The DL TA

[General Lee]

general lee, I don't like you, and I feel that you don't like me. Let's make a deal. If Dalpa for any reason gives up scope, you go away and never post again. If Dalpa retains scope then I go away and never post again.

Since you are so sure that any changes to scope will be voted down, stand up, be a man, and take my challenge.

You got that right, I don't like you.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[ASAFOE120]

Well, the way I see it, I hope the DAL guys hold the line on scope. This means more mainline jobs in the future and also helps prevent the pay erosion of regional guys flying 50/70/90 seaters at 50 seat pay. Lets say Delta does give up scope and Mesa is awarded the new 90 seat flying at CA wages of about $60 an hour. How does that help regional or mainline guys out? All that does is pad the wallet of Delta management and Mesa management.

But, I have to say that if i was a Delta pilot (in my late 40's or early 50's), scope would be on the lower end of my concessionary concerns. I would be looking for an agreement with the least pay, benefits, and retirement concessions. I would imagine Delta mgt probably took this into consideration as well. (But who knows what they are thinking, they gave up on Dallas, gave all that traffic to competitors, and I'm still pissed!!!)

Just my $.02

 

[DrunkIrishman]

General-

If you do vote down a TA that allows more than 70 seats while at the same time offers little or no pay cut, then I commend you for your integrity. I do not believe that the majority of Delta pilots will vote with you on that. If the TA were to trade scope for pay, then that would mean that all the pilots would keep their pay just about where it is now. I do not believe that the issue of scope is worth the risk of turning down a TA that leaves the pay about the same, provided no further furloughing would result. This is assuming a pay cut of less than 5% in trade for up 78 seats with a cap on airframes.

Now before you respond with your typical 50.1% super scientific poll, think about the money vs. scope issue that got us here in the first place. Mainlines sold scope for money in the past, and avoiding an 18% additional paycut in trade for 8 more seats is very likely acceptable.

The only way for us all to get out of this mess is to have onelist within each brand. A Delta pilot should fly everything from the E-120 to the 787!

 

[737 Pylt]

90 seat aircraft are not RJs, and need to be flown by the majors.

Don't tell that to CFIT.....According to him, its alright to fly 90 seat jets for 50 seat pay!

Otherwise you end up with some companies flying those "90 seat RJs" for the same rate as 50 seaters. It's a step in the right direction. CAL guys have the right idea with their 50-seat limitation.

Damn those CAL pilots for sticking up for scope. Don't you know that by doing that BJ buddies like cfit and d'angelo can't get bigger planes and fly them for cheaper! The pay is just "enough" for them.
737

 

[General Lee]

General-

If you do vote down a TA that allows more than 70 seats while at the same time offers little or no pay cut, then I commend you for your integrity. I do not believe that the majority of Delta pilots will vote with you on that. If the TA were to trade scope for pay, then that would mean that all the pilots would keep their pay just about where it is now. I do not believe that the issue of scope is worth the risk of turning down a TA that leaves the pay about the same, provided no further furloughing would result. This is assuming a pay cut of less than 5% in trade for up 78 seats with a cap on airframes.

Now before you respond with your typical 50.1% super scientific poll, think about the money vs. scope issue that got us here in the first place. Mainlines sold scope for money in the past, and avoiding an 18% additional paycut in trade for 8 more seats is very likely acceptable.

The only way for us all to get out of this mess is to have onelist within each brand. A Delta pilot should fly everything from the E-120 to the 787!

Who said we will trade any money for scope? The VP of flt ops said scope was a "no cost issue." So, why couldn't we move the seat request back to 70 seats from 76, and still give additional 70 seaters to DCI? Sounds like ASA will bring the larger CRJ anyway, and still configure it with first class seats, up to 70. IF you think about the costing, the pay cut we will keep will consist of $152 million of the $280 million a year in savings. I believe the new TA will say 16 76 seaters for 2007 and another 16 for 2008. How much are they worth? A 76 seat RJ is worth about $35-40 million a piece? The remainder of the savings would equate to $138 million or so a year---which would equal a little more than 4 or 5 larger RJs I would think. That doesn't make sense. The sick leaveagreement is in there too somewhere. Sounds like they didn't add the cost of the scope allowance, which would mean we could take it away and still have $280 or so million a year in extra savings. The scope thing sounds like the major hang up here, atleast on the dalpa website. I agree another paycut wouldn't pass the mustard either, but scope is huge. If they want this to pass and try to get exit financing for an emergence from BK, then they will clean this one up. I still haven't seen the full TA yet, but I would be surprised to think our negotiators wouldn't know that fact. We'll see.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[PHXFLYR]

Who said we will trade any money for scope? The VP of flt ops said scope was a "no cost issue." So, why couldn't we move the seat request back to 70 seats from 76, and still give additional 70 seaters to DCI? Sounds like ASA will bring the larger CRJ anyway, and still configure it with first class seats, up to 70. The scope thing sounds like the major hang up here, atleast on the dalpa website. I agree another paycut wouldn't pass the mustard either, but scope is huge. If they want this to pass and try to get exit financing for an emergence from BK, then they will clean this one up. I still haven't seen the full TA yet, but I would be surprised to think our negotiators wouldn't know that fact. We'll see.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Hoping your TA is something that's acceptable to you and all the Delta pilots out there.Good luck,General!

PHXFLYR

 

[amcnd]

GL. If the TA is acceptable and there is only minor Scope relief (60 or less 76 seater's)then I hope for the Delta group and the traveling public that you think about Voting YES.

 

[737 Pylt]

GL. If the TA is acceptable and there is only minor Scope relief (60 or less 76 seater's)then I hope for the Delta group and the traveling public that you think about Voting YES.

Rumor I've been hearing is that the scope relief is tied to mainline growth. We'll see I guess.
737

 

[General Lee]

GL. If the TA is acceptable and there is only minor Scope relief (60 or less 76 seater's)then I hope for the Delta group and the traveling public that you think about Voting YES.

No, I will vote NO for any agreement that allows larger than 70 seat RJs at DCI. SkyWest flies 66 seat RJs for United that have a first class section, an econ plus section, and a coach section. 3 sections for a 66 total seat RJ. We could do that at DCI too I am sure. Heck, I read that ASA might use a larger CRJ with 70 seats, with 16 first class seats and the rest coach. 70 seats is my limit, and I will vote accordingly. Delta management and the creditors stand to make a lot of money on new stock, but they need a deal with us to get exit financing first. And, scope was apparently NOT a part of the $280 million a year in extra savings, according to the VP of flt ops, who also said scope was a "no cost" item. If that is the case, then it will cost them NOTHING to change it back to 70 seats.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[PCL_128]

Kudos to you General. I hope the rest of the DAL pilot group feels the same way. Time to stop the seat-creep that's been going on for years in these scope clauses. Someone has to draw the line at 70 seats to stop the erosion of this profession.