The Delta vote

[GogglesPisano]

"This message is hidden because waveflyer is on your ignore list."


This solves a lot of problems.

 

[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.

Was a little tired when I wrote this, but what i mean is that if we vote this TA down, they can still swap the planes out-just put them at mainline. I want to know why Delta extended pinnacles CR2 contract out. It seems fishy.

 

[Dan Roman]

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".

Very thoughtful and pragmatic post.
I've noticed over the years that these ratification votes seem to lean towards the yes people looking at the issues with this type of perspective and the no voters are usually much more emotional and less rational.
Whatever, it is what it is.

 

[Abernathy]

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

They should. As much as I hate the thought of it, a negotiated B-Scale for less than 100 seats may be the only way to get that through.

Then when every mainline has a B-Scale, each pilot group can over the years negotiated higher rates on the B-Scale.

 

[pilotyip]

Very thoughtful and pragmatic post.
I've noticed over the years that these ratification votes seem to lean towards the yes people looking at the issues with this type of perspective and the no voters are usually much more emotional and less rational.
Whatever, it is what it is.

Don't you just hate when people deal in reality on FI?

 

[General Lee]

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.

For the money? Hardly. It's pretty darn good for a 3 year contract, which is short in duration. It also hits most areas that need improvement, and sets ratios that are good for mainline for RJ scope, while reducing 50 seat numbers by about 150. Then look at the lack of help from other legacies and the absence of any pattern bargaining, and it makes the decision easier. It's called reality.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[SLUF4]

For the money? Hardly. It's pretty darn good for a 3 year contract, which is short in duration. It also hits most areas that need improvement, and sets ratios that are good for mainline for RJ scope, while reducing 50 seat numbers by about 150. Then look at the lack of help from other legacies and the absence of any pattern bargaining, and it makes the decision easier. It's called reality.


Bye Bye---General Lee

So why can't we cut the number of 50 seaters and operate the 76 seat ones here at mainline?

 

[nimtz]

For the money? Hardly. It's pretty darn good for a 3 year contract, which is short in duration. It also hits most areas that need improvement, and sets ratios that are good for mainline for RJ scope, while reducing 50 seat numbers by about 150. Then look at the lack of help from other legacies and the absence of any pattern bargaining, and it makes the decision easier. It's called reality.


Bye Bye---General Lee

There you have it people. The koolaid via the ALPA salemenship is what your 1.5% pays for. Oh and top sirloin at Del Frisco's for Lee Moak and his inner circle.

 

[waveflyer]

Horse face,
That quote is the best way I've seen it said.
For now -900's are in wet cement. Sign this TA and they're set in stone.

The rest is pragmatic-

A pragmatic way of saying what I've been saying for years- it's a widebody airline there. Dalpa domestic ranks get smaller as more and more of the domestic fleet is outsourced- so less of a percentage of dalpa cares what happens to domestic feed- let them whipsaw- as long as dalpa widebody pilots get their pay raises, scope does not matter.

Sellouts.

Pragmatic sellouts? Maybe. But as a collective: sellouts. There's no other word.

 

[waveflyer]

So why can't we cut the number of 50 seaters and operate the 76 seat ones here at mainline?

This^^^

Their answer will be bc it's not "pragmatic".

They will tell you that mgmt will want them to pay to get the new -900's.

The fact will be that everyone who says it can't be done is no more qualified to make that determination than those of us who say it can.
Mgmt will have their arguments- but just as 15 years ago- no one would ever think to allow a -900 to be outsourced, theyre boiling the frog and incrementally getting the next step farmed out.

That same logic of it being "pragmatically" too expensive applies to every airplane in the fleet. Stop this now, or in another 15 years it'll be the 74/77 drivers getting ready to sign the TA that farms out the 787.