Delta, pilots reach contract deal early
- Thread starter 2BlacknBlue
- Start date
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
I agree... but what at least a handful of very active writers on some of the other forums are getting hung up on is that the number of 76 seaters is going up by about 70 ... but only if DL adds the 717 fleet and pulls out several hundred 50 seaters. Some of those believe that 50 seaters are no threat to DL pilots but 76 seaters (apparently because they have a FC cabin) are.
Others point out that DALPA obtained tighter caps on the total number of RJs and a ratio between DCI and DL mainline flying which has never existed.
A few note that scope is not just on domestic but also includes joint ventures and codesharing on other large jet carriers such as AS. There also seems to be angst with the ability to codeshare on Republic Holdings' regional jets since they also operate large jets even though DL doesn't codeshare on them.
I don't know all of the terms of the TA. I do know that the process of negotiation requires giving a little something in order to gain something.
DL wants to get rid of 50 seaters and if they succeed it will give them a huge advantage. Unlike other carriers, it appears to me that they are linking their reduction in total RJ shells to adding mainline capaciity - and they are increasing pay for DL mainline pilots, although it is less than what many wanted.
Given that DL could probably save a couple hundred million dollars per year as they reduce the number of 50 seaters, DL does have a strategic window that could help reshape the industry.
As with all strategic wins by the company, employees need to share in those gains.
Whether this TA does that enough is up to the pilots to decide.
Others point out that DALPA obtained tighter caps on the total number of RJs and a ratio between DCI and DL mainline flying which has never existed.
A few note that scope is not just on domestic but also includes joint ventures and codesharing on other large jet carriers such as AS. There also seems to be angst with the ability to codeshare on Republic Holdings' regional jets since they also operate large jets even though DL doesn't codeshare on them.
I don't know all of the terms of the TA. I do know that the process of negotiation requires giving a little something in order to gain something.
DL wants to get rid of 50 seaters and if they succeed it will give them a huge advantage. Unlike other carriers, it appears to me that they are linking their reduction in total RJ shells to adding mainline capaciity - and they are increasing pay for DL mainline pilots, although it is less than what many wanted.
Given that DL could probably save a couple hundred million dollars per year as they reduce the number of 50 seaters, DL does have a strategic window that could help reshape the industry.
As with all strategic wins by the company, employees need to share in those gains.
Whether this TA does that enough is up to the pilots to decide.
Kev3188
Veteran
If you going to use the flawed logic of "others get what the pilots do," then you'll need to explain when people like Baba, Southwind, and myself expect the same percentage increase(s) in our respective base rates.
How about the "enhancements" to the 401k?
Sick time?
You know none of that will occur. Why ask questions you already know the answers to?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
I don't think I used the words "others get what the pilots do" - probably becase I DON'T believe that DL's non-contract employees will get what the pilots are getting.
The pilots at just about any US airline are the ones that hold the keys on scope; it isn't unexpected that the pilots will benefit if they agree to changes in scope that allow the company to benefit.
You can look at the scope issues that AA is facing - and it is hard to know if the non-pilot groups will succeed at their objectives absent the pilots but the real issue regarding scope, esp. w/ respect to regional carriers and int'l code shares and joint ventures is fought by the pilots and they are the ones that are most impacted by whatever happens.
I'd like to believe that you would benefit by changes in what the pilots agree to w/ scope... but I think the biggest win you will get is increased profitability. However, since the company, apparently to your liking, is increasing your base pay while decreasing your profit sharing percentages, you might actually come out behind. You'll still get a raise but I will bet that DL's profitability will improve as much as $500M per year in the next couple years... I personally would rather take that gain in profit sharing, but most people, including unions, want to increase the base rate.
And since base rate is what is compared with other carriers, it makes what DL is doing look better compared to other carriers.
ACS people are minimally affected by mainline vs regional carrier flights since many stations work combinations of the two - mainline staffed or outsourced; FAs and mechanics will get more work if it is done on DL mainline vs. DCI aircraft - and there is not a mixing of mainline vs DCI work by those two groups.
I don't believe you have less than 100% pay for sick time which the pilots now have; in exchange for increased pay from day one, they are being subjected to the same managed sick time that most companies now require of their employees.
The pilots at just about any US airline are the ones that hold the keys on scope; it isn't unexpected that the pilots will benefit if they agree to changes in scope that allow the company to benefit.
You can look at the scope issues that AA is facing - and it is hard to know if the non-pilot groups will succeed at their objectives absent the pilots but the real issue regarding scope, esp. w/ respect to regional carriers and int'l code shares and joint ventures is fought by the pilots and they are the ones that are most impacted by whatever happens.
I'd like to believe that you would benefit by changes in what the pilots agree to w/ scope... but I think the biggest win you will get is increased profitability. However, since the company, apparently to your liking, is increasing your base pay while decreasing your profit sharing percentages, you might actually come out behind. You'll still get a raise but I will bet that DL's profitability will improve as much as $500M per year in the next couple years... I personally would rather take that gain in profit sharing, but most people, including unions, want to increase the base rate.
And since base rate is what is compared with other carriers, it makes what DL is doing look better compared to other carriers.
ACS people are minimally affected by mainline vs regional carrier flights since many stations work combinations of the two - mainline staffed or outsourced; FAs and mechanics will get more work if it is done on DL mainline vs. DCI aircraft - and there is not a mixing of mainline vs DCI work by those two groups.
I don't believe you have less than 100% pay for sick time which the pilots now have; in exchange for increased pay from day one, they are being subjected to the same managed sick time that most companies now require of their employees.
Kev3188
Veteran
Nope. Here's what you wrote (emphasis mine):
So which is it?
When can we expect the same percentage increases in base rates that they negotiated?
I think that people (pilots) are nervous because the airlines are going to start just replacing the 50 seaters with 76 seaters, so the basic problem of outsourcing will still exist, just on larger regional jets. Obviously, there are certain markets that will never be profitable using mainline equipment with mainline employees. These are the only markets that should be served by regional jets. The mainline airlines, DL, AA, and others, need to pull these small jets off routes that can and should be flown by mainline equipment and crews.
I do think that DL is going to have a huge advantage over others with the 717 leases. This is the perfect size mainline aircraft for low density routes, or routes where frequency is important. The fact that the 717 also has a real first class section will also be a plus when competitors are using regional feed on the same routes.
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Apr 30, 2012
- 4,825
- 4,428
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
Kev,
Just because DL non-contract employees have benefitted because of gains made by the pilot group doesn't mean they have or will attain the SAME gains.
And to repeat, I don't think non-contract employees will receive the same gains in return for them allowing changes to scope.
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I would strongly bet that DL pilots gave up a lot more in BK compared to non-contract employees, even after equity in the reorganized company is factored in.
Eagle,
the problem is that it will be impossible to upgauge capacity to multiple hubs and still keep frequencies high enough to maintain a competitive advantage in a market. There are many markets by multiple carriers where there are 300-500 seats/day in a market to a major hub using RJs today. If that same number of seats were reallocated to even the 717, which DL says will seat 110 pax in their config, then there would only be 3 flights/day which is not going to be competitive with other carriers that will still offer 5-6 flights per day even with a combination of large RJs. Remember AA is pushing for 86 (IIRC) seat RJs which means they could potentially serve a market with 4 large RJs to 3 mainline by DL. Even after the whole 50 seat era has ended, there will still be a need for a/c smaller than 110 seats - and the 717 will probably still be the smallest mainline aircraft among the US network carrier fleet.
What DL and ALPA are doing to help eliminate the possibility of just upgauging every market to 76 seat RJs is allowing only 70 more large RJs even though several hundred 50 seaters will be removed, limited where large RJs can fly (didn't exist before), limited how long the flights on large RJs can be, and tied DCI capacity to DL capacity (which didn't exist before).
Everyone would love to say all air service would be provided by mainline aircraft - but that ship sailed decades ago when the first regional carrier flew with a mainline code on it.
I'm not saying the DL TA is perfect but it does appear that it recognizes that the industry is changing and is part of a SHIFT of capacity back to mainline. When you consider that other carriers have been GROWING regional carrier capacity at much faster rates than DL has done (DL has kept DCI capacity flat relative to mainline capacity for several years), then DL is already ahead of the rest of the industry in limiting codesharing on regional carriers.
The 717 will work well because of DL's size in the domestic market and its concentration in the eastern US where there are dozens of airports where DL boards a couple thousand passengers per day and where those cities need to be connected to at least ATL, DTW, and NYC. Add in the potential for DL to grow in the west using a smaller aircraft and I think there will be plenty of opportunities to use the 717.
It is the very low ownership costs that make the 717 a workable solution.
As some have noted, bringing in the 717s is leading DL to upgrade the cockpits in the M88s and non-glass M90s and opens the door for DL to acquire even more M90s which can also be acquired very cheaply. Between the 717s and M90s DL is probably acquiring 150 10 year old aircraft with modern fuel burn for less than $1B. IN contrast, the 100 739ERs (larger aircraft for sure) will cost about $5B and DL is reportedly getting a very good deal on them.
Just because DL non-contract employees have benefitted because of gains made by the pilot group doesn't mean they have or will attain the SAME gains.
And to repeat, I don't think non-contract employees will receive the same gains in return for them allowing changes to scope.
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I would strongly bet that DL pilots gave up a lot more in BK compared to non-contract employees, even after equity in the reorganized company is factored in.
Eagle,
the problem is that it will be impossible to upgauge capacity to multiple hubs and still keep frequencies high enough to maintain a competitive advantage in a market. There are many markets by multiple carriers where there are 300-500 seats/day in a market to a major hub using RJs today. If that same number of seats were reallocated to even the 717, which DL says will seat 110 pax in their config, then there would only be 3 flights/day which is not going to be competitive with other carriers that will still offer 5-6 flights per day even with a combination of large RJs. Remember AA is pushing for 86 (IIRC) seat RJs which means they could potentially serve a market with 4 large RJs to 3 mainline by DL. Even after the whole 50 seat era has ended, there will still be a need for a/c smaller than 110 seats - and the 717 will probably still be the smallest mainline aircraft among the US network carrier fleet.
What DL and ALPA are doing to help eliminate the possibility of just upgauging every market to 76 seat RJs is allowing only 70 more large RJs even though several hundred 50 seaters will be removed, limited where large RJs can fly (didn't exist before), limited how long the flights on large RJs can be, and tied DCI capacity to DL capacity (which didn't exist before).
Everyone would love to say all air service would be provided by mainline aircraft - but that ship sailed decades ago when the first regional carrier flew with a mainline code on it.
I'm not saying the DL TA is perfect but it does appear that it recognizes that the industry is changing and is part of a SHIFT of capacity back to mainline. When you consider that other carriers have been GROWING regional carrier capacity at much faster rates than DL has done (DL has kept DCI capacity flat relative to mainline capacity for several years), then DL is already ahead of the rest of the industry in limiting codesharing on regional carriers.
The 717 will work well because of DL's size in the domestic market and its concentration in the eastern US where there are dozens of airports where DL boards a couple thousand passengers per day and where those cities need to be connected to at least ATL, DTW, and NYC. Add in the potential for DL to grow in the west using a smaller aircraft and I think there will be plenty of opportunities to use the 717.
It is the very low ownership costs that make the 717 a workable solution.
As some have noted, bringing in the 717s is leading DL to upgrade the cockpits in the M88s and non-glass M90s and opens the door for DL to acquire even more M90s which can also be acquired very cheaply. Between the 717s and M90s DL is probably acquiring 150 10 year old aircraft with modern fuel burn for less than $1B. IN contrast, the 100 739ERs (larger aircraft for sure) will cost about $5B and DL is reportedly getting a very good deal on them.
Kev3188
Veteran
Of course you don't, since even you know that we have no scope to bargain w/in the first place.
...But that's not what you wrote...
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
so what is the purpose of scope but to protect jobs?
And on that measure where has the least amount of job cuts come in the airline industry during the past 10 years?
It has been cited here several times and AA noted it in its BK papers (1113 filing), but AA cut the least amount of all of the network carriers followed by CO. Neither filed BK in the decade of the 2000s.
.
Among network carriers who DID file BK, DL's reduction in jobs at 35% was the lowest, followed by NW at 39%, and UA and US much higher at near 50% of their workforces.
.
So, if having union contracts - with scope in them - was intended to protect jobs, then DL's scopeless non-contract employees fared better.
.
Now look at what network/legacy carriers have hired since they emerged from BK and the story becomes even more clear.
Hiring in ACS is harder to quantify but FA and pilot hiring is pretty well tracked. Not only does DL have no FAs or pilots on furlough but has hired while other airlines still have crewmembers on furlough.
.
Finally, look at what percentage of the reductions that DL did make during the last decade came through voluntary programs and how many were forced layoffs compared to other carriers and it becomes clearly that scope is not nearly as important in determining how many employees survived restructuring compared to the strength of the company coming out of BK.
Kev3188
Veteran
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
except that's not what I wrote.
I said that non-contract employees BENEFIT from some of the same things the pilots negotiate. I didn't say they obtain equality either in absolute levels (fairly obvious), the exact types of gains, or the degree (magnitude) of any of those gains.
The pilots apparently wanted the certainty of a more steady paycheck instead of a higher degree tied to profit sharing. DL gave that to the pilots - and you too, who didn't negotiate it but yet it appears it is something you are happy with.
Kev3188
Veteran
You're right; I paraphrased, since I was on my phone.
Here ya go:
So, again, when can those of us w/o a negotiated CBA expect the same percentage increases in our base rates as the pilot group?
What about the other "enhancements?"
southwind
Veteran
Listen WT. Delta could give peeps like Kev a $50,000.00 a year raise, life time medical, and a new car every year and they will not be happy, unless of course they paid union dues to get it !
So in closing, no matter what the company does, whether good or bad, they will always and forever be known as "The Evil Corporation!"
So in closing, no matter what the company does, whether good or bad, they will always and forever be known as "The Evil Corporation!"
Similar threads
