George, you and I are in complete agreement, but there is nothing we can do about it right now. I'm a little surprised we are not furloughing a few hundred pilots for 24 months as a result of this single MOU.
My concern is that we see this sort of contractual side step of ratification happening via MOU's and grievance settlements. The most shocking example being that of the American Eagle waiver of Section 1 by their Grievance Committee Chair.
IMHO ANY change to Section 1 should be at least an MEC vote. Strangely, and inexplicably, our MEC defends the status quo. It is like they want to continue to trade in our job protection provisions, but don't want the responsibility ... a "super committee of one." When he dirt hits the fan, the Reps can blame the "one" and replace him without much political fall out.
Perhaps a resolution at the lower levels would at least get this talked about on the MEC level.
So there's nothing we can do about this? Really?
I know you hate talking about this Bar, but there IS something we can do about it. 4,000 pilots plus and growing have already decided.
Carl
__________________
I'm an airline pilot - so I got that goin for me....which is nice.
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
My wife is working on me to want to have them... she wanted one yesterday. I suppose next year will be the year I start trying to send one past the goalie.....
If sex is the Novocain that makes marriage possible then saying "we're going to start trying and sometimes it takes a year or so" must be the Oxycontin.
You're world will change forever for the better that first time they make real eye contact with you and smile and you realize you're everything to them... do that math on how long that takes though and hang in there til then.
To make this relevant, I've made one landing in a real MD-88 in 50 days but I am primed and ready for any catastrophe, RTO, OEI, GPWS or windshear event or even a simple go-around thanks to recurrent. What's nice is they put the ATL guys in the 90 sim for recurrent, that sim is niiiiice. But I must say the crew resources emailers are fascinating to read.
Originally Posted by Delta1067
What are PERPS?
Early retirement program.
That's one way to put it. Another way would be for DALPA to allow pilots to retire, then come back and fly the line while being off the seniority list. With 1000 guys on furlough no less.....
Great program, hope to see that again.
I wasn't a fan of it either, but that is what happens when you only have to give 24 hours to retire. When things started to hit the fan before Bankruptcy, everyone was thinking about it. Every senior Delta 777 Captain could have left within 24 hours. How do you staff a fleet if that is the case? How do you plan for contingencies when every 777 Captain could bail out? I am not pro-company per se, but that PERP program allowed retiring check airmen to stick around long enough to train other people to cover for the bailing pilots. It wasn't perfect, but it kept the fleet flying. Had those planes been parked, we would have had even worse problems. The problem was allowing 24 hour notice for retirement. How about 30 days min? Give everyone a chance to start training or issue a bid to cover.
I viewed the PERP as the companies get out of jail free card that we stupidly gave them, whereas bankruptcy these days is not the failure of a business plan, it IS the plan. Just like people who ran up vast amounts on credit cards, and then filed for bankruptcy, knowing full well all along that would be their scapegoat.
That's because SWAPA values scope above all else...even more than pay. SWA management knows that. That's why SWA is currently the best airline to fly for. If only DALPA had the same feeling about scope.
Saling;
I did more than call the office. I talked to the person responsible for crafting this language face to face, and then via e-mail at length.
If we were at 0, 0 then 49.5 we would have bigger problems to deal with. Under the terms spelled out in MOU 14, once reaching 49.50 it is considered 50-50 and at that point a new measurement period starts. There is no look back for this scenario. They basically have three years to get there since we started at 47.2 with the addition of AZ. Some purport we could go to 0, 0 then be in compliance and that may true, but unrealistic. The bigger game is we get half of the EASK's available going forward.
What George mentions about there being no bottom end compliance right now is as far as I can tell, and as far as I have been told by those who crafted the language, is true, but not likely. We are in the initial three year measurement period with AZ. We are not even in compliance with the new balance. Once that happens what you state is true.
I may disagree with a new measurement period being down via MOU, but this language and how it is implemented is very complex. It involves the DAL marketing agreements with the other JV carriers and then them with us. What this team did was keep a even percentage of EASK's for our pilots. Yes, the corrective window will not happen for a few years, but the long term gains are significant. We have only seen a down side to the capacity since it was drafted, if there is ever an up side, we will profit handsomely. With the profit and loss of the Bundle 1 flying being shared equally, it gives incentives beyond the language in LOA 16 and MOU 14 to keep the flying as close to equal as possible. Each side gets a few city pairs they can opt out of each year, but as a whole the profit loss is shared, and therefore, the execs want the risk and exposure shared equally.
Who are the IDIOTS that craft this kind of language? Anything that takes "a few years" to see corrections for is incompetent. Seriously. I had a certain amount of (faith?) in the negotiators, but this kind of stuff really gives me pause.
Who are the IDIOTS that craft this kind of language?
ALPA lawyers...that's who. You know, the best lawyers money can buy. But like you said the other day: "if ALPA can't do it, what makes you think DPA could?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsquare
Anything that takes "a few years" to see corrections for is incompetent. Seriously.
You are seriously correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsquare
I had a certain amount of (faith?) in the negotiators, but this kind of stuff really gives me pause.
I'm glad it gives you pause. But we've got DALPA people posting here telling us that these JV's are really good for Delta pilots.
Carl
__________________
I'm an airline pilot - so I got that goin for me....which is nice.
I'm glad it gives you pause. But we've got DALPA people posting here telling us that these JV's are really good for Delta pilots.
Carl
Admittedly, I do not know enough about how the JVs work to offer an intelligent opinion as to their validity or value to DAL pilots. I DO know that I have seen nothing but retraction in NY since August, and not in small numbers. As to how it affects the rest of the company I have no real idea.
I think a lot of this just might be by design. I know that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I am not drooling on myself either and I speak and read English (my FAA license says so) So why is this language of such complexity that a college educated guy like myself has to go to law school to understand it? Precisely so that those that DO understand it can manipulate those of us that don't. But here is where common sense just might be applicable: I see shrinkage in NY of copious amounts. I see little return. Therefore, IMHO these agreements are not working for the betterment of the DAL pilots. I think it really IS that simple. 2 CDG routes do not make up for the loss in September of 9 international destinations from NYC, and you would be hard pressed to convince me otherwise. So... all you that are convinced that these JVs are helping us out.. tell me what it is that we got for all that international flying that DAL has cancelled... I wait with bated breath...
Actually, I think there is some confusion. We are referring to the latest early out programs, not the DAL pre BK ones. Maybe they were called PRIPs? Sorry for the confusion.
The latest early out programs provide incentive for the more senior pilots to retire. I think we all are in favor of that. The retirees prior to BK had no incentive to retire other than to try and protect their lump sum. Some of them came back for up to six months as PRP's but they were not provided an incentive to retire. All the FO's flying with them encouraged them to retire and most of them did. Some who didn't regretted it, others had time to recover. If we encourage senior pilots to retire and then complain about the deal in later years, are we not being two-faced?
Similar Threads
What's nice is they put the ATL guys in the 90 sim for recurrent, that sim is niiiiice. But I must say the crew resources emailers are fascinating to read.
Linear Mode
