Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-22-2012 | 03:30 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
05-22-2012 | 03:36 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
Bombardier is more than willing to eat 50-seater contracts if new 76-seaters are ordered. The sticking point is our contract permitting only 153 76-seat RJs.
Certainly that was worth money for the company to eliminate a loss-leading fleet and replace it with a newer more cost effective fleet.
Somehow our NC was unable to monetize the financial benefit to the company in a way that adds to a contract that was promised as "leading the industry." Because well before the RJ deal that was what TO promised to deliver to the Delta pilots.
The early opener, quick contract and scope relief should have returned some value on top of an industry-leading contract. The TA presented doesn't reflect the added value of industry-leading plus.
Cheers
George
Certainly that was worth money for the company to eliminate a loss-leading fleet and replace it with a newer more cost effective fleet.
Somehow our NC was unable to monetize the financial benefit to the company in a way that adds to a contract that was promised as "leading the industry." Because well before the RJ deal that was what TO promised to deliver to the Delta pilots.
The early opener, quick contract and scope relief should have returned some value on top of an industry-leading contract. The TA presented doesn't reflect the added value of industry-leading plus.
Cheers
George
And this is why the TA should never have left the MEC.
But since it did, it should get voted down and the DPA will be given another chance.
If there has ever been a more EPIC FAILURE by Dalpa, I am not aware of it. Walking away from the table is an option.
05-22-2012 | 03:39 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
05-22-2012 | 03:40 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
05-22-2012 | 03:43 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
I think you are reading that wrong. All of the ratios/airplanes/etc in Section 1 are tied to Category A (us) and Category C (DCI). Category B (Alaska outsourcing) is NOT included in any calculations. I think that means we are UNTIED to Alaska outsourcing. They can do as much of it as they want and, if I read between the lines correctly, we can use it as much as we want, also.
I disagree, we are tied to Alaska's section 1 in this agreement and have to honor their's even though we have no control.
05-22-2012 | 03:49 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
The ironic thing about the fill 35% a new hire class with airmen from a DALPA DCI carrier... wait til GoJet has a ALPA drive.
Would ALPA say no after saying yes to Continental?
Would ALPA say no after saying yes to Continental?
05-22-2012 | 03:51 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Delta pilot deal allows it to add regional jets - BusinessWeek
So we are voting to allow a scope sale and a reduction in profit sharing?
So we are voting to allow a scope sale and a reduction in profit sharing?
05-22-2012 | 04:00 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
Delta pilot deal allows it to add regional jets - BusinessWeek
So we are voting to allow a scope sale and a reduction in profit sharing?
So we are voting to allow a scope sale and a reduction in profit sharing?
Walk away from the table NC.
05-22-2012 | 04:03 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 4
Obviously there are a ton of areas to sift through with this TA. Here are some of big issues I have on first pass:
More large RJs. The company can't wait to get them! Someone smarter than me will have to explain why this is a good thing for us. Maybe total scope is an improvement, maybe not. This section should be picked apart, put back together and picked apart again. We need to be thinking worst case. We need to make sure that there are provisions in the event that mainline parks jets though.
SWA just deferred aircraft orders. If they are indeed getting rid of the 717's, where are those pilots going to go? Is there any chance that they are taking Delta's 737 order slots in exchange for the 717's? If not, where does SWA put all of the AirTran guys that won't have an airplane to fly? If we do give up 737 slots, are we keeping the 757's & 767's longer?
A320 and M88 guys (and possibly future 717 pilots) are still underpaid compared to the 737 pilots. 124 seats in a 737-700 shouldn't pay $8-$10 more an hour than the 160 seat M90's or A320's. I think this area needs a lot of thought. All the narrow bodies ought to be lumped together (minus the 757). 4, 8, 3, 3 barely keeps up with inflation. Section 3 really is an insult.
A cut in profit sharing??? Really? This might be the straw that breaks my back just out of principle (if scope ends up being a positive for us, otherwise its a definite deal breaker too). The company is setup to rake in record profits and we agree to 4, 8, 3, 3 and reduced profit sharing??? Maybe someone can explain to me, but if we go over 2.5 billion, do we make the 20% on all of it, or just the amount over 2.5? For example, if we had a 2.8 billion profit, would we get 10% on the first 2.5 and then 20% on the 300 million, or 20% on the full 2.8 billion?
Per Diem is still very low for the places we go. You have to live pretty tight to get by on $50 in NYC on your 24 hour layover.
I'm at the bottom of the list and I sure hope that they didn't use any negotiating capital for any of the furlough protections. The company is virtually certain we won't be furloughing anytime on the horizon. Towards the end of the decade, they won't be able to hire guys fast enough. That said, the protections are nice - I just hope we didn't pay anything for them.
Someone mentioned that training pay for distributed training goes to 1 for 2, but my contract still shows 1 for 3 and xxx for training pay? Maybe they have updated that since (I haven't downloaded it again).
7 short calls? The increase in reserve pay is nice, but combined with the increase in ALV, might require less pilots.
Again, first pass so I'm sure there are other issues, but these are the ones that struck me most. Like most of you, I just can't get excited about this thing.
More large RJs. The company can't wait to get them! Someone smarter than me will have to explain why this is a good thing for us. Maybe total scope is an improvement, maybe not. This section should be picked apart, put back together and picked apart again. We need to be thinking worst case. We need to make sure that there are provisions in the event that mainline parks jets though.
SWA just deferred aircraft orders. If they are indeed getting rid of the 717's, where are those pilots going to go? Is there any chance that they are taking Delta's 737 order slots in exchange for the 717's? If not, where does SWA put all of the AirTran guys that won't have an airplane to fly? If we do give up 737 slots, are we keeping the 757's & 767's longer?
A320 and M88 guys (and possibly future 717 pilots) are still underpaid compared to the 737 pilots. 124 seats in a 737-700 shouldn't pay $8-$10 more an hour than the 160 seat M90's or A320's. I think this area needs a lot of thought. All the narrow bodies ought to be lumped together (minus the 757). 4, 8, 3, 3 barely keeps up with inflation. Section 3 really is an insult.
A cut in profit sharing??? Really? This might be the straw that breaks my back just out of principle (if scope ends up being a positive for us, otherwise its a definite deal breaker too). The company is setup to rake in record profits and we agree to 4, 8, 3, 3 and reduced profit sharing??? Maybe someone can explain to me, but if we go over 2.5 billion, do we make the 20% on all of it, or just the amount over 2.5? For example, if we had a 2.8 billion profit, would we get 10% on the first 2.5 and then 20% on the 300 million, or 20% on the full 2.8 billion?
Per Diem is still very low for the places we go. You have to live pretty tight to get by on $50 in NYC on your 24 hour layover.
I'm at the bottom of the list and I sure hope that they didn't use any negotiating capital for any of the furlough protections. The company is virtually certain we won't be furloughing anytime on the horizon. Towards the end of the decade, they won't be able to hire guys fast enough. That said, the protections are nice - I just hope we didn't pay anything for them.
Someone mentioned that training pay for distributed training goes to 1 for 2, but my contract still shows 1 for 3 and xxx for training pay? Maybe they have updated that since (I haven't downloaded it again).
7 short calls? The increase in reserve pay is nice, but combined with the increase in ALV, might require less pilots.
Again, first pass so I'm sure there are other issues, but these are the ones that struck me most. Like most of you, I just can't get excited about this thing.
05-22-2012 | 04:16 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
I've stuck (more or less) to my New Year's resolution to stay off this board, as it was sucking the life out of me.
And I don't really intend to change that, but I couldn't help but notice the incredible hypocrisy and double talk coming from many on here. Consider the following:
1. Guys like Carl complained at the time of the merger, that even though hourly rates went up, his pay went down because of the low reserve guarantee. Now that's been fixed, and guys are whining. For a guy currently on reserve and getting 70 hours of pay, moving the guarantee to 80 (assuming an 82 ALV), coupled with the contractual pay raises results in a 29% increase in W2 on 1/1/13! Not too shabby.
And I don't really intend to change that, but I couldn't help but notice the incredible hypocrisy and double talk coming from many on here. Consider the following:
1. Guys like Carl complained at the time of the merger, that even though hourly rates went up, his pay went down because of the low reserve guarantee. Now that's been fixed, and guys are whining. For a guy currently on reserve and getting 70 hours of pay, moving the guarantee to 80 (assuming an 82 ALV), coupled with the contractual pay raises results in a 29% increase in W2 on 1/1/13! Not too shabby.
Either way, moving the reserve guarantee from 70 to 80 means fewer pilots required, right?
2. ALPA used to say DCI wasn't a big factor because they were only 15% of total ASMs. Guys on this board lambasted that and said its all about block hours; ASMs are irrelevant. Now, ALPA substantially increases the block hour ratio, grounding several hundred DCI jets, and guys say that doesn't matter; it's all about size. So which is it?
4. Guys hated profit sharing when we traded pay to get it. They said it will never pay off, it's subject to bean counter manipulation, etc. They said SHOW ME THE MONEY. Now, ALPA negotiates a "modest" decrease in profit sharing, while still maintaining the top bracket (20% of all income above $2.5B goes to the employees -- think if AAPL had that!), and you're complaining.
5. Lastly, and most importantly, if you want to know why our "team" of professional airline pilots are not winning this game, look at your teammates. Every time Delta ALPA comes up to bat, we hit a single. Not sexy, the crowd doesn't go wild, but we hit a single and get on base. Next comes APA -- swing for the fences, but strke out. Then comes USAir -- swinging for that fence again, strikeout. Sadly, our brothers at UCAL appear to be doing the same thing.
I think you can look around and see how people feel about that.
Even SWAPA. Because all of us took 4 giant steps backward, they ended up at the front of the line. They work for a company making record profits year in and year out, and now they are finally out front with a chance to LEAD the profession, and what do they do? Do they eliminate the need to buy your job with a type rating paid for by yourself? NO. Do they take an aggressive stance against management and get solid pay raises? NO. They aren't even close to what we negotiated back in 2001 for pay, yet they've had 38 years of unparalleled profitability. Talk about "we'll get 'em next time!" No, they have put themselves in neutral, waiting for us to pass them by, so they can get their cost advantage again, and use that to grow their airline.
BTW, SWA doesn't require you to pay for your type rating and we're not even close to what was negotiated in 2001.
k?
Last edited by forgot to bid; 05-22-2012 at 04:49 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
