Rumors are that Delta .....scope....pilots.....$$$

[General Lee]

General, or any delta guys want to answer my questions-
GL, that's a dodge-

That's a dodge? I usually vote Republican too, but I couldn't vote for McCain and certainly not Palin during the last election, so I didn't. Things change. You have to look at the whole deal, and remember what was going on at the time. During the BK things were being fed to us that we possibly could liquidate. I felt, and told you guys the truth btw, that at that time 6 extra seats (first class seats as they were being sold to us), wouldn't be such a bad thing. I didn't think, at the time, that 6 extra seats per RJ were worth liquidating. Now things have changed, and I am certainly NOT willing now to give away anymore seats. If a TA comes along with planes going to DCI that are larger than 76 seats, I will vote NO. Where is the dodge?

And when it comes to dodging, please explain how your company policy of newhires having to have a 737 type rating (usually having to pay for it on their own) is a good thing for this industry? I bet 80% of your newhires have to pay for it out of their own pockets. That's not good. Nobody but Freebrd is perfect in this world, so try to remember that.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

No.
I actually do believe that >76 seaters doesn't have the will to get done. I'm sure your mgmt is floating that though.
First does delta have unlimited abilities to outsource the 76 seat 90 seaters? And if not, what are the restrictions?
Ive assumed there are restrictions so My question is would DALPA loosen those restrictions and allow more 76 seaters in exchange for reduction of 50 seaters?
If so- how would it be sold? Less block hours, but more or equal RJASMs?

This isn't flame-
This is recognizing DALPA has been a big part of the outsourcing problem and are they ready to reign it in and still get pay raises the industry also greatly needs?
Do you all believe as I do that fuel is providing the real financial pressure to get rid of the 50-seat rjs?

Yes, I believe fuel is a huge factor in getting rid of RJs. The 50 seaters are just not even close to profit makers with high gas. I think DL may be still on the hook for some leases, and I think that is where they will try to sell us something, they want to dump the 50s BUT the manufacturers will allow a TRADE IN for larger RJs (76 seaters). I think they will say "we will bring the ratio of RJs down, but need to replace some of the 50s." Overall, that could be good for us---DCI probably flies 50 percent of our flying. The question is, is it better to bring to total ratio of flying down from 50/50 to 60/40 (in favor of mainline), but then replace some of those 50s with 76 seaters? OVERALL, the flying increases towards mainline (with 717s maybe on the way, and maybe some A319s too), but those 50s are replaced with bigger ones. Maybe the bigger ones on those current 50 seat routes might be able to make money (compared to the 50s---more seats might be able to do it?)? I don't know. The ratio coming down is great, but the 50s will be leaving regardless due to the higher gas prices. I'll have to see the full TA and see how they spin it, but I do know that I won't vote for any TA with even larger RJs going to DCI.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Freebrd]

Nobody but Freebrd is perfect in this world, so try to remember that.Bye Bye---General Lee

sweet! finally some love from Jenny! :beer:

 

[Full of LUV]

except for those career regional pilots, the guys in the CA seat making close to 100K in their late 40's and mid 50's. The guys living in base with every weekend off. A move to a major, with loss of seniority and the uncertainty that comes being on the bottom of a list, not to mention maybe never seeing pay parity. Growth at the regionals will be good for some.

Why though, growth for them does not equal any more pay??? They already get weekends off and live in base? Seems to me their only concerns is Mgmt running their regional into BK or being undercut by the next new subcontractor with lower labor rates and a less tenured staff.

 

[SLUF4]

I'm not happy with a lot of what was said in the recent email about the contract. Specifically the ALV+15 for reserves, 7 short calls, and I didn't really see anything improved that I care about. I'll wait to see the whole thing, but it had better be good. Including lots of $$ and no selling of scope at all.

 

[redflyer65]

Is the reserve language worse than what you have now? We need to make stives in that area at SW.

Good luck guys.

 

[Hamfighter]

I don't mind reserve now, except for the 70 hour guarantee. Give me Southwest's 79 hours and I'll be happy. Heck, I'd be glad to have my old 75 hours that I had as ASA.

 

[SLUF4]

right now reserve isn't terrible. it got worse for junior people with the implementation of the seniority on reserve system. we are now capped at 6 short calls per month, but they want to add 1 more to that. also we are capped to the average line value on reserve unless you want to pick up additional flying. they want to change that cap to the ALV+15. These changes will reduce the amount of pilots we need and it will probably affect the senior people too by reducing the amount of greenslips (trips for extra pay). Ham, don't bring up ASA's reserve system-it was awful! i'd take the 75 hours, but not the rules we worked under.

 

[BentOver]

Yes, I believe fuel is a huge factor in getting rid of RJs. The 50 seaters are just not even close to profit makers with high gas. I think DL may be still on the hook for some leases, and I think that is where they will try to sell us something, they want to dump the 50s BUT the manufacturers will allow a TRADE IN for larger RJs (76 seaters). I think they will say "we will bring the ratio of RJs down, but need to replace some of the 50s." Overall, that could be good for us---DCI probably flies 50 percent of our flying. The question is, is it better to bring to total ratio of flying down from 50/50 to 60/40 (in favor of mainline), but then replace some of those 50s with 76 seaters? OVERALL, the flying increases towards mainline (with 717s maybe on the way, and maybe some A319s too), but those 50s are replaced with bigger ones. Maybe the bigger ones on those current 50 seat routes might be able to make money (compared to the 50s---more seats might be able to do it?)? I don't know. The ratio coming down is great, but the 50s will be leaving regardless due to the higher gas prices. I'll have to see the full TA and see how they spin it, but I do know that I won't vote for any TA with even larger RJs going to DCI.


Bye Bye---General Lee

Management has a plan..... It may not appear clear to you or me, but they have a plan with those 76 seaters... If they are introducing something, although it looks like a win for mainline pilots, it will still come out as a turd in the end...

Management wants to operate flights cheaper, with lesser paid pilots... Somehow, someway, this deal they are proposing will accomplish what they want...

They may reduce the total number of RJ's at regionals. Which may appear to be a reduction in RJ percentages.. But what happens when/if mainline gets a reduction in flying (especially domestic)? Those RJ's go back to 50/50, only now they have more 76 setaers being flown by pilots making less.. A 76 or 90 seta RJ can do DEN-DAY.. alah Gojets for United.... You'll have more 76 seaters doing traditional mainline routes.....

Be carefull

 

[pilotyip]

Management wants to operate flights cheaper,

That is management's job, if they did not do that, the airline would not be competitive, would not attract enough revenue to cover expenses. With internet access to the cheapest ticket, people change flights for a $1. It is the consumer of airline tickets that drives this whole train, and any group that ignores this, doesn't understand the pressure management is under to keep an airline running.

Pilot should do whatever they think is best for themselves, Adam Smith's way, but there are unintended consequences of the market movement that are well beyond the ability of any group to dictate how the market will react.