1) You can't deny that Delta had a very good company culture, nor that good employee relations was part of the foundation of this culture. Employees were treated well, and they treated the customers well. You can't deny that between Ron Allen and Mullen, a lot was done to trample that culture.
2) You can't deny that there were fundamental approaches in employee relations at Delta and Northwest, which resulted in different cultures. Stating this does not imply that any employee group is better than the other.
3) You can't deny that the industry has been beaten down, and that most airlines today are a shadow of their former self.
4) You can't deny we would all benefit from transitioning to a culture that treats all employees as valuable assets, and rewards them as such. It wouldn't be particularly important at that point to describe what the basis for that culture is, i.e whether it's "Delta culture" revived, or something else.
As more subjective points, I have seen in over a decade, much better employee relations, and a much more pleasant culture. I can't compare it to what it was a decade or two prior, and I don't really care anyway. I believe strongly in the proposition that we will live or die based on the service we provide, and that one cannot provide good service when one is not treated like a (high-value) customer by the company, secure in the knowledge that they are properly appreciated, treated, and compensated. One consequence of this approach is that employees treat each other with the utmost respect and courtesy as if we were family (or better), and in turn treat the customers as we would our own family.
Let me kick the agonizing horse one more time on the way out: "utmost courtesy and respect" doesn't mean I will hurt myself because another employee chooses not to pack light, or chooses to pack heavy with the mistaken expectation I will compensate for their poor planning. I'll pull them out of a burning airplane if needed, but I won't carry their:
-(3) Delta wines,
-assorted Delta silverware plates, and napkins,
-nuts, steaks, salads,
-their 6-volume "Mr. Scrappy and Me: a brief History of a Loved Cat and a Lonely Heart", their autographed "Men are From Mars, and They're Hartless Bastards Besides, so Send Them Back to Mars",
-their (lightly used) Thigmasters, their (2) water barbells and (2) bottles of Evian for the water barbells,
-their Weightwatchers entrees (because the food isn't good in Europe),
-the thermos of hot chocolate from the Hotel,
-the 2 Euro bottle of insipid cheap wine,
-the (3) bottles of olive oil that costs 17 cents less,
-the Chinese-made water bowl they found in Milan for Mr. Scrappy,
-(6) pairs of shoes (3 high-heels depending on the gauge of cobblestone they need to get stuck in, one pair of furry slippers to wear above ten thousand feet, on pair of tiny high-heeled boots to stuff one's leg into between the airplane and the van, and something from Sketchers to wear in the van).
And that's just the guys.
ROTFLMAO!
Cheers
George
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
They might say it, but how many actually have the stones to write it down, sign it, and send it out to the membership unsolicited?
I've been lied to in writing before, so I'm slightly underwhelmed. I'm not saying it's not positive, but I'm saying that talk is cheap, while most written commitments made by anyone in this industry are not worth the paper they're printed. I don't know where e-mails fit on the scale next to the other two.
What's positive about this is that it could force the MEC to make a commitment of this nature as a group. It's really not too much to ask for that they promise not to make Section 1 worse than it already is, is it? Then again, even that would merely add a promise that may or may not be complied with because of "unforeseen" circumstances. Which makes it kind of interesting in terms of local politics, or MEC politics, but that's about it.
Position: Douglas Flight Test & Work Around Engineering Field Representative
Posts: 7,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sink r8
I'll pull them out of a burning airplane if needed, but I won't carry their:
-(3) Delta wines,
-assorted Delta silverware plates, and napkins,
-nuts, steaks, salads,
-their 6-volume "Mr. Scrappy and Me: a brief History of a Loved Cat and a Lonely Heart", their autographed "Men are From Mars, and They're Hartless Bastards Besides, so Send Them Back to Mars",
-their (lightly used) Thigmasters, their (2) water barbells and (2) bottles of Evian for the water barbells,
-their Weightwatchers entrees (because the food isn't good in Europe),
-the thermos of hot chocolate from the Hotel,
-the 2 Euro bottle of insipid cheap wine,
-the (3) bottles of olive oil that costs 17 cents less,
-the Chinese-made water bowl they found in Milan for Mr. Scrappy,
-(6) pairs of shoes (3 high-heels depending on the gauge of cobblestone they need to get stuck in, one pair of furry slippers to wear above ten thousand feet, on pair of tiny high-heeled boots to stuff one's leg into between the airplane and the van, and something from Sketchers to wear in the van).
Position: Douglas Flight Test & Work Around Engineering Field Representative
Posts: 7,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuGuy
Heyas,
In the rumor mill today:
The company informed ALPA that they have no interest in 100 seaters.
Nu
Let me guess, the source of this rumor was ... .
Or in other words, when you buy a car do you walk into the dealer and scream, I JUST GOTTA HAVE THAT CAR, THE RED ONE, I'LL PAY ANYTHING !!!, or do you say "nah, I don't really need a car, just looking today, but if you've got a really good incentive I'd listen."
Both management and ALPA are aware of the politically sensitive nature of scope discussions. IF they announced an intent to acquire 100 seat jets we would all be on our phones to our Reps asking them to dig in their heels and go on record with regard to a negotiating position. This activity would deny ALPA and Management the flexibility that they want in future negotiations.
Transparency just makes things more difficult ... but a fait accompli is a pretty easy sell around here.
As sink points out above, nobody's going on record, even on a topic which should be common sense. If the "FOR SALE" sign is permanently off our jobs, then it should not be difficult to state that position and build consensus around it.
Position: Douglas Flight Test & Work Around Engineering Field Representative
Posts: 7,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
.. he stated that he heard 45 MD90s would be going to MEM. It sounded strange, but I posted it, as a rumor.
I'll believe it when I board and smell Rendezvous Sauce instead of the unique combination of methane, acetate, ethylene glycol that says "Douglas Jet" to my remaining olfactory sense.
If they never state it as the reason, then they'll just appear as intransigent in front of the NMB. If they do state that as the reason, the NMB would quickly slap management down as attempting to negotiate outside the scope of the RLA. Either way, management loses with this concept.
The ONLY way they can win is if we pilots EXCUSE it as part of the Delta "culture."
Carl
I'm not condoning this concept at all. Just that it exists. You and I are on the same page.
IF they announced an intent to acquire 100 seat jets we would all be on our phones to our Reps asking them to dig in their heels and go on record with regard to a negotiating position. This activity would deny ALPA and Management the flexibility that they want in future negotiations.
If that were true, what would ever be the point of announcing the intent to buy anything new? Does it really take phone calls to our reps to get then to understand that this is what we expect? iow, I don't want my reps caving immediately... well.. ever for that matter, but should I really have to call them to convey that feeling?
I know, I fly MD88s out of ATL. This 320 FO I knew from the past came up to me and provided that rumor. Yes, I know it would be an MD88 category out of MEM, but he stated that he heard 45 MD90s would be going to MEM. It sounded strange, but I posted it, as a rumor. I NEVER SAID there was going to be an MD90 category in MEM. Just that 45 were supposedly headed that way. We are getting a lot more MD90s in the near future, so that rumor has merrit. Maybe Delta will fly a lot of them from MEM to all points, and that may mean an MD88 pilot base there.
If you look at the numbers, we fall short of about 1300 mainline flights a month in MEM which is about 20% of all of the MEM flights-ouch. Divide that out and it's only about 41 flights a day in MEM belong to mainline. To have 45 MD90s would mean you'd assign 1 jet to each flight and leave 4 reserves and no MD90s in MSP to fly those 4 hour legs to the west coast.
Now, 45 flights a month, maybe. That'll be an increase of about 18 of the current MD90 flights. 45 a week? That will work. It'd be an increase of nearly 40 flights a day over what the 90 does already. It could be taking from the 9 which has 60 flights a week, take from the 200 A320/319 flights a week or some combination of take away or additional flights as things are rearranged as new 90s arrive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuGuy
Heyas,
In the rumor mill today:
The company informed ALPA that they have no interest in 100 seaters.
Council 20 decided to publish flight pay loss information. No way around it at the MEC level.
That is all...
Nu
Maybe Delta doesn't have any interest in 100 seaters. The only 100 seater out there is the EMB-190 btw. C-Series is bigger than 100 seats and the E195 is larger. However, the C-Series and Ejets equal the "100 seater" in most everyone's mind.
Maybe what the company means, if it was true that it was said and true that they meant it, is that they don't want a E-Jet at mainline and C-Series but maybe their interested in 117 seaters?
If that were true, what would ever be the point of announcing the intent to buy anything new? Does it really take phone calls to our reps to get then to understand that this is what we expect? iow, I don't want my reps caving immediately... well.. ever for that matter, but should I really have to call them to convey that feeling?
No you shouldn't. The fact that we have to do just that is sad, but it is reality as you are well aware.
At the end of this process, it will almost assuredly be our responsibility to vote NO on the first TA. We'll have to vote NO even after hearing from the MEC that: "This is as good as it's going to get, and if you vote NO, we'll have start all over from the beginning with a new MEC, blah, blah, blah."
Carl
__________________
I'm an airline pilot - so I got that goin for me....which is nice.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
