Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-05-2012, 06:50 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
I have heard a different rumor. I will post it here as a rumor only. The company is not asking for more then 76 seats. What they want is more aircraft allowed above the 153 or 155 cap on large RJ's. They are willing to have fewer over all RJ's but more aircraft in the 70 to 76 seat range. This is not acceptable to me as I believe the E175 should be at the mainline. They will offer some type of block hour arrangement/ratio as a inducement to ratify.
Carl
05-05-2012, 06:51 AM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
I'm hearing similar to what sailingfun is saying. There will be no push for larger gauge aircraft (and push for them has to be stood up to with a very strong NO)..
05-05-2012, 06:51 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
I'm expected to get crucified over this, but here goes anyway.
Being junior, I am well aware of the significance and importance of holding scope at no more than 76 seats, so with that being said, haven't we technically already scoped out 90 seat aircraft?
I mean the DCI aircraft themselves have been reconfigured for 76 seats, but still have a capacity for 90 seats. I'm just looking at this objectively here, and before I get accused of selling short term contract gains for scope relaxation here is my question;
Would increasing the seat capacity to allow 90 seats, BUT reducing the overall limit from 255 airframes down to lets say 180 (or something like that) be such a bad deal?
255 airframes X 76 seats = 19,380 seats
180 airframes X 90 seats = 16,200 seats
So reducing the hull limit aggressively while allowing 90 seaters would decrease frequency and overall DCI seats by 3,180 seats.
Trust me I would love to see that flying being brought to mainline, but if that doesn't happen isn't reducing the amount of seats/airframes being subcontracted out just as beneficial?
It pings me to say that, but I figure less airframes is probably as important as the amount of seats each aircraft can hold.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, not saying the company would go for something like.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just curious as to what some of the more senior/experienced guys think.
Being junior, I am well aware of the significance and importance of holding scope at no more than 76 seats, so with that being said, haven't we technically already scoped out 90 seat aircraft?
I mean the DCI aircraft themselves have been reconfigured for 76 seats, but still have a capacity for 90 seats. I'm just looking at this objectively here, and before I get accused of selling short term contract gains for scope relaxation here is my question;
Would increasing the seat capacity to allow 90 seats, BUT reducing the overall limit from 255 airframes down to lets say 180 (or something like that) be such a bad deal?
255 airframes X 76 seats = 19,380 seats
180 airframes X 90 seats = 16,200 seats
So reducing the hull limit aggressively while allowing 90 seaters would decrease frequency and overall DCI seats by 3,180 seats.
Trust me I would love to see that flying being brought to mainline, but if that doesn't happen isn't reducing the amount of seats/airframes being subcontracted out just as beneficial?
It pings me to say that, but I figure less airframes is probably as important as the amount of seats each aircraft can hold.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, not saying the company would go for something like.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just curious as to what some of the more senior/experienced guys think.
I agree to a point that asm reduction is the truest measure of scope recapture.
THE PROBLEM IS POST CONTRACT "RELIEF" via a side letter or similar.
You allow some 90 seaters today - I guarantee they will ask for and get more in the future.
Bar has correctly stated that outsourcing a jet with 757 economics is effectively outsourcing a 757.
Try to wrap your head around scope being YOUR job, YOUR employment.
Its very Christlike to share what you have, but then you find yourself living in a cave eating locust.
05-05-2012, 06:56 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
I have heard a different rumor. I will post it here as a rumor only. The company is not asking for more then 76 seats. What they want is more aircraft allowed above the 153 or 155 cap on large RJ's. They are willing to have fewer over all RJ's but more aircraft in the 70 to 76 seat range. This is not acceptable to me as I believe the E175 should be at the mainline. They will offer some type of block hour arrangement/ratio as a inducement to ratify.
I've heard exactly the same thing and this si why I think it is possible we may never see the TA.
Only time will tell if they heard us "loud and clear."
05-05-2012, 06:57 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl
05-05-2012, 07:03 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Like others have said, taking out first class does the company no good. If they agreed to it, it would be to get a beach head for that seat count at DCI and then, likely during the next downturn, come for academic relief by saying they still want to honor the seat count, they just want different aircraft to do it...heavier aircraft, perhaps certified for 100-120 seats or a bit more...like the small C Series and many other OEM's on the drawing board as we speak. But we "limit" it to 90 seats, which is EXACTLY where management wanted it all along with a generous revenue generating first class.
So today's "90" seater becomes tomorrow's "90" seater, which is really a 115 seater, and on and on and on. Hell to the no.
05-05-2012, 07:05 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,030
05-05-2012, 07:26 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,614
05-05-2012, 07:28 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 767-400
Posts: 797
I have heard a different rumor. I will post it here as a rumor only. The company is not asking for more then 76 seats. What they want is more aircraft allowed above the 153 or 155 cap on large RJ's. They are willing to have fewer over all RJ's but more aircraft in the 70 to 76 seat range. This is not acceptable to me as I believe the E175 should be at the mainline. They will offer some type of block hour arrangement/ratio as a inducement to ratify.
Finally, as we watch for a possible tentative agreement in the weeks ahead, we need to prepare for the worst case scenario. DPA has confirmed through sources with ALPA positions at the regional carriers serving DAL that they did, in fact, meet with the DAL MEC Negotiating Committee on March 12th, 2012 as required by ALPA National Policy. They also confirmed that they would likely not be harmed by the Scope Proposal and would possibly benefit from it. They were told to expect to receive additional 70 seat plus aircraft in exchange for reducing the number of 50 seat aircraft by a ratio of approximately 2:1 (park two 50 seaters in exchange for receiving one 76 seater).
It appears ALPA is preparing to offer us another CONCESSIONARY CONTRACT in the area of DOMESTIC SCOPE. You need to decide right now how you feel about allowing additional outsourcing of mainline jobs. Even if there are great improvements in other areas of Scope, WILL YOU TOLERATE even ONE additional 76 seat aircraft being flown off the Delta mainline seniority list? The 50 seaters are going away all by themselves, without our help. Delta can already fly unlimited 76 seaters and up on our seniority list and there is no shortage of DAL mainline pilots who would like to fly them.
05-05-2012, 07:34 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: 7er
Posts: 1,673
This is the rumor according to DPA....
Finally, as we watch for a possible tentative agreement in the weeks ahead, we need to prepare for the worst case scenario. DPA has confirmed through sources with ALPA positions at the regional carriers serving DAL that they did, in fact, meet with the DAL MEC Negotiating Committee on March 12th, 2012 as required by ALPA National Policy. They also confirmed that they would likely not be harmed by the Scope Proposal and would possibly benefit from it. They were told to expect to receive additional 70 seat plus aircraft in exchange for reducing the number of 50 seat aircraft by a ratio of approximately 2:1 (park two 50 seaters in exchange for receiving one 76 seater).
Finally, as we watch for a possible tentative agreement in the weeks ahead, we need to prepare for the worst case scenario. DPA has confirmed through sources with ALPA positions at the regional carriers serving DAL that they did, in fact, meet with the DAL MEC Negotiating Committee on March 12th, 2012 as required by ALPA National Policy. They also confirmed that they would likely not be harmed by the Scope Proposal and would possibly benefit from it. They were told to expect to receive additional 70 seat plus aircraft in exchange for reducing the number of 50 seat aircraft by a ratio of approximately 2:1 (park two 50 seaters in exchange for receiving one 76 seater).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
