Buck Rogers

It may not lead to enlightenment but you have a very valid point. Management does take 'unionism" into account....but the time horizon on that gambit is longer term than fleet structure and training costs.

Whether you are just being facetious or not your "metric" is also a big player.

fishforfun

You are being very disingenuous with your stance. What has the company’s position been?
1. We are over staffed
2. We need to cut costs (when it’s convenient and doesn’t upset other employee groups)

What steps has our management taken to achieve either of these? How do these steps compare to other employee groups at delta? How do these steps compare to other airlines.

I 100% standby that the company has not been an honest broker and had levers to pull that would have caused much less pain.

Why run a bid prior to offering a VEOP?
Do SILs save money?
Would a USSERA waiver for mil leave be beneficial?

These are just a few options we could have offered but chose not to. You still stand by the “whataboutisms?” If so, you have missed the point and form is more important than function. It doesn’t change what our management team has done and not done.

Buck Rogers

I am not trying to be disingenuous. Each airline has it's own idiosyncrasies. Comparing Alaska and Soutwest to each other is fairly comparable. Comparing UAL to Horizon....mmm, not so much. Delta has wide bodies, very complex training tail, international exposure to covid and non union employee groups. Southwest? Alaska? ALPA is doing its job of protecting jobs( this is arguable depending on your seniority) and management is looking at a bigger picture( I didn't say more valid...just bigger/different).

Basically, I see this all as political theater. It is easy to emotionally spool people up by pointing out perceived/real failures. Is it possible that management puts the cost of SIL's for pilots as greater than the savings when other non union factions start doing their "whataboutidm"? IDK either....but management has their thoughts on the subject. For me to acknowledge it is not disingenuous.....to refuse to believe its existensence is folly. Hurt feelings is an emotional argument, ' it's not fair" is too, when the comps aren't realistic.

peace, out

notEnuf

True the business models are very different but they are our strongest domestic competitor. It's all about the domestic recovery for Delta and SWA. While the SIL type paid leave is a viable untried tool there will be no agreement. This only affects the cost side of the equation and will have very little impact on the whole, which is a revenue problem. The fact that they are not being tried is all about internal Delta optics which make me understand that even management thinks they are inconsequential. To not give SILs a chance to prove the savings means there is no desperation in the cost containment.

Buck Rogers

Well , I sorta agree. I think another possibility is that even if THERE IS desperation in the cost containment....SIL's won't make a meaningful difference..10 million a month difference isn't peanuts but with $15-18B its marginal at best When they failed to offer SIL's and we were losing $3B a month it was chump change. The optics of other groups has to be compared to the optics of the pilots from the mgt perspective. ALPA is certainly trying to use the lack of SIL's as a rallying cry. To me it's more of an emotional issue as opposed to a financial issue. As opposed to stock investments....the emotional issues may be more enlightening/damaging than the short term monetary savings. Stocks dont care if I'm miffed, employees do......I'm pretty sure management understands this. Hopefully their scales are balanced properly, otherwise it may bite 'em in the ole arse.

fishforfun

Is it an emotional issue to have awarded a bid that displaced thousands before offering a VEOP? Can you attempt to explain that timing?

Gen6

Love or hate JL, he managed to get the NC to put something out publicly for the pilots to read and discuss. That only took 100 plus days.

cornbeef007

My thoughts are hardly emotional...

1) Management eluded to the fact that SILs would be offered.

2) They could have offered SILs to this point and would have saved a lot of money. They decided not to.

3) Ran the MOAD and made it brutal in a manner to create leverage.

4) Using the UNAs as leverage for an ALV reduction.

What they are doing is creating a reason for the ALV reduction. Your falling for it but luckily two of three UNAs aren’t.

I wanted nothing more than to stay home and keep my family away from COVID but Delta has me flying 72 hour lines with a ton of credit built into the trips (3 day trips with 6 hours of flying). They could have built more productive trips but they wanted to get blood out of as many of us as they can. Up to this point they would have saved money if I would have been parked. Not to mention all the international guys who haven’t done anything at all.

At the same time...the “fake virus”, “democratic created” crowd could have flown more hours if they wanted.

You want Delta to succeed and be the most glorious airline ever. I get that, me too. But your willingness to sell out our pilots in order to achieve an operational advantage over American, Alaska and Southwest is emotional.

GivemeVSP

Are you related to SailingFUD?

Read the Negotiators Notepad. American has now saved $130M with their paid leave programs. Delta management has now passed up at least that in potential savings. Do they really need savings?

There are more levers to pull than this ALV cut management is fixated on!

Corndog

It seems like SILs are great for those senior enough to hold them. Sit home or double dip. Who wouldn't want to do this? What about everyone else on the list who can't hold them; who now has to work harder to carry the weight, who otherwise could have had a couple extra days off on reserve maybe, or more days off on a 60-65 hr line? Of course it would vary in category quite a bit.


Obviously those not furloughed will be happy to be working and any solution is better than letting guys get furloughed. But it doesn't seem like the fairest way to do it to me either. I'm wrong a lot and I'm still making up my mind. But all the emotional calling out and character attacks definitely doesn't sway me, it does the opposite.

ALV reduction does seem like a much better deal for the company, but I really don't know how far that flexibility and savings would go toward recovery, nor do I necessarily trust them to be honest about their motives in any case. It would be great to see a third party break down the cost/benefit of the disparate sils across fleets and the training that goes with it. If half of a wide body fleet is out on SIL I could see that as a cost and flexibility problem when its time to adjust or even fine-tune but I really have no idea and would love to see numbers I trusted.


I'm hopeful the NC has a more creative solution in mind that I'm not smart enough to see. Definitely a possibility, they did great with the VEOP.