404yxl

The 25 additional 70 seat aircraft will decrease the mainline jobs. The regionals are shrinking because we cannot find pilots willing to work for our compensation levels.

This TA allows 25 additional 70 seat aircraft, which is 50 more 70 seat aircraft.

Only 25 more 50 seat aircraft is better than 50 more 70 seat aircraft.

The DCI carriers will struggle to staff 425 jets in the future. This TA allows a larger portion of that 425 to be 70 seat aircraft.

80ktsClamp

We understand that, 404- the only reason I'm not up at arms about it is they haven't even exercised all the options they could have for it this round. They tightened up the block hour ratios to further restrict DCI flying along with codifying a few loopholes that existed before.

The staffing problem at the regionals will continue for the time being and probably get worse. It's self mitigating at this point. There are other much more pressing issues with this TA that may require a redo.

AluminumFoil

Becareful this is guy will beat a dead horse, he does it here and our ALPA forum.

404yxl

If you understand that the regionals are struggling to staff, then why do you want to allow more larger RJ's?

Leave the current cap and watch the regionals shrink further.

80ktsClamp

That's what I think, too.

Priorities, though. Negotiations are give and take, not all take... and you gotta look at the whole package.

Those extra jumbo RJs are much lower threat compared to some of the other stuff in there, IMO. It may not even make it past the MEC tomorrow.

404yxl

You are correct that there are bigger threats in there. Allowing 25 more 70 seat aircraft looks to be a 10-15 aircraft loss on the 100 seat fleet. Not that big, but I think it will lead to less mainline jets than more if you hold the line.

One of the bigger staffing losses looks to be the Check Airman bidding changes and the seniority loss in bidding the first officers will lose. Joint Venture looks like it could reduce the Delta pilot force more too.

80ktsClamp

You're probably right on the first paragraph, and absolutely agreed on the second paragraph- the second paragraph outlines my major sticking points. JV actually is overall improved, but the shift in the measurement metric is my sticking point and where a lot of hard questions need to be asked and answered.

Justdoinmyjob

404,
you seem to be missing the fact that Delta is currently 25 airframes UNDER the allowed cap for 70/76 seaters already. They could go out tomorrow and add those 25 airframes if they so chose to do so. You are off in the weeds on this one. The total cap doesn't change with the new TA.

404yxl

Here is the summary from the meeting. Again, you are confusing the 25 under the old contract that can be added, to the additional 25 more this TA will allow.

From the meeting:
"Retains the limit of 76 seats at DCI
• DCI fleet shrinks to 425 from 450
• Total number of RJs is reduced by 5.6 percent, RJ seat count reduced by 2 percent
• With current limits of 223 76-seaters and 102 total 70-seaters, allows 25 additional 70 or 76-seat jets, but tied to deliveries of a 100-seat small narrow-body aircraft(1 70/76-seat RJ for every 2 100-seaters delivered to Delta)"

There is a current cap of 223 76-seaters and 102 total 70-seaters, the remaining 125 is 50-seaters for 450 total.

This TA would allow another 25 76/70-seaters for 350 total. Making it a cap of 350 76/70-seaters, the remaining 75 is 50-seaters for 425 total.

What I am getting at is the regionals are shrinking anyways and 425 or less DCI aircraft is the plan anyways. In my opinion this TA allows more of the 425 (or less) DCI planes to be larger 76/70-seaters.

80ktsClamp

I clarified this in the other thread- it allows 25 more 70 or 76 seaters on top of the current caps, thus 50 more new airframes.

The reduction in the 50's continues as they take deliveries of them to maintain what thankfully is the lowest amount of RJs allowed among the big 3.