Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
UAL VICE CHAIRMAN  on DAL TA (interesting..) >

UAL VICE CHAIRMAN on DAL TA (interesting..)

Search
Notices

UAL VICE CHAIRMAN on DAL TA (interesting..)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-06-2015, 10:44 AM
  #51  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Default

Originally Posted by forgot to bid View Post
On the seniority list you have about 12,888 new hires. At one point they were all new.
Ha. Not only that, we are just now getting back to the post merger pilot count. We shed about 1000 or so pilot positions (and were still told every 5 minutes about how overstaffed we were and lucky to not be furloughing) so we've finally replaced the lost positions as well as the retirements with a little pad for near term bubble churn for upcoming retirements.

Not that long ago pre-merger DL had what, like over 10,000 pilots? How many did NWA have? Yes a few at each were FE's but we have become fanacticaly more "productive" since then.
gloopy is offline  
Old 07-06-2015, 12:11 PM
  #52  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: Resting
Posts: 376
Default

Originally Posted by Bananie View Post
So now we are talking about profits and revenue, I thought we were talking about jobs.

If they can shift the profits, then doesn't that pretty much make this TA a no brainer? We shift profit sharing to fixed pay rates, if you say they can reduce profits with a pencil, then it makes tons of sense to take fixed pay rates. I thought the no crowd was touting the huge profits and so they get big profit sharing checks and so they don't care about pay rates. Could you guys at least keep your story straight?

You can spin this any way you want but in 2012 you same guys claimed the increased 76 seaters would destroy mainline jobs. Now you make the same claim. I've got 1,700 reasons as to why you are wrong. Block hours are up, pilots required are up, hiring has way outpaced attrition, new captains. Spin, spin, spin away, but facts are facts.
No one thought C2012 would cause more 76 seaters to "destroy" mainline jobs. Clearly by adding 88 B-717s, mainline would grow. Network needed those airplanes to tap into revenue opportunities in the marketplace. What we questioned was what Delta would do when we disallowed an additional 100 76 seaters. Would they:

A) Fill that void indefinitely with their only available option at the Regionals -50 seaters.

Or

B) Bring a fleet to mainline to perform the segment of the flying now done by 100 new 76 seaters.

Everyone knows that the 50 seat option was dead. We would probably already have E-190 at Delta if we had stopped the 76 seat growth in C2012. Clearly the 717 were coming anyways. The fact that we have hired to staff the 717 has no correlation to allowing the company an additional 100 76 seaters. Unless, of course, you believe Delta would have passed on the deal of the decade by not leasing those B-717. Which, in that case, you might want to start listening to quarterly conference calls to understand how this company works.
mikea72580 is offline  
Old 07-06-2015, 12:37 PM
  #53  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 394
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun View Post
The fact that it is a less capable airframe is why it pays less. It seats fewer, flies slower, has less range and inferior short field performance. That kind of sums it up.
Yet, it is the replacement for the 757 and yes you knew that was the fricking point to begin with. Why, across the board, are all the replacement a/c lower paying than what it replaces?

Please feel free to put me on IGNORE as I have put you.

Last edited by texavia; 07-06-2015 at 01:12 PM.
texavia is offline  
Old 07-06-2015, 01:18 PM
  #54  
Mother’s finest
 
SawF16's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 73NB
Posts: 295
Default

Originally Posted by mikea72580 View Post
No one thought C2012 would cause more 76 seaters to "destroy" mainline jobs. Clearly by adding 88 B-717s, mainline would grow. Network needed those airplanes to tap into revenue opportunities in the marketplace.
There were plenty of keyboard warriors with mathmatical and spreadsheet models claiming exactly that during the vote for C2012. You dont remember the "FUD" "they'll just take delivery of all the 717s, get the numbers to work delivery ratio wise, then park every domestic mainline fleet instantly!!"? There was a great deal of bad math involved, but that drum was definitely being beaten.
SawF16 is offline  
Old 07-06-2015, 01:54 PM
  #55  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Default

Originally Posted by texavia View Post
Yet, it is the replacement for the 757 and yes you knew that was the fricking point to begin with. Why, across the board, are all the replacement a/c lower paying than what it replaces?

Please feel free to put me on IGNORE as I have put you.
The A330 sure seems to pay a lot more then the 767. The A350 will pay even more. Many of the 737's were picking up DC9 flying. We are taking back a big chunk of domestic DCI flying. Did you expect they would buy 777's for that? When they place the order to start retiring the mad dogs I suspect it will be a airframe that pays as well or better. My money is on the 737 max.
sailingfun is offline  
Old 07-06-2015, 05:43 PM
  #56  
Snake
 
Joined APC: May 2015
Posts: 242
Default

Originally Posted by texavia View Post
"you lock in the rates"

Cube rat - if the rates were locked in, how come they were higher over a decade ago?
Well bless your heart, you just asked the stupidest question ever posed on APC. Congratulations.

Profit sharing takes just one bad quarter to vanish for the whole year. Pay concessions take a trip to bankruptcy court, plus an 1113 filing. That took three years last time before we got to LOA 46. Hard rates compound over time, increase our share of the profit sharing pie as a hedge versus dilution among a larger pool of employees, and are subject to negotiation, while variable compensation follows the whim of the market.

The TA rates pay more than 2004 rates, and the whole thing beats the CPI dating back to 1991.

"Cube rat?" You can surely do better than that. If you can't win on the terms, you attack the person.
rube is offline  
Old 07-06-2015, 06:23 PM
  #57  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 394
Default

Originally Posted by rube View Post
Well bless your heart, you just asked the stupidest question ever posed on APC. Congratulations.

Profit sharing takes just one bad quarter to vanish for the whole year. Pay concessions take a trip to bankruptcy court, plus an 1113 filing. That took three years last time before we got to LOA 46. Hard rates compound over time, increase our share of the profit sharing pie as a hedge versus dilution among a larger pool of employees, and are subject to negotiation, while variable compensation follows the whim of the market.

The TA rates pay more than 2004 rates, and the whole thing beats the CPI dating back to 1991.

"Cube rat?" You can surely do better than that. If you can't win on the terms, you attack the person.
You made a blanket statement that rates can be locked in - and in this post by your own words they can't. That makes everything you posted the stupidest on APC.

You're real good at parroting sailingfun though, I have to admit.

One more thing - don't lecture me on airline bankruptcy, been there, done that, 3 damn times.
texavia is offline  
Old 07-06-2015, 06:28 PM
  #58  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ImTumbleweed's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 328
Default

Originally Posted by rube View Post
Well bless your heart, you just asked the stupidest question ever posed on APC. Congratulations.

Profit sharing takes just one bad quarter to vanish for the whole year. Pay concessions take a trip to bankruptcy court, plus an 1113 filing. That took three years last time before we got to LOA 46. Hard rates compound over time, increase our share of the profit sharing pie as a hedge versus dilution among a larger pool of employees, and are subject to negotiation, while variable compensation follows the whim of the market.

The TA rates pay more than 2004 rates, and the whole thing beats the CPI dating back to 1991.

"Cube rat?" You can surely do better than that. If you can't win on the terms, you attack the person.
You must be really fun to fly with...if you fly.

IT'S NOT ABOUT PAY! It's about the MASSIVE concessions.

ImTumbleweed is offline  
Old 07-06-2015, 07:46 PM
  #59  
Gets Weekends Off
 
newKnow's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Default

Originally Posted by Falcon7 View Post
When United is negotiating their next contract, about the same time we will be BTW:

777A DAL $330.03 UAL $278.36 18.6%

330A DAL $311.74 UAL $278.36 12%

7ERA DAL $276.24 UAL $ 232.15 19%

739/321 DAL $266.28 UAL $224.04 18%

A DAL 717 will pay more than a wide-body at UAL:

DAL 717A $238.36 UAL 7ERA $232.15
What about American Airlines pilots? Do you have those rates to compare?
newKnow is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 05:37 AM
  #60  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Default

Originally Posted by newKnow View Post
What about American Airlines pilots? Do you have those rates to compare?
I don't have time to post the tables but will will exceed American's rates on every aircraft type. The average is 3.5% higher on 1 JAN 16. If we believe the forum we will also see profits that will generate at least 14% more in PS for a total of 17.5% more then American.
sailingfun is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
WatchThis!
United
254
02-10-2013 06:07 PM
sl0wr0ll3r
United
114
11-22-2010 03:40 PM
Redeye Pilot
United
92
10-19-2010 08:02 PM
RockBottom
Major
0
01-07-2006 03:24 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices