR before CHQ/SKYWEST in order to bring them up to that 25% margin.

Wow, THANK YOU DALPA and Delta pilots.
I'm a Comair pilot, and I can't believe I just said that!

Delta has in effect just NEGOTIATED SCOPE for not only themselves but for ASA/Comair. How ironic is that????

Comair pilots will probably NOT see growth until a paycut is taken because of the whipsaw in effect, but atleast ASA will get some growth
My fellow pilots just don't want to give up pay for anything, but I bet if it's WRITTEN IN STONE that COMAIR WILL GET SOME set number of PLANES for say a 10% paycut, then just MAYBE. That still is a big MAYBE.


FL990 mentions that Comair/ASA may not currently fly 25% of the block hours at this time. I personally think Comair/ASA probably fly more than that, but I don't know.

Anyone know the real numbers???

Jet

 

[michael707767]

Michael,

Up to this point I have agreed with pretty much everything you have said (opinion wise) but i must disagree with you on this one.

I think you are trying to say you disagree with what I said about CHQ operating the E-170. Keep in mind, I was not saying ASA and CMR would not see any RJ70 growth. Just that I foresee the E-170 being operated for Delta by CHQ. I think you will see both frankly. But my suspicious nature makes me think Delta would not have asked for the change in scope from certified for 70 seats to configured for 70 seats if they did not intend to use it.

 

[FDJ2]

FDJ2,
he is correct, currently language allows, for example, CHQ to operate a E-170 and remain a DCI carrier as long as it is configured for 70 seats or less, as long as it's not operated on the Delta code.

I thought that's what I have been saying with reference to C2K.

C2K:


c. the aircraft other than a permitted aircraft type, is either a jet aircraft configured with 70 or fewer passenger seats or a propeller driven aircraft configured with 72 or fewer passenger seats, and is operated on its own behalf or pursuant to agreement with an air carrier(s) other than the Company or an affiliate.

New language does allow any aircraft configured for 70 seats and 85k t/o weight or less, to be flown as a DCI airplane. So, new language, CHQ would be free to fly the E-170 for DCI (and my bet is they will end up operating this aircraft for DCI)
Michael

Michael, I just read that section of the TA and if it is ratified, I agree with your assessment.

 

[FL990]

FL990 mentions that Comair/ASA may not currently fly 25% of the block hours at this time. I personally think Comair/ASA probably fly more than that, but I don't know.

Anyone know the real numbers???

Jet

Jetflyer,

You may be correct on this...i am not quite sure....however, keep in mind that most of ASA/Comair flights are less than 2 hrs. I know there are some with more but probably less than ten percent are more than 2 hrs. A very high percentage of delta flights are more than 2hrs and they operate many more flights than ASA Comair combined, i would say much more than double the number of flights. If I had to guess, i would say we operate around 15 to 20% of the Delta Inc. block hours...but like you, i would be very interested in hearing real numbers.

 

[michael707767]

FDJ2,


I thought that's what I have been saying with reference to C2K.

I may have misunderstood what you what saying. Sometimes its hard to keep it all straight with all the quotes!
Michael

 

[FL990]

I think you are trying to say you disagree with what I said about CHQ operating the E-170. Keep in mind, I was not saying ASA and CMR would not see any RJ70 growth. Just that I foresee the E-170 being operated for Delta by CHQ. I think you will see both frankly. But my suspicious nature makes me think Delta would not have asked for the change in scope from certified for 70 seats to configured for 70 seats if they did not intend to use it.

Your point is well taken, and i do not necessarily disagree with that. I wouldn't be too terribly surprised to see this happen, but i just don't think that it would make a lot of sense...UNLESS, they plan on growing some out of Orlando...then it would, but our company (ASA) has more than hinted and pretty much said that we will see growth in Salt Lake city. In fact, as of January 31st of '05 (the completion date of the ASA dehub in DFW), we will have more flights out of Cinci than we will out of SLC, yet, we are not opening a domicile in Cinci. If they weren't planning on a lot of growth, they wouldn't open the domicile...at least i believe....oh, and it should be noted that the SLC base is only 70 seaters...no 50's for ASA there.

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

"SLC base is only 70 seaters...no 50's for ASA there."
Yet....