Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,989
We would not need a new contract to acquire Hawaiian. In fact it is more likely that we'd seek a new contract in combination with an SLI process agreement (which is ALPA's current model)
My opinion is that most pilots would be willing to wait less than 3 years after our contract's amendable date to get it right. But I think the company underestimates what would happen to the operation due to the anger we would be feeling. We give up 46% of pay and many other things to save the company. It works. The company is hugely profitable 2 years before our contract's amendable date. The company does nothing to shorten our time with these bankruptcy wages. Instead saying: "a contract is a contract." Fine. But to then try and further increase that time with bankruptcy wages by exploiting the section 6 process would be the last straw for many. That anger would show up in operational statistics that management could not handle.
Carl
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 93
I think RA said in an LCA meeting that the American pilots would have been further ahead if they had taken 3%/year for the last five years. Instead they thought asking for 52% up front would net them something acceptable. Bankruptcy came before acceptable.
Our situation is different than the APA had, but don't forget that there is a time value to our money, and a value to whatever the "opportunity" is that is driving the company to negotiate. The possible returns of a contract in 5 years have to be weighed against whatever certain gains are presented today, and the contract 5 years from now will not have the value of today's "opportunity". The knock on that door will have gone unanswered, and the value lost. Essentially it is the old adages of "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.", and "opportunity only knocks once."
If the negotiators reach an agreement, consider the agreement in the context of your needs, the industry, the economy, the political climate, the professed NMB attitude Linda Puchala outlined regarding obstinate pilot groups, and make a professional choice.
Personally, I think the attitude of a pilot group that leads to waiting 5 years for a contract displays a disconnect with reality. How can a professional group misjudge so gravely the difference between what is possible with what is desired, that it leads to 5 years of stagnation?
Sailing,
Smart move by management to manage pilot expectations while isolating the Delta pilots from the other employee groups. Management will appear to have acted in good faith and will leave others with the impression that Delta pilot greed was the reason they don't have the contract they desire.
The only thing management needs in the short term is another scope sale.
A traditional union could stand firm against a scope sale and look like they were best representing their pilots' jobs. But, D-ALPA has already ceded the moral high ground of "unity" by authorizing a scope sale in a form of "what if we trade what you want (more jets with 737 CASM), if you give us the political cover of what you don't desire (less 50 seat flying) and more money." The likely real disagreement is going to be scope on the international end, where both management and ALPA both want exclusive control.
From the outset, it appears ALPA is being strategically out maneuvered, but they are not out of moves by a long shot. To win, they've got to change the political dialogue from money to jobs.
STOP OUTSOURCING OUR WORK! resonates with the public, shareholders, fellow employees and the NLRB better than "Screw everyone, WE DEMAND MORE MONEY." If we make this about jobs, then we get more money by being more productive on more aircraft (and larger aircraft) flown by Delta Air Lines. That's the sort of win / win that will get us a better contract (and more money!).
Smart move by management to manage pilot expectations while isolating the Delta pilots from the other employee groups. Management will appear to have acted in good faith and will leave others with the impression that Delta pilot greed was the reason they don't have the contract they desire.
The only thing management needs in the short term is another scope sale.
A traditional union could stand firm against a scope sale and look like they were best representing their pilots' jobs. But, D-ALPA has already ceded the moral high ground of "unity" by authorizing a scope sale in a form of "what if we trade what you want (more jets with 737 CASM), if you give us the political cover of what you don't desire (less 50 seat flying) and more money." The likely real disagreement is going to be scope on the international end, where both management and ALPA both want exclusive control.
From the outset, it appears ALPA is being strategically out maneuvered, but they are not out of moves by a long shot. To win, they've got to change the political dialogue from money to jobs.
STOP OUTSOURCING OUR WORK! resonates with the public, shareholders, fellow employees and the NLRB better than "Screw everyone, WE DEMAND MORE MONEY." If we make this about jobs, then we get more money by being more productive on more aircraft (and larger aircraft) flown by Delta Air Lines. That's the sort of win / win that will get us a better contract (and more money!).
Carl
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,989
Padre,
On my phone, so I can't quote you. You make a very good post.
But, this is not a purely pay disagreement. It is negotiating the terms of what management wants (scope liberalization) against pay. In my case, I would prefer the current deal for five years (versus a scope sale) since it may force Delta to use Delta pilots to perform our work. Pay, for at least 80% of our list, is also determined by position, productivity and schedule.
On my phone, so I can't quote you. You make a very good post.
But, this is not a purely pay disagreement. It is negotiating the terms of what management wants (scope liberalization) against pay. In my case, I would prefer the current deal for five years (versus a scope sale) since it may force Delta to use Delta pilots to perform our work. Pay, for at least 80% of our list, is also determined by position, productivity and schedule.
Interesting statistic leaked from American's lessor, AeroCap, on their 737 order. Apparently they got them for a 50% discount, $35.5 million each.
This explains why Bombardier's getting their head handed to them with their "our airplane is better, but we are not negotiating price" tactic. Boeing and Airbus have amortized all their R&D on narrow body jets years ago. That leaves Bombardier's future jet with a 2 to 3 Billion deficit right off the bat.
This explains why Bombardier's getting their head handed to them with their "our airplane is better, but we are not negotiating price" tactic. Boeing and Airbus have amortized all their R&D on narrow body jets years ago. That leaves Bombardier's future jet with a 2 to 3 Billion deficit right off the bat.
The C-Series might be/have been a fantastic jet. The cockpit and interior look phenomenal. But what can you do if 738s are $35M? It'd be sad to see it die but if it does die, I hope RAH gets saddled with them.
Oh to own a few 738 slots. Oh I wonder how much you could make flipping a slot?
Interesting statistic leaked from American's lessor, AeroCap, on their 737 order. Apparently they got them for a 50% discount, $35.5 million each.
This explains why Bombardier's getting their head handed to them with their "our airplane is better, but we are not negotiating price" tactic. Boeing and Airbus have amortized all their R&D on narrow body jets years ago. That leaves Bombardier's future jet with a 2 to 3 Billion deficit right off the bat.
This explains why Bombardier's getting their head handed to them with their "our airplane is better, but we are not negotiating price" tactic. Boeing and Airbus have amortized all their R&D on narrow body jets years ago. That leaves Bombardier's future jet with a 2 to 3 Billion deficit right off the bat.
I think RA said in an LCA meeting that the American pilots would have been further ahead if they had taken 3%/year for the last five years. Instead they thought asking for 52% up front would net them something acceptable. Bankruptcy came before acceptable.
Our situation is different than the APA had, but don't forget that there is a time value to our money, and a value to whatever the "opportunity" is that is driving the company to negotiate. The possible returns of a contract in 5 years have to be weighed against whatever certain gains are presented today, and the contract 5 years from now will not have the value of today's "opportunity". The knock on that door will have gone unanswered, and the value lost. Essentially it is the old adages of "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.", and "opportunity only knocks once."
If the negotiators reach an agreement, consider the agreement in the context of your needs, the industry, the economy, the political climate, the professed NMB attitude Linda Puchala outlined regarding obstinate pilot groups, and make a professional choice.
Personally, I think the attitude of a pilot group that leads to waiting 5 years for a contract displays a disconnect with reality. How can a professional group misjudge so gravely the difference between what is possible with what is desired, that it leads to 5 years of stagnation?
Our situation is different than the APA had, but don't forget that there is a time value to our money, and a value to whatever the "opportunity" is that is driving the company to negotiate. The possible returns of a contract in 5 years have to be weighed against whatever certain gains are presented today, and the contract 5 years from now will not have the value of today's "opportunity". The knock on that door will have gone unanswered, and the value lost. Essentially it is the old adages of "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.", and "opportunity only knocks once."
If the negotiators reach an agreement, consider the agreement in the context of your needs, the industry, the economy, the political climate, the professed NMB attitude Linda Puchala outlined regarding obstinate pilot groups, and make a professional choice.
Personally, I think the attitude of a pilot group that leads to waiting 5 years for a contract displays a disconnect with reality. How can a professional group misjudge so gravely the difference between what is possible with what is desired, that it leads to 5 years of stagnation?
That would akin us to asking for total restoration, and not"leading the industry." That moniker alone suggests that the pilots through their surveys realize that a 73% increase to hourly wages is not attainable and on some level realize that the industry has reset though no where near our current level of compensation.
Pushing a 5,5,5,5 will pass. The majority want scope work rules, vacation, sick time and total compensation to lead the industry. Moreover, pilots realize that if they vote yes to a contract less than that of LUV or FDX they Amit through their own vote that patterning up on the best deal currently out there is dead. We effectively shoot ourselves in the face.
I think RA said in an LCA meeting that the American pilots would have been further ahead if they had taken 3%/year for the last five years. Instead they thought asking for 52% up front would net them something acceptable. Bankruptcy came before acceptable.
Our situation is different than the APA had, but don't forget that there is a time value to our money, and a value to whatever the "opportunity" is that is driving the company to negotiate. The possible returns of a contract in 5 years have to be weighed against whatever certain gains are presented today, and the contract 5 years from now will not have the value of today's "opportunity". The knock on that door will have gone unanswered, and the value lost. Essentially it is the old adages of "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.", and "opportunity only knocks once."
If the negotiators reach an agreement, consider the agreement in the context of your needs, the industry, the economy, the political climate, the professed NMB attitude Linda Puchala outlined regarding obstinate pilot groups, and make a professional choice.
Personally, I think the attitude of a pilot group that leads to waiting 5 years for a contract displays a disconnect with reality. How can a professional group misjudge so gravely the difference between what is possible with what is desired, that it leads to 5 years of stagnation?
Our situation is different than the APA had, but don't forget that there is a time value to our money, and a value to whatever the "opportunity" is that is driving the company to negotiate. The possible returns of a contract in 5 years have to be weighed against whatever certain gains are presented today, and the contract 5 years from now will not have the value of today's "opportunity". The knock on that door will have gone unanswered, and the value lost. Essentially it is the old adages of "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.", and "opportunity only knocks once."
If the negotiators reach an agreement, consider the agreement in the context of your needs, the industry, the economy, the political climate, the professed NMB attitude Linda Puchala outlined regarding obstinate pilot groups, and make a professional choice.
Personally, I think the attitude of a pilot group that leads to waiting 5 years for a contract displays a disconnect with reality. How can a professional group misjudge so gravely the difference between what is possible with what is desired, that it leads to 5 years of stagnation?
a: destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b: something given up or lost.
This is the definition of sacrifice. Something that many of us have been intimately familiar with even prior to September 15, 2005. We began voluntarily giving back and sacrificing to help Delta the year prior.
This fact makes this contract negotiation a completely different animal than a regularly scheduled section six. More goes into the calculus of making this decision than as you say the:
1. industry
2. economy
3. political climate
4. Linda Puchala and the NMB's attitude
Additionally, those that have made the sacrifice are intimately familiar with the time value of money. Over eight years and continuing of trying to rebuild our retirements, struggling to fund college savings, retiring debts, and simply making ends meet while being paid considerably less than we were prior to BK will weigh significantly in the calculus of peoples decisions on the next TA. They have lost the access to the time value and will now need more to try and catch up at least to a manageable level.
Finally consider that most of the other employee groups are very close to their pre BK pay rates or have exceeded them in some cases.
How close will this TA get us. How soon will it be here for consideration. All important factors as well. These facts need to be examined in your reality as well.
Oh, and by the way, welcome.... Padre. You know Tomahawk 58?
Last edited by johnso29; 03-30-2012 at 12:44 PM. Reason: Edited to reflect correct original poster of quote
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post