The Delta vote

[filejw]

No pilot group can negotiate the United contract except the UAL/CO pilots.

True however voting yes on this TA puts them in a bind as it helps make 76 the new normal. I'm a no for sure, time to take a stand.

 

[SLUF4]

You need to hit a roadshow first and understand this TA.


Bye Bye---General Lee

yeah, because I'm sure the road show isn't skewed to make me vote yes. I can read and I understand the TA-I don't need their interpretations and false promises. Oh, but I do plan on being at the road show near me.

 

[General Lee]

True however voting yes on this TA puts them in a bind as it helps make 76 the new normal. I'm a no for sure, time to take a stand.

They already have hundreds of 70 seaters, and unlimited large turboprops, which helped CAL get rid of 737-500s in EWR. Notice CAL had scope for allowing only 50 seaters, yet because they couldn't get it together with the two MECs, they now have 70 seat E170s (ok, 67 seats) flying through IAH and EWR. They have a lot more to fix than we do, including terrible pay and work rules. Do you think all of that could be fixed in one upcoming contract? Heck no. The management will probably take it all the way, as long as they can.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

yeah, because I'm sure the road show isn't skewed to make me vote yes. I can read and I understand the TA-I don't need their interpretations and false promises. Oh, but I do plan on being at the road show near me.

Good. Maybe someone else explaining the issues will give you even more info to help make an educated decision.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[SLUF4]

I'm actually pretty surprised that you are for this TA, General. You seem to have always had a strong displeasure for RJ's and yet this one allows for more bigger RJ's. Yes, the 50 seaters will start being parked, but they were going away anyway. The "hard cap" can be negotiated away in 3 or 4 years next time the contract is up.

 

[General Lee]

I'm actually pretty surprised that you are for this TA, General. You seem to have always had a strong displeasure for RJ's and yet this one allows for more bigger RJ's. Yes, the 50 seaters will start being parked, but they were going away anyway. The "hard cap" can be negotiated away in 3 or 4 years next time the contract is up.

I have always wanted fewer RJs, and more mainline planes. This TA does that. The 50 seaters will go away, but leases on more than 300 of them continue for years. That is a problem. Not all of our contracts have given up on scope, like the joint contract with NWA. That didn't give away any more RJs. But, this agreement, although allowing more 76 seaters, puts a ratio in that finally favors mainline, and does put hard numbers on all sizes of RJs, and tying them to 717s and mainline growth. I like that. Fewer total RJs is good for pilots and for profits.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[SLUF4]

the way they are going to get the 76 seaters is by negotiating with bombardier probably on a 2:1 swapout with the 50 seaters. This could happen regardless of if we vote the TA in or not.

 

[waveflyer]

On that same not, delta could get the same swap out deal with bombardier if mainline flew the -900's. I'm sure the aircraft deals aren't dependent on who flies them.

General- by all definitions the 717 is an RJ. It performs the same mission as the -900, just with more people.

You are treating all rj's as equals.
There is a big difference between a -200 stretch challenger, and a -900.

United And AA are fighting like hell to keep larger planes from being outsourced- this DALPA TA, if passed, will make that very hard.

Can you at least acknowledge that fact? Bc it is a FACT.
-900's are a big damn airplane.

DALPA pilots ought to be flying the new ones

 

[horseface]

Looking at the TA that has been presented, I have to say, even though its on the low end of economic gains, I could live with it, except for the scope.

My initial reaction was that the pay was low, but after digesting this thing for a while, the scope is really the lacking area.

My decision flow goes kinda like this:
Givens:
-compensation increase is low but acceptable given the early implementation/short duration

-allowing the 76 seaters to become cemented into outsourced territory sucks a$$. They are in wet cement presently, but this TA will allow the cement to set, and they will basically be gone for the future.

Prognosis:
-If this TA is voted down, I do not see enough cohesion within the DAL pilot group (nor ALPA) to capture all 76 seat flying. The upper 51% really only want money. The lower 49% want 1)money and 2)scope. It just doesn't have the footing. I think the mental line is at 90-100 seat range, the 76 seat ship has sailed in the collective mind of DAL pilots, and ALPA as an organization. That decision was reached at sometime in the past, but no captain I have flown with in the past 2 years has said "we have got to turn the tide on 76 seat aircraft". And the FOs don't walk around saying "the 76 seaters are killing my career". It is simply not a priority.

-If this TA is voted down, DAL pilots will likely spend a more "normal" time negotiating a marginally better agreement. I personally don't think scope would be improved significantly in this event.

Forward looking:
-The scope issue really should have some nationalized strategy overtly being espoused by alpa. Something like "ALPA will NOT be a signatory to any further agreements that allow XX-seaters at another of our legacy carriers". Which is not being communicated at all. But it is being demonstrated, de facto, by virtue of this TA seeing the light of day. I can only believe that ALPA, at the national level down to the local level, has resigned/agreed/colluded to have the 76 seaters exist in the domain of outsourced flying. If this were not the case, this TA would not be a TA, it would be a non-starter. Which is the crux of the conflict of interest argument that may prove to be the downfall of ALPA.

-To me, comparisons to SWA having no RJs do not account for present reality. Southwest has spend the past couple of decades building its company and culture around having no RJs. Tip-of-the-hat (or long-neck) to you. Excellent business plan your execs have implemented, that has benefited the company and the pilots there immensely. Delta has spent the past couple of decades building a network to incorporate them, to the detriment of the pilot group. Nothing can be done to change either of those facts. Having no RJs at DAL would be ideal, but unfortunately, not gonna happen.

To walk into a negotiation and say "we will not have another 76 seater outsourced, we want mainline pilots to fly them, period" could be done. There is no way that any executive leadership team would let that go for less than the expected "return on invested capital" loss that would be realized by DAL. The number is huge. Think of the cost savings not only from lower cost structure of the contractors, but also the savings of pitting those contractors against each other, without end. No one here would be willing to pay that number for the 76 seat flying because it makes no economic sense. The career enhancement $-numbers simply will not bear it given the current realities of legacy airlines. If you spend your time believing otherwise, its fantasy-land.

I dont know where the 76 seaters got their nose into the tent first, compass, comair, or somewhere else. It was most likely at an ALPA carrier. Thanks ALPA. (It was given away WAY too cheaply.)

Lets just make sure its not 100 seaters next....
if you're on this forum hating on 76 seat scope, go volunteer within your own union to be the guy who says "enough".

 

[WWEfan]

For all of you that are surprised about the General's decision to cave on scope you really shouldn't be. I have said many times here that history proves pilots will cave on scope for more money. That is exactly what happened.