Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-22-2012, 05:05 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by Going2Baja
AS entire scope is in 3 pages and doesn't mention rj seat size. I can email to you if you'd like.
Baja.
Baja.
05-22-2012, 05:14 AM
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 793
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
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.
05-22-2012, 05:18 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Calling ftb
As the resident graphic designer, would it be possible for you to gen up a flow chart showing the scope tradeoffs? IOW how many large "regional" jets can come online at any given time, and in conjunction with the removal of how many 50 seaters... how many 717s do we have to actually see in DAL livery before the company can buy any large "regional" jets? It will be a tough assignment. Probably harder than making sense of an insurance policy... But you seem to have a good handle on the graphic stuff needed. Possible?
05-22-2012, 05:21 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 478
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
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.
You forgot to add, they have one MORE day of short call and now can be flown ALV +15. That's easy math right there, if I work more, I'll make more......
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?
It shouldn't be an either/or. I believe the sentiment was "not one more seat/pound/aircraft" under the new section 1.
3. Guys wanted SWA pay on day 1. This contract achieves that, when factoring in the differential DC contributions.
SWA pay is more than an hourly rate. Let's compare equivalent W-2's.
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.
We didn't "TRADE" pay to get it, our pay was taken away under the threat of an 1113c contract, it was a "bone" thrown by the company.
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.
You have the right analogy/strategy except you forgot ONE small part. Small ball (multiple singles, etc) does WIN ball games, BUT you have to get a runner across the plate to put a run on the board. Stranding men of base does NOTHING.
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.
You forgot to add, they have one MORE day of short call and now can be flown ALV +15. That's easy math right there, if I work more, I'll make more......
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?
It shouldn't be an either/or. I believe the sentiment was "not one more seat/pound/aircraft" under the new section 1.
3. Guys wanted SWA pay on day 1. This contract achieves that, when factoring in the differential DC contributions.
SWA pay is more than an hourly rate. Let's compare equivalent W-2's.
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.
We didn't "TRADE" pay to get it, our pay was taken away under the threat of an 1113c contract, it was a "bone" thrown by the company.
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.
You have the right analogy/strategy except you forgot ONE small part. Small ball (multiple singles, etc) does WIN ball games, BUT you have to get a runner across the plate to put a run on the board. Stranding men of base does NOTHING.
05-22-2012, 05:34 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 29
The pay raise we will see doesn't even get us back to where we were 12 years ago. New min day 4:30 will mean working 18 days a month. Additional RJ flying, what else am I missing. We hear you loud and clear! I don't think so....
05-22-2012, 05:35 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 478
Note one: Upon the delivery of a 223rd 76-seat aircraft, the number of
39 permitted 50-seat aircraft will be 125 regardless of the number otherwise
40 provided in Exception one.
41 Note two: If on January 1, 2014, or any succeeding January 1 thereafter, the
42 number of 50-seat aircraft in category A or C operations exceeds the
43 maximum permitted number, the Company will require carriers that engage
44 in category A or C operations to suspend or cease operations on a sufficient
45 number of 50-seat aircraft or 76-seat aircraft to comply with these
46 requirements within 60 days and to remain in compliance thereafter. The
Section 1 - Scope
1-7
1 Company will be excused from compliance with the provisions of this Note in
2 the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control is the
3 cause of such non-compliance.
NO
Guess what another Sep 11th, another economic downturn, another STUPID management decision and we'll be screwed again!!!
39 permitted 50-seat aircraft will be 125 regardless of the number otherwise
40 provided in Exception one.
41 Note two: If on January 1, 2014, or any succeeding January 1 thereafter, the
42 number of 50-seat aircraft in category A or C operations exceeds the
43 maximum permitted number, the Company will require carriers that engage
44 in category A or C operations to suspend or cease operations on a sufficient
45 number of 50-seat aircraft or 76-seat aircraft to comply with these
46 requirements within 60 days and to remain in compliance thereafter. The
Section 1 - Scope
1-7
1 Company will be excused from compliance with the provisions of this Note in
2 the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control is the
3 cause of such non-compliance.
NO
Guess what another Sep 11th, another economic downturn, another STUPID management decision and we'll be screwed again!!!
05-22-2012, 05:35 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 54
Can someone do the math.....
#large rj's added X pilots per plane= amount of jobs lost at Delta
#large rj's added X pilots per plane= amount of jobs lost at Delta
05-22-2012, 05:37 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
I think I have to walk away too. If you are equating a less-than-ideal TA with defending a child molester, then you have some serious issues, issues that no TA or lack thereof would ever resolve.
Vote NO and be done with it.
Also, sometimes this week's anger is next weeks forgotten afterthought. You cannot even find a negative mention of our C2K on these boards any more. It is held up as an exalted contract that sets the standard for all hopeful future contracts.
And yet, I can remember when it was approved by the membership back in 2000 or early 2001, I had a fellow pilot on the crew bus telling me how he was going to "quit the union" because the contract was "so concessionary." Nothing I tried to tell him would dissuade him from his opinion at the time. Looking back, I am guessing he probably thinks a bit differently now.
That said, absent some info that I haven't discovered yet, I can't see voting for this TA. We could have done better, and should have. I especially hate the "you might get new airplanes" sales pitch. Let's face it. Ultimately, management will buy or not buy the planes they need to run this airline. A TA shouldn't need ratification to lock in our management's business strategy. More carrot and stick BS.
Vote NO and be done with it.
Also, sometimes this week's anger is next weeks forgotten afterthought. You cannot even find a negative mention of our C2K on these boards any more. It is held up as an exalted contract that sets the standard for all hopeful future contracts.
And yet, I can remember when it was approved by the membership back in 2000 or early 2001, I had a fellow pilot on the crew bus telling me how he was going to "quit the union" because the contract was "so concessionary." Nothing I tried to tell him would dissuade him from his opinion at the time. Looking back, I am guessing he probably thinks a bit differently now.
That said, absent some info that I haven't discovered yet, I can't see voting for this TA. We could have done better, and should have. I especially hate the "you might get new airplanes" sales pitch. Let's face it. Ultimately, management will buy or not buy the planes they need to run this airline. A TA shouldn't need ratification to lock in our management's business strategy. More carrot and stick BS.
If your goal is to discredit me, I dont care. My goal is to point out that what we have going on does not work. It is time to do something else.
I have no idea why we have a CBA at all if this TA is the result of their best effort.
05-22-2012, 05:39 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 67
We need to see the official survey results. I want to see the survey results right now. Not so much for the TA vote, but for what will happen next. Let ALL of the facts speak.
05-22-2012, 05:39 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,324
Originally Posted by Columbia
Hot dog carts. The 9 other items you mention i have no answer for. Sorry.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
