Delta's pilots' union apparently informed its membership today that the union and the company have reached an agreement in principle regarding global scope.

Although I have not seen the email, it apparently outlines the following terms:

(1) Delta guarantees one-for-one growth of widebody flying in comparison to Delta’s "partners;"

(2) Delta agrees to return its share of international flying to pre-pandemic levels;

(3) DALPA agrees to allow Delta to consolidate all long-haul "partner" flying into one scope provision and analysis with protections to ensure that every geographic region is still served by Delta metal;

(4) Delta agrees to apply the new scope provision to (1) joint venture participants; (2) airlines in which Delta has a significant ownership interest; and (3) any airlines which carries a predefined number of Delta passengers; and

(5) Delta agrees to review compliance with the union each quarter and immediately to increase widebody flying and staffing for violations instead of simply paying damages to the union.

This agreement in principle has the potential to bring far more flying done by other carriers under scope protection while also affording Delta more flexibility to deploy widebody flying to the most profitable areas around the globe, subject to the geographic guarantees. Delta has made clear in multiple earnings calls that a global scope provision was essential in its view for long-term, viable widebody growth, and I suspect the union did not like a piecemeal approach with each joint venture subject to a different scope provision and analysis.

Again, I have not seen the email, and I have not seen a press release or public statement from either Delta or DALPA on this topic. Also, since it is only an agreement in principle, the actual contractual language has not been written so specifics will not exist for several months. However, the union and the pilots will review the tentative agreement based on these terms separate from a consolidated collective bargaining agreement.

On a related note, the arbitrator for the grievances filed by DALPA related to the Korean joint venture agreement has apparently finally issued his award and order Delta to pay the union $2.5 million, significantly less than DALPA sought.

Here is a link from the DALPA press room:

https://dal.alpa.org/Library/Publicatio ... -5-16-2022

I’d be a bit surprised that the final language would specify “widebody” vs. simply Delta operated international given their big A321NEO order and relationships with so many airlines that are going to be in range of variants of that type.

What metric is used to measure for subpoint 1? Departures? ASMs? Frames? 1-for-1 can mean many things, especially when Delta, given its 767 fleet, has more small wide bodies than its competitors. Glad they are coming toward an agreement on this though!

This is great news for the employees at Delta.

Great news.

Delta has repeatedly violated and lost multiple grievances as ever more international flying has shifted to partners in violation of previously agreed caps. Makes it even worse when DL has ownership stakes in these other carriers and is able to use them as an alter-ego carrier to the detriment of DL crews.

TW870 wrote:

What metric is used to measure for subpoint 1? Departures? ASMs? Frames? 1-for-1 can mean many things, especially when Delta, given its 767 fleet, has more small wide bodies than its competitors. Glad they are coming toward an agreement on this though!

Let's see if it's an amendment of the EASK as defined in the 2016 PWA:

“EASK” means equivalent available seat kilometers, a measurement of capacity adjusted
for an aircraft’s seat density and cargo capacity, as defined and calculated in the
AF/KL/AZ JV agreement.

This is a good first step to seeing more DL metal doing international flying in lieu of alliance partners.

UPlog wrote:

Great news.

Delta has repeatedly violated and lost multiple grievances as ever more international flying has shifted to partners in violation of previously agreed caps. Makes it even worse when DL has ownership stakes in these other carriers and is able to use them as an alter-ego carrier to the detriment of DL crews.

I suspect it is financial, if they made more money than what they have to pay the union as a penalty in violations.......

par13del wrote:

I suspect it is financial, if they made more money than what they have to pay the union as a penalty in violations.......

Its not financial, that is the whole point.

See the note:
"Delta agrees to review compliance with the union each quarter and immediately to increase widebody flying and staffing for violations instead of simply paying damages to the union."

It would have been easy to allow DL to continue paying for its violations (like the recently awarded $2.75mil for Korean Air violations), but the union instead obviously wants pilot seats and aircraft for the career benefit of its members.

LAXintl wrote:

par13del wrote:

I suspect it is financial, if they made more money than what they have to pay the union as a penalty in violations.......

Its not financial, that is the whole point.

See the note:
"Delta agrees to review compliance with the union each quarter and immediately to increase widebody flying and staffing for violations instead of simply paying damages to the union."

It would have been easy to allow DL to continue paying for its violations (like the recently awarded $2.75mil for Korean Air violations), but the union instead obviously wants pilot seats and aircraft for the career benefit of its members.

Correct. In fact, the union wanted non-cash remedies in the Korean Airlines arbitration, but the arbitrator rejected that because (1) Delta was in compliance long before the arbitration commenced (hence the really low dollar amount) and so he couldn't really give a non-damages remedy for past but non-continuing violations; and (2) the presumption under American contract law that money damages are sufficient to remedy almost all breaches.

TW870 wrote:

What metric is used to measure for subpoint 1? Departures? ASMs? Frames? 1-for-1 can mean many things, especially when Delta, given its 767 fleet, has more small wide bodies than its competitors. Glad they are coming toward an agreement on this though!

So, will this allow DL to be even more flexible with their 767-300ERs than they already are? Maybe the 2025 retirement date will be scrapped altogether, instead of just "being there as a flex time" or whatever. Maybe this will pressure Boeing to develop their NMA quicker though I may be wrong there.

Does this mean DL needs to expand its WB fleet?

I’m quite surprised that DALPA agreed to “global” scope. Theoretically Delta could leave Asia entirely to KE if they increase Europe flying.

RyanairGuru wrote:

I’m quite surprised that DALPA agreed to “global” scope. Theoretically Delta could leave Asia entirely to KE if they increase Europe flying.

No, Delta cannot. The AIP requires a minimum set presence in each geographic theater. But it does mean that if there is another Asian currency crisis and demand to Asian countries plummets, Delta can shift A350s to Europe and South America to keep the planes flying without violating the scope provision so long as Delta maintains the minimum to Asia, whatever that minimum might end up being.

HunterATL wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

I’m quite surprised that DALPA agreed to “global” scope. Theoretically Delta could leave Asia entirely to KE if they increase Europe flying.

No, Delta cannot. The AIP requires a minimum set presence in each geographic theater. But it does mean that if there is another Asian currency crisis and demand to Asian countries plummets, Delta can shift A350s to Europe and South America to keep the planes flying without violating the scope provision so long as Delta maintains the minimum to Asia, whatever that minimum might end up being.

What do you mean by “geographic theater”? Is that an actual contractual term?

It's a good agreement in-principle. Own metal widebody flying vs JV was always a hot topic with DALPA during pre-pandemic times, and having more seats for careers and growth is the right thing to do over cash settlements. With the recent investments in A359 leases, and likely more growth on the horizon I don't think it was very hard for the company to have these terms.

WkndWanderer wrote:

I’d be a bit surprised that the final language would specify “widebody” vs. simply Delta operated international given their big A321NEO order and relationships with so many airlines that are going to be in range of variants of that type.

The 321NEO will pay like a widebody at DL per a recent LOA

questions wrote:

What do you mean by “geographic theater”? Is that an actual contractual term?

Yes its spelled out using the DOT definitions of Atlantic, Pacific and Latin theaters

Regarding the three airlines in which DL has a significant ownership interest, DL has not used any of them as "alter ego" carriers. DL cannot do the onward flying that KE does (and does not have the market share to make such flying work, e.g. NRT), DL cannot do the intra South American flying that LATAM does, and regarding VS, yes DL refocused VS into a TATL carrier from a mini BA carrier, but DL did not have the slots to do by itself what it is doing together with VS. And yes, VS does more of the JFK-LHR flying, but DL is using its other slots to fly to LHR from its other hubs. In fact, the closest DL gets to an "alter-ego" carrier is AF/KL.

BTW, defining things in ASKs could encourage DL to get bigger planes to fly to LHR. JFK - LHR in particular.

Was this what the Delta pilots were picketing about? I am so out of the loop on this. What does this ultimately mean in terms of flying? Will this mean more widebody aircraft orders perhaps?

Can someone explain this in dummy terms? LOL!!

LAXintl wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

The 321NEO will pay like a widebody at DL per a recent LOA

Kinda not really. The basis for the 321neo pay was that it was intented to overtake 757 mission profiles/capacity/revenue, so it should pay like for like. The 321neo/757/763 vs the 321ceo pays an extra $4-$10/hr (based on CA/FO extremes). The 757s and 767-300s have the same payrate at DL, its below traditional WB payscales at airlines. The 767-300s at peer airlines pay similar to 330s, 787s, 764s. Even at DL for comparison, the 767-400 pays an extra $24-$38/hr vs the 767-300 variant.

F9Animal wrote:

Was this what the Delta pilots were picketing about? I am so out of the loop on this. What does this ultimately mean in terms of flying? Will this mean more widebody aircraft orders perhaps?

Can someone explain this in dummy terms? LOL!!

Ultimately not yet clear it basically turns all of delta's flying outside the US into a global account which has to be balanced vs partner flights to the US, probably not a lot except for possibly a few more interesting 763 routes, and a set definition so less fighting about this probably

F9Animal wrote:

Was this what the Delta pilots were picketing about? I am so out of the loop on this. What does this ultimately mean in terms of flying? Will this mean more widebody aircraft orders perhaps?

Can someone explain this in dummy terms? LOL!!

We're going to need to see the ratified language, and even then interpretations are going to be all over the map, from 'Big win for DALPA' to 'Still not up to XX standard'.

Cactusjuba wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

The 321NEO will pay like a widebody at DL per a recent LOA

Kinda not really. The basis for the 321neo pay was that it was intented to overtake 757 mission profiles/capacity/revenue, so it should pay like for like. The 321neo/757/763 vs the 321ceo pays an extra $4-$10/hr (based on CA/FO extremes). The 757s and 767-300s have the same payrate at DL, its below traditional WB payscales at airlines. The 767-300s at peer airlines pay similar to 330s, 787s, 764s. Even at DL for comparison, the 767-400 pays an extra $24-$38/hr vs the 767-300 variant.

Wow interesting. Seems like a good reason for DL to keep those 763s around if they have such a good rate (not that pilot pay is the only factor).

Cactusjuba wrote:

Kinda not really. The basis for the 321neo pay was that it was intented to overtake 757 mission profiles/capacity/revenue, so it should pay like for like. The 321neo/757/763 vs the 321ceo pays an extra $4-$10/hr (based on CA/FO extremes). The 757s and 767-300s have the same payrate at DL, its below traditional WB payscales at airlines. The 767-300s at peer airlines pay similar to 330s, 787s, 764s. Even at DL for comparison, the 767-400 pays an extra $24-$38/hr vs the 767-300 variant.

You might not like the payrate, but point is the the 321NEO will be lumped in and treated as a WB, the same as the 757 category.

dstblj52 wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

Was this what the Delta pilots were picketing about? I am so out of the loop on this. What does this ultimately mean in terms of flying? Will this mean more widebody aircraft orders perhaps?

Can someone explain this in dummy terms? LOL!!

Ultimately not yet clear it basically turns all of delta's flying outside the US into a global account which has to be balanced vs partner flights to the US, probably not a lot except for possibly a few more interesting 763 routes, and a set definition so less fighting about this probably

When you say less fighting, is this ultimately what the pickets were about? I hope the company and the pilots reach a deal.

F9Animal wrote:

dstblj52 wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

Was this what the Delta pilots were picketing about? I am so out of the loop on this. What does this ultimately mean in terms of flying? Will this mean more widebody aircraft orders perhaps?

Can someone explain this in dummy terms? LOL!!

Ultimately not yet clear it basically turns all of delta's flying outside the US into a global account which has to be balanced vs partner flights to the US, probably not a lot except for possibly a few more interesting 763 routes, and a set definition so less fighting about this probably

When you say less fighting, is this ultimately what the pickets were about? I hope the company and the pilots reach a deal.

The picketing was not about scope at all. This specific scope negotiation has been going on for a while outside of the broader contract talks. The picketing was in regards to fatigue, specifically scheduling practices that started in 2018, and in the COVID recovery phase with short staffing, ramped up further.

Cactusjuba wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

dstblj52 wrote:

Ultimately not yet clear it basically turns all of delta's flying outside the US into a global account which has to be balanced vs partner flights to the US, probably not a lot except for possibly a few more interesting 763 routes, and a set definition so less fighting about this probably

When you say less fighting, is this ultimately what the pickets were about? I hope the company and the pilots reach a deal.

The picketing was not about scope at all. This specific scope negotiation has been going on for a while outside of the broader contract talks. The picketing was in regards to fatigue, specifically scheduling practices that started in 2018, and in the COVID recovery phase with short staffing, ramped up further.

Great info. Thank you. So many components in this industry.

LAXintl wrote:

questions wrote:

What do you mean by “geographic theater”? Is that an actual contractual term?

Yes its spelled out using the DOT definitions of Atlantic, Pacific and Latin theaters

Thank you.

I’m surprised DALPA settled on widebody as the term given the scope/size/investment of the AM JV that’s almost entirely narrowbody in nature.

dfwfanboy wrote:

I’m surprised DALPA settled on widebody as the term given the scope/size/investment of the AM JV that’s almost entirely narrowbody in nature.

No terms have been released. Contract language is being drafted as we speak. It would be shocking if WB was thr metric, given Mexican/Canadian, even Colombia with Latam, and NBs over the transatlantic. Probably a combo of block hours and revenue capability.

Cactusjuba wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

I’m surprised DALPA settled on widebody as the term given the scope/size/investment of the AM JV that’s almost entirely narrowbody in nature.

No terms have been released. Contract language is being drafted as we speak. It would be shocking if WB was thr metric, given Mexican/Canadian, even Colombia with Latam, and NBs over the transatlantic. Probably a combo of block hours and revenue capability.

Very fair point, but even the DALPA press release says "widebody" five times with no mention of narrowbody aircraft.

dfwfanboy wrote:

Cactusjuba wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

I’m surprised DALPA settled on widebody as the term given the scope/size/investment of the AM JV that’s almost entirely narrowbody in nature.

No terms have been released. Contract language is being drafted as we speak. It would be shocking if WB was thr metric, given Mexican/Canadian, even Colombia with Latam, and NBs over the transatlantic. Probably a combo of block hours and revenue capability.

Very fair point, but even the DALPA press release says "widebody" five times with no mention of narrowbody aircraft.

Another poster mentioned that there is an LOA that will consider the A321neo as a widebody for the purpose of the CBA in the same way that the 757 already is. The Delta CBA (at least in this version) does classify the 757 as a widebody in terms of the contract, so it would appear Delta will still have the flexibility to put A321neo's on routes within its range.

"Widebody” means an aircraft type under Section 22 A. 3. a. – g .... g. B-767 (all except B-767-400ER)/B-757"

https://www.airlinepilothiring.net/Tent ... 6Delta.pdf

dfwfanboy wrote:

I’m surprised DALPA settled on widebody as the term given the scope/size/investment of the AM JV that’s almost entirely narrowbody in nature.

My biggest question is whether there's any hope of the AM (or DL) flights from BJX and QRO to the USA coming back as a result of this.

DLvsWN wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

I’m surprised DALPA settled on widebody as the term given the scope/size/investment of the AM JV that’s almost entirely narrowbody in nature.

My biggest question is whether there's any hope of the AM (or DL) flights from BJX and QRO to the USA coming back as a result of this.

I think that's yet another question where one needs to see the specific language. I could see:

- some Mexico flying being unaffected because it's not widebody, nor the other types that may qualify as widebody

and/or

- it's not long-haul

Didn't DL do QRO for a while just to get MD-88s into QRO Maintenance?

I'm always happy for more destinations. Let's see 'em throw some A220s at ATL-BJX/QRO (and OAX, please!)

MIflyer12 wrote:

DLvsWN wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

I’m surprised DALPA settled on widebody as the term given the scope/size/investment of the AM JV that’s almost entirely narrowbody in nature.

My biggest question is whether there's any hope of the AM (or DL) flights from BJX and QRO to the USA coming back as a result of this.

I think that's yet another question where one needs to see the specific language. I could see:

- some Mexico flying being unaffected because it's not widebody, nor the other types that may qualify as widebody

and/or

- it's not long-haul

Didn't DL do QRO for a while just to get MD-88s into QRO Maintenance?

I'm always happy for more destinations. Let's see 'em throw some A220s at ATL-BJX/QRO (and OAX, please!)

I believe QRO was always an AM flight, along with the short-lived MID service. As I recall, they even switched BJX to AM metal before they axed everything--I kinda get why that last one pissed off the Delta pilots, given it was for many years a successful DL route.

Dont see AM starting much new service to the U.S. for two reasons.

1) Mexico is Category-II so they cant add new routes or increase service levels above what was the baseline when they got downgraded
2) As part of AM Ch.11 process they stated they would focus increasingly on their MEX hub and fewer p2p leisure/VFR markets where they must fight the Mexican ULCCs.

A bit more info coming out per MEC Chairman John Ambrosi about the AIP

> Seems the "global" part is more a reference to trans-oceanic flying
> A key measure will be block hours. So if AFKL adds X block hours growth, then DL must do the same 1:1
> Widebody here means widebody seat positions, not 321/757 seats
> There will be a quarterly review of global flying, and the remedy won't be cash as in the past, but DL having to generate widebody jobs which helps lift everyone
> One benefit for the company, they will gain additional flexibility to move equipment and flying around the network to better match seasonal demand swings and respond to opportunities.

The formal language still needs to be finished and voted on by the MEC before it heads to membership in the coming weeks.

LAXintl wrote:

Dont see AM starting much new service to the U.S. for two reasons.

1) Mexico is Category-II so they cant add new routes or increase service levels above what was the baseline when they got downgraded
2) As part of AM Ch.11 process they stated they would focus increasingly on their MEX hub and fewer p2p leisure/VFR markets where they must fight the Mexican ULCCs.

On (1), Mexico stated its expected to be lifted to Cat 1 at the end of the year. US regulators are (or recently were) in Mexico discussing improvements.

DALPA MEC put out a podcast yesterday which discusses and explains many parts of the global scope agreement in principle.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e ... 1603494388