fly2002

Well I just received the Chairman's letter. Anyone else get the idea that they'll dump 50 seater's (which they are doing anyways) and ask for more 76 seater's? And we'll need to do that to get a 717 deal? Sure sounds like it from the letter just emailed to all of us.

As said previously, without substantial rate hikes and the recapture of scope it's a no vote from me.

What did you'll think of the Chairman's letter?

Fly2002

MoonShot

My take:

1 - We might have a TA soon. If not, don't expect one for quite some time.

2 - DALPA is prepping us for some type of scope concession. Why else emphasis the ratio of mainline vs. non-mainline pilot block hours?

3 - They want to act fast before US Airways snags American and that's why the TA will be soon, or not at all.

That summary is worth what you paid for it .

Whidbey

Totally agree, and I'm surprised this potential leverage hasn't been discussed more on APC. Guys are focusing on leverage we may have due to merger activity, aircraft purchases, etc. In my opinion, this set of circumstances may be perceived by management as much more of a threat to their control of pilot costs than the above mentioned factors. I'd be very curious to hear what, if any, opinions with respect to this matter are held by the members of our negotiating committee. Airline management and Delta and UCAL may be looking to button up a 4 year agreement in spring to summer '12 in order to delay entering into NMB supervised mediation until after the '16 elections when we'll be more likely to have a management friendly executive branch.

The blanket party airline pilots were subjected to at the hands of management under Bush after 9-11 got less severe as Obama took office (as demonstrated by Obama's PBGC guy pushing back on AMR trying to dump their pensions), but no first term president is going to really let his policy engine fire on all cylinders until his second term.

I'd be surprised to see any airline want to have to deal with the NMB in the first bit of Obama's second term. I wonder if ALPA national (or A4A) have gained any insight to the planned approach of the NMB after November.

Management at UCAL have been dragging their feet... it's going to be interesting to see how they progress as the presidential campaign gets into full swing.

I agree with ACL that current iteration of the US/AMR deal being discussed in the news is not what we will see as an end result.

Bankruptcy reveals who really owns and controls something. In the case of airlines, it is the creditors.

There are other factors that will come into play, but ultimately a bank wants to maximize the amount of debt outstanding, the interest rate on the debt, and the level of reliability with which the debt is serviced. Delta has demonstrated much more capacity to generate revenue (and to service debt) than US. I doubt Richard is gonna sit on his ands and watch the transfer of assets which he certainly covets without at a minimum making sure that they are dearly paid for.

Brocc15

I just read the chairman's letter. Exciting stuff, I hope we have something soon too, that would really be unprecedented. There is emphasis on RATIO of mainline to DCI, and I am reading between the lines here to mean growth would possibly allow more DCI. So I hope if any of the negotiators are reading this there is some kind of protection on this in case of a merger. Here's my example with rough numbers and totally made up statistics and a made up merger. I used number of pilots instead of airframes because it is an easier way to look at it so it is obviously just a very rough idea of what I am talking about.

let's say it is 60% mainline to 40% DCI.
12,000 mainline delta pilots 8000 DCI
500 Hawaiian pilots

Merger: 12,500 Delta/hawaiian pilots
Delta wants to reduce pilots to 12200. 300 retire and we don't hire to backfill.
Now: 12,200 Delta pilots, 8,133 pilots are now allowed for DCI. Delta has lost 300 pilots with no upward movement while DCI can have 133 more pilots. I am not including what Hawaiian already has for connection carriers because I have no idea.

So moral of the story is if the negotiators are reading this please be very careful with language regarding a merger. I may be totally wrong in my idea of how this all would work, so feel free to correct me, but I just was concerned when I saw RATIO and an emphases to get the contract done for possibly an Unknown reason.

gloopy

Not sure what to think about it. Maybe it's tin foil hat-ish of me but what I read between the lines could very easily be interpreted as more large RJ's as long as the total ratio swings more in our favor. But that's happening anyway with 50's being parked as well as Saabs, etc. we could allow 9 76 seaters for every 10 50 seaters parked and that would fulfill that "production balance" talking point 100%.

Then there was the veiled threat of you really need to vote for what we bring you cause if you don't it'll be many years before you get any raise. While that's probably true, it in no way justified a single additional large RJ unless we fly it but I worry we may be about to throw management into the briar patch with this production balance interpretation. Most if not all if what we gain would likely be gained anyway (50 seater block hours in perpetual decline with more 90's and maybe 71's coming regardless) while the losses of more long term large RJ DC -9-10 replacement jets will be disproportionately larger than any possible gain.

I really hope we aren't about to fall for that.

Brocc15

I've heard of Butt dialing, but never before heard of butt APC posting!

Elvis90

Cool, thanks iaf, beats going back 100 pages.

Sink r8

I suspect they'll frame the discussion about Scope in terms of the complete package. IOW, they'll tighten a bunch of things, from 50-seaters to WB, and offer some concessions on some 76 seaters.

That's how I've been reading the lines on posts from people like Shiznit.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and there is something there. On the one hand, we have them by the short-hairs over limits on 70/76-seaters. And 50-seaters are going away, one way or another. On the other hand, they can easily play with the awful 3:1 ratio, especially since there is no language to protect us from a short surge (add 717's, then subtract DC-9's) above the limit (767 mainline, I think). I also don't know how long they're going to hate 50-seaters. I suspect they're gone, same for turboprops, but can't guarantee it. And I'm also thinking a lot of the Scope battle is happening on the large-gauge end.

I'm open to looking at Section 1 as a package. If we could get a much lower hard cap on the total number of RJ's, a minimum (and improved) ratio of block hours between us and the regionals, eliminate the [bleep] 3:1 ratio, eliminate the add-and-subtract loophole, get strong % in JV's, and future JV's, I would keep an open mind.

I know that's not using the right slogans, but if the net result is much better Scope overall, I'd consider much better overall to be much better ovreall. If not, and we trade Section in general for Section 3 in general, we deserve whatever we get later (and we'll sure get it).

volav8r1

I too am confused by the tone of it. The 1st time I read it, it seemed upbeat and positive.... As I read it a 2nd and 3rd time it got considerably more threatening and coersive. If the negotiating team is listening, PLEASE don't give away any more Delta pilot jobs for ANY reason. Speaking as a junior guy at the bottom of the list, I'd much prefer reserve and stagnation until retirements start shortly, than to release one more aircraft, seat, or pound to the regionals. We've made it this far, I can hold on a little longer!

Back to lurking.

Vol

gloopy

The 3:1 check valve, while asinine, still doesn't allow an increase above 255 70-76 seaters. All it does is allow 70's to be parked and exchanged for 76 seaters but it still has to comply with the 255 limit even if mainline grew by a thousand planes (as if).

There is zero reason to allow more large RJ's. I doubt the company is itching to park 70s just to convert then to 76ers anyway. They want more 76ers and an increase to the 255 cap. No deal. They already have an unlimited amount of 76ers they can fly. Right here at their own airline.