Details on Delta TA
06-10-2015, 06:25 PM
#7552
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Really? Which part of this article said that:
Credit Suisse noted that the fixed increase of 15% by the amendable date is slightly more than it expected, but the profit sharing offset is more significant at this point. With the 20% profit sharing threshold moving to $6 billion for all employees, the firm expects approximately $500 million of potential savings, compared to $2.5 billion of threshold. The firm believes that this will be large enough saving to offset the fixed increase of 15% for pilots, giving extra cost of approximately $400 million.
So, ALPA puts out a list of approximately 60 improvements, and your counter is 11 "cons" of which 2 aren't even true and 3 are actually improvements
Credit Suisse noted that the fixed increase of 15% by the amendable date is slightly more than it expected, but the profit sharing offset is more significant at this point. With the 20% profit sharing threshold moving to $6 billion for all employees, the firm expects approximately $500 million of potential savings, compared to $2.5 billion of threshold. The firm believes that this will be large enough saving to offset the fixed increase of 15% for pilots, giving extra cost of approximately $400 million.
So, ALPA puts out a list of approximately 60 improvements, and your counter is 11 "cons" of which 2 aren't even true and 3 are actually improvements
Enlighten me. What else is wrong? And what three are improvements. Facts only please.
Denny
06-10-2015, 06:28 PM
#7553
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
The NC notepad is out, one line that caught my attention:
OR another way to say it as
F/O OE bid process modified so that 25% of OE trips are bid. More details will be covered in a later Notepad
F/O OE bid process modified so that 75% of OE trips are not available to bid. More details will be covered in a later Notepad
06-10-2015, 06:28 PM
#7554
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Yes, the existing contract uses EASK's and the new one uses block hours.
Does it convert to block hours though? Or does it just allow 50/50 block hours? Because that's how it was written, which would mean a significant and immediate loss of widebody jobs that we'd never get back.
Even if it "converted" to block hours, that still sets the stage for a significant permanent majority of AF/KLM EASK's from now on. If it guts our current block hour premium and allows an immediate 50/50 split (really a 49/51 split…) then we're really getting hosed. Who would EVER agree to this and why?
Does it convert to block hours though? Or does it just allow 50/50 block hours? Because that's how it was written, which would mean a significant and immediate loss of widebody jobs that we'd never get back.
Even if it "converted" to block hours, that still sets the stage for a significant permanent majority of AF/KLM EASK's from now on. If it guts our current block hour premium and allows an immediate 50/50 split (really a 49/51 split…) then we're really getting hosed. Who would EVER agree to this and why?
Not sure I understand what you're asking?
EASKs go away. We will now use aircraft block hours.
Gauge will no longer be a factor.
Like the groundskeeper pointed out - a Delta Cessna will equal an AF/KLM A-380.
The "conversion" was only for purposes of clarity in the debate and they used our current fleets. A moment in time snapshot.
We are supposed to be flying 53% of the block hours. We now fly 51.
The new agreement takes it down to 49.
In the future they could pull all the 7ERs off the Atlantic and start flying Cessnas.
My question would be ===> what's the payrate on that Cessna?
06-10-2015, 06:31 PM
#7555
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 432
Really? Which part of this article said that:
Credit Suisse noted that the fixed increase of 15% by the amendable date is slightly more than it expected, but the profit sharing offset is more significant at this point. With the 20% profit sharing threshold moving to $6 billion for all employees, the firm expects approximately $500 million of potential savings, compared to $2.5 billion of threshold. The firm believes that this will be large enough saving to offset the fixed increase of 15% for pilots, giving extra cost of approximately $400 million.
So, ALPA puts out a list of approximately 60 improvements, and your counter is 11 "cons" of which 2 aren't even true and 3 are actually improvements
Credit Suisse noted that the fixed increase of 15% by the amendable date is slightly more than it expected, but the profit sharing offset is more significant at this point. With the 20% profit sharing threshold moving to $6 billion for all employees, the firm expects approximately $500 million of potential savings, compared to $2.5 billion of threshold. The firm believes that this will be large enough saving to offset the fixed increase of 15% for pilots, giving extra cost of approximately $400 million.
So, ALPA puts out a list of approximately 60 improvements, and your counter is 11 "cons" of which 2 aren't even true and 3 are actually improvements
06-10-2015, 06:35 PM
#7557
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 758
Really? Which part of this article said that:
Credit Suisse noted that the fixed increase of 15% by the amendable date is slightly more than it expected, but the profit sharing offset is more significant at this point. With the 20% profit sharing threshold moving to $6 billion for all employees, the firm expects approximately $500 million of potential savings, compared to $2.5 billion of threshold. The firm believes that this will be large enough saving to offset the fixed increase of 15% for pilots, giving extra cost of approximately $400 million.
So, ALPA puts out a list of approximately 60 improvements, and your counter is 11 "cons" of which 2 aren't even true and 3 are actually improvements
Credit Suisse noted that the fixed increase of 15% by the amendable date is slightly more than it expected, but the profit sharing offset is more significant at this point. With the 20% profit sharing threshold moving to $6 billion for all employees, the firm expects approximately $500 million of potential savings, compared to $2.5 billion of threshold. The firm believes that this will be large enough saving to offset the fixed increase of 15% for pilots, giving extra cost of approximately $400 million.
So, ALPA puts out a list of approximately 60 improvements, and your counter is 11 "cons" of which 2 aren't even true and 3 are actually improvements
06-10-2015, 06:44 PM
#7559
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,603
12. Ab Initio. Very little detail so far but this, along with more large RJ's, breaths new life into outsourcing at the "regional" level.
It helps management produce more pilots in a short period of time and has been shown to produce pilots that are not safe. They lack experience that traditional vetting provides. It's bad for the profession in multiple ways.
Delta and other regional are throwing $80K additional money over 3 or 4 year to regional guys willing to stick around just so they can keep the RJ experiment/ whipsaw alive. I imagine they will lobby (with ALPA's help) to reduce required flight time and pay pilot candidates to go through pilot puppy academies to fill seats under contract. Why ALPA would join in this affair is anybodies guess. Oh yeah, Richard asked. Kill it now before it grows.
One of the side effects of pilots trained this way...
"The pilot found visual approaches difficult."
It helps management produce more pilots in a short period of time and has been shown to produce pilots that are not safe. They lack experience that traditional vetting provides. It's bad for the profession in multiple ways.
Delta and other regional are throwing $80K additional money over 3 or 4 year to regional guys willing to stick around just so they can keep the RJ experiment/ whipsaw alive. I imagine they will lobby (with ALPA's help) to reduce required flight time and pay pilot candidates to go through pilot puppy academies to fill seats under contract. Why ALPA would join in this affair is anybodies guess. Oh yeah, Richard asked. Kill it now before it grows.
One of the side effects of pilots trained this way...
"The pilot found visual approaches difficult."
The 1500hrs is killing the regionals. Why would delta want more rjs at contractors if they didn't have a plan to staff them. For the love of god make the nightmare end.
06-10-2015, 06:45 PM
#7560
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Another:
Bold emphasis is mine.
In C2012 they basically said if you let us have 70 more CR9s we'll park 211 CR2s. A ratio of 3.1 CR2s for every 1 CR9.
Now it's 2 CR2s for every 1 CR9.
Those CR9s just ain't worth what they used to be.
What I would like to do is ask a network guy, what would be your ideal fleet given what we do today. DAL or DCI, per whatever metric you want to use over whatever time period, they cost the same.
My guess is no 70 seaters, no 50 seaters, about 350-400 76-seaters. That's my guess. So TA2018 we work towards no 50 seaters and then TA2021 we start replacing 70 seaters. imho only.
Currently, the Company operates 484 regional jets through their DCI partners. This number continues to drop as the remainder of the new B-717s are delivered. As part of C2012, a hard overall cap of 450 total DCI aircraft was established, and this agreement now lowers that cap even further to 425 aircraft. The Company must first take delivery of two E190 aircraft for each additional 70 or 76 seat aircraft it adds to the fleet. It also must eliminate the equivalent of two 50-seat aircraft for each 70 or 76 seat aircraft that is added. This creates an end state DCI fleet as follows:
o 75 50-seat aircraft from 125
o 102 70-seat aircraft from 102
o 248 76-seat aircraft from 223 allowed
o 75 50-seat aircraft from 125
o 102 70-seat aircraft from 102
o 248 76-seat aircraft from 223 allowed
In C2012 they basically said if you let us have 70 more CR9s we'll park 211 CR2s. A ratio of 3.1 CR2s for every 1 CR9.
Now it's 2 CR2s for every 1 CR9.
Those CR9s just ain't worth what they used to be.
What I would like to do is ask a network guy, what would be your ideal fleet given what we do today. DAL or DCI, per whatever metric you want to use over whatever time period, they cost the same.
My guess is no 70 seaters, no 50 seaters, about 350-400 76-seaters. That's my guess. So TA2018 we work towards no 50 seaters and then TA2021 we start replacing 70 seaters. imho only.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
