Originally Posted by slowplay

If that happens you won't have to worry about your "soon" flow rights to the TA that you're arguing against. You can do your own math, but if management executes its business plan there will be 150+ fewer DCI aircraft. At 10 pilots per aircraft that's over 1500 jobs. If mainline doesn't grow and the block hour ratio kicks in, that number would only increase as more DCI aircraft are parked/underutilized.

The TA ratio is 1.56 mainline block hours to 1 DCI block hour if all 70 jets get delivered (and they only get that if all 88 B717's come). The ratio is currently 1.19-1. Make all the a/c deliveries on mainline purely replacement, and DCI will get much smaller than an equivalent 450 a/c.

There aren't a whole lot of DC-9's left (20?), but I expect there will be quite a few older 757 and A320 parked. Through 2015 we're scheduled to take 88 B717, 25 MD-90 added in service and 60 new 737-900. That's 173 aircraft in 3 1/2 years. When you factor in the DCI jets being parked and the block hour ratio, a lot more Delta flying will be done by Delta pilots.

For a guy worried about flow, that's a good thing.

Originally Posted by johnso29

So what you're saying slowplay, is that an airplane pump and dump COULD happen? The current TA does NOT prevent it? That's not worth any RJs IMO.

Originally Posted by redblueskies

Continental, Virgin America, Jet Blue, Allegiant, Spirit, FedEx, UPS, Southwest... where is their armada of 76 seaters? You won't find any tidbits about that in the NN. That's a big part of the reason United is still locked in a battle to get a TA. That's a big reason AA never got a contract done. They can't keep us in negotiations forever and those groups will eventually get a contract. 70 more sounds like no big deal but we are setting a precedent here. This contract is bigger than a little 3 year deal, this contract will dictate how all future negotiations will go. We allowed 50+ seaters, that was a mistake and we all know that. Bankruptcy was the excuse. Thankfully we at least have a hard limit, we should not concede that! You can be competitive and not outsource those aircraft.

This is a concession as it is a net increase in relevant outsourced aircraft, scoping out 50 seaters at this point is about as relevant as scoping out helicopters. I can not get past the scope concession to even begin to evaluate the rest of the contract. If we had 100% raises I'd still be stuck on section 1, though from what I saw I'm not real thrilled with the rest of the agreement either. You guys need to snap out of it and realize we're not yet defeated in this area. If we vote this in, however, it's over.

In my opinion our MEC failed to represent us and this should have never gone to memrat. I'm pretty confident, if surveyed, the pilot group would overwhelmingly object to more large RJ's. Will we be able to stay steadfast to that sentiment in the haze of this propaganda? We're about to find out and A4A is keenly interested and watching closely.

We need to defend our brand, we need to defend our profession. The burden now falls upon us, the line slug, to vote this down and recall our leadership. If we allow 70 more in relatively prosperous times we're sending a message that we will only allow more in the future. This is OUR Delta way more than it's Richard Anderson's Delta. Let's send the message loud and clear that we won't allow anymore scope concessions. Maybe then we can eventually negotiate a contract we can be satisfied with.

Originally Posted by grasshopper

unfortunately I don't think it's quite that linear. I would expect the 88's to start trickling out and a few more md90's to trickle in. we'll get the 717's one way or another. the 757's will start departing along with some other older choice aircraft. mainline frequency will increase to cover and result in higher block hours...allowing DCI increases. I'm sure they are already built in. we would have new ALV metrics etc resulting in a lesser need to cover by hiring more bodies...despite what formulas are out there. I see the carrot but the other hand isn't "tied" behind the back...it's just behind the back. The scope sale won't ever come back and you can bet it will significantly reduce the impending hiring requirements. I can understand selling the scope but i think folks have a real impression that we are going to start hiring 1000 folks tomorrow and it will never stop. that would not be efficient and this managment team is efficient. For what we give up I bet we only get 1/3 at most in return. the difference is that what we give up won't come back and will trouble everyone's progression for the remainder of their career...for 12% in six months minus true progression potentia on the eve of a hiring boom and part of profit sharing. I can understand (although don't agree) with selling 76'ers but for this small amount? why? the current contract was good enough for the company not too long ago...i tend to agree with Carl. the need is that they want out from under the old contract. how much is it going to take to save all these DCI carriers? I'll bet it's significantly higher than what we are going to reap from the contract.

Originally Posted by grasshopper

nothing is slated as "growth" so be very very careful...utilization etc...57 pilot becomes md90/737 pilot.....agreed...how much was that hourly jump

Originally Posted by LivingTheDream

First, why the fear of a normal section 6 negotiation? Isn't that what is normally done nearing an amendable date? We tried for an expedited process and it didn't work out...oh well.

Second, this is not that hard. We supposedly have a representational union. Did they represent your survey requests? They weren't even close on mine. Therefore, an easy no.

Finally, have we really given up on restoring the profession? With us entertaining the thought of $216/hr in 2015, vice the 2000 $267 (15 years later!), seems like we have thrown in the towel.

I say, let the real section 6 negotiations begin. After all, this is not an 1113/bk negotiation...right?

Good luck to us all.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

One thing we know for sure, 255 is not a hard cap.

So why should I believe 325 will be a hard cap?

Originally Posted by tsquare

Read the TA.

Originally Posted by Herman

Had to take a break from all this and that's when I found the poker scene from "Cool hand Luke" on you-tube. Maybe FTB or some other computer guru could post it. LTD, how's the left coast treating ya? Very strong points here guys...my Carl speaks for me.

Originally Posted by FIIGMO

Elvis,

I know you did not write this but here is my view on one point. (check my math it is eary)

UAL will never get a 43% pay raise in the next three years to beat this TA.


12 yr

Current UAL 747 rate $190
Current DAL rate 226

end of 3 years with 20% in this TA

DAL $271
UAL to Match 190*1.43

I dont like this TA either, but does anyone think UAL will get a 43% pay raise to match us in the next 3 years? Do we send this back? Will we get better rates, COLA, Scope? If this TA is voted down what arbitrator will say "your right 20% pay raise was not enough, DAL cough up more!" ****History is not in our favor. The question I have to ponder is what are the alternatives, pluses and minuses to a yes or no vote. The comparison math has to be a factor in looking forward as well as contract language.

I hope the debate stays the course here on APC, get informed look at the big picture, stay respectful. These are opinions, questions and points of view. Change and open minds with intellect not insults.....


**** I assume here the company drags this out the old fashion way and we are sitting here 3 years later at the table of an arbitrator. At that time he awards us 15-20%, but for 3 years we gained nothing. Just may be the risk we have to take.