MrBojangles

Why would Delta do this:

Pinnacle agreed to waive certain reset rights that would have included higher rates to cover increasing pilot costs in agreements covering the operation of 142 Bombardier CRJ200s and 41 CRJ900s. The carrier also agreed to a modified margin covering the CRJ200 operations. Pinnacle determined the CRJ200s it operates on behalf of Delta produce profits. The carrier bears no ownership costs on those aircraft since it leases the small jets from Delta.
Delta has agreed to extend Pinnacle’s CRJ200 contract by four and a half years, which means it will be saddled with 145 50-seaters that it takes great pains to declare are uneconomical until 2022. Delta does have the right to file an unsecured claim for damages related to an early termination of the operation of the 16 CRJ900s that will span five months beginning in Jan-2013. Pinnacle had been attempting to rework that particular contract after Mr Menke, who took the helm at the carrier in Jun-2011, concluded the agreement was producing marginal economics for Pinnacle.

This took place with the DIP financing recently.

hockeypilot44

A few months ago I said I would agree to a 20 percent raise up front with COLA every year while keeping everything else status quo. I was crucified on this board for having too low of standards. Our current TA is nowhere near that. I am a no vote. I am amazed how many pilots are defending this TA.

Denny Crane

Can you point me to where this is in the TA? According to the scope NNP on the Dalpa website, it looks to me like the ratios are based on the arrival and number of new 76 seaters and 717's. Example: For the first 10 76er's delivered the ratio is 1 to 1:10, for 11 to 20 its 1 to 1:25, for 21 to 30 its 1 to 1:30 all the way up to 61 to 70 it's 1 to 1.56.

What am I missing?

Denny

georgetg

Denny! Ive been good since we last saw eachother...
Back to LAX and just recently booted out again so I'm commuting to reserve in SLC again...

He is right, 1.d.9.c-f, first measured July 1, 2014, must remedy by the folowing January 1st so Jan 1 2015...

How's SEA treating you?

Cheers
George

Free Bird

I too was wondering what happened to the "Not one more seat, pound or jet" crowd around here?

DLpilot

Only a few months ago a big ALPA supporter was saying that his minimum was SWA at DOS with restoration by the end. Now he supports these rates. Kiss restoration goodbye.

georgetg

Ok, lets see:
The first date that the company needs to be in compliance with these ratios is Jan 15, 2015, a little over three years from now.
Unlike what TO stated in his letter from the chairman on March 21, the ratios don't come into play unless 76-seat jets are added. 1.D.9.b cell 9.
And as you correctly point out unlike anything we have had in our PWA before there is the "in the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control" language tha is so vague it covers just about anything.

Let's do some Block-hour math.
We'll use Alfa's numbers and real figures:

3.6M block-hours annually
53.9% mainline share of block hours

1.94M mainline block hours or MBH
1.66M DCI block hours or DBH
Ratio 1.17 MBH to 1 DBH

That makes the ratio 1.17:1 (close to the figure provided by slowplay)

Add 70 76-seat RJs to DCI, a commensurate amount of 717s to mainline and fast forward to Jan 1 2015, the first time Delta needs to be in compliance.

First Example: DCI block hours reduced by 25%
(a 25% reduction in block hours would be proportional to reducing DCI from 600 aircraft to 450)

1.66M DCI block hours minus 25% (0.415M) equals 1.245M block hours
The final ratio is 1.56
1.245M x 1.56 = 1.94M mainline block hours required on Jan 1, 2015

Lets tally it up:

• Add 88 717 jets at mainline
• Add 70 76-seat jets at DCI
• Cut the DCI fleet to 450 jets
• Cut DCI block hours by 25%

So how many more pilots required to fly 1.94M block hours in 2015 vs 1.94M block hours now? Zero (0)
There is no requirement for any additional Delta pilots if DCI is cut by 25% and we apply the minimum block-hour ratios in Section 1.D.9. from the TA.

Second Example: DCI block hours reduced by 13%
1.66M DCI block hours minus 15% (0.25M) equals 1.41M block hours
The final ratio is 1.56
1.44M x 1.56 = 2.20M mainline block hours required on Jan 1, 2015
That's an additional 0.26M block hours or a 13% gain.

Lets plug that into Alfas formula:
The block hour increase is 0.26M or 260K annually.
Divide by 12 to get per month: 260K /12 = 21.667 hours/month
Divide 21.667/2 for each seat, A and B = 10,833
Divide 10,833 by 60 = 181 pilots (60 hrs/month is the staffing formula)

Lets tally it up:

• Add 88 717 jets at mainline
• Add 70 76-seat jets at DCI
• Cut the DCI fleet to 450 jets
• Cut DCI block hours by 15%

And we get a block hour formula that will lock in 181 new pilot positions or just over two pilots per 717...

Final Example: DCI block hours not reduced (same DCI block hours in 2015 as now)
1.66M DCI block hours
The final ratio is 1.56
1.66 x 1.56 = 2.59 mainline block hours required on Jan 1, 2015
That's an additional 0.65M block hours or a 33% gain.

Lets plug that into Alfas formula:
The block hour increase is 0.65M or 650K annually.
Divide by 12 to get per month: 650K /12 = 54,167 hours/month
Divide 54,167/2 for each seat, A and B = 27,083
Divide 27,083 by 60 = 451 pilots (60 hrs/month is the staffing formula)

Lets tally it up:

• Add 88 717 jets at mainline
• Add 70 76-seat jets at DCI
• Cut the DCI fleet to 450 jets
• Maintain current DCI block hours

If we don't cut DCI block hours at all but give them more 76-seat jets, the formula in Section 1.D.9 will require 451 additional mainline pilots, or five pilots per 717.

Not reducing block hours at DCI means same number of DCI pilots flying new 76-seat jets. They will be producing more ASMs for every block hour and at a lower cost.
Capacity would have been gained at DCI if the block hours stay the same as now because there would be more large 76-seat jet flying the hours compared to now.

Final Verdict:
Based on the proposed ratios for aircraft and the block-hour limits proposed in Section 1.D.9 the Delta pilots stand most to gain from the TA if we give more 76-seat jets to DCI and don't reduce the DCI block hours.
Unfortunately because the relationship is expressed as a ratio, cutting DCI hurts growth at mainline.
Finally while the new block-hour ratios are a welcome addition to the PWA, their protection is highly overstated and with just five pilots per new 717 doesn't even come close to actual staffing needs. If Delta staffed the 717 with five crews per aircraft, the block-hour protection wouldn't cover the first officer positions before requiring a reduction in DCI flying.

Cheers
George

JobHopper

Read my post on the definition of "established."

vprMatrix

Thought I would do a little FTB style chart. I was curious what the crew cost / seat of the narrow body fleet was, specifically I wanted to know why the 717 can be mainline but the CRJ-900 cannot. I used 2013 12 year CA rates and 6 year FO rates and $45 per hour for FAs (which was just a guess). Also, the CRJ-900 numbers are run at our 76 seat limit as well as an 84 seat configuration which could be flown at mainline.

Of course outsourcing to DCI would result in lower crew cost but just looking at Delta mainline numbers, on a per seat basis, the direct crew cost of mainline for the 717 and CRJ-900 appear to favor the CRJ-900. Perhaps we should look at outsourcing the 88 717s and in-sourcing the 325 >50 seat RJs (TIC)

I am sure Delta saves money in the outsourcing process so I propose that we allow a 1-1 ratio of 76 seat aircraft flown at DCI and Mainline. The subsidies from DCI will help Delta make more profit and we will get some much needed movement and upgrades. And by not buying the 717s Delta will save crew cost at mainline as well. Also, imagine the money savings when a high percentage of new hire pilots will already be type rated on our junior equipment.

Jughead

Nice chart. Does a good job of showing the 88/90 guys are way underpaid, based on crew cost per seat!