Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-22-2012 | 06:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,876
Likes: 193
Looking at the number of aircraft that we are down since the merger, we would essentially be selling scope so the company could replace the aircraft that have already been parked. This is a very flawed strategy by our MEC. Yet I have a feeling it will be sold as growth.
05-22-2012 | 06:21 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,890
Likes: 0
From: 737A
05-22-2012 | 06:23 AM
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
slowplay,
Will we ever know what we were given for managements violation of our scope WRT Delta Private Jets. I can see those heavy biz jets they were operating are now written into the TA. What did the company give up for this?
05-22-2012 | 06:26 AM
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
Looking at the number of aircraft that we are down since the merger, we would essentially be selling scope so the company could replace the aircraft that have already been parked. This is a very flawed strategy by our MEC. Yet I have a feeling it will be sold as growth.
05-22-2012 | 06:28 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Guess I'm slow, I just don't get it. How is allowing the company to outsource more jets that have almost an identical cost to the 88 good for a Delta pilot? This is the best part of the TA, giving away more Delta pilot jobs?
05-22-2012 | 06:32 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,601
Likes: 0
From: Dismayed
From 66
Could the other guys post what their reps send out as well. I would especially like to see the C20/44 letters.
Fellow Pilots of Council 66:
As we are sure you have already learned, yesterday your MEC approved the tentative agreement for a new contract. Your reps approved this agreement because we believe that it represents a very real and significant improvement to the job security, pay, benefits, retirement, and working conditions of the Delta pilots, and it does so before the amendable date of our current contract.
Many of you have written and called us, and we appreciate your input. In some unfortunate cases, people are reacting strongly to rumors or to an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of what the TA contains. This is a natural byproduct of the absence of information during the voting process. Now that the voting is complete, the MEC will be providing all the information that you will need to make an informed decision. Additionally, your NY reps will be communicating with you as much as possible, both in the lounge and with future e-mails and newsletters.
In the meantime, we ask you to please consider that 31 rational and (hopefully!) intelligent people just spent seven long and intense days studying and debating the merits of this TA before voting on it; it is important that you provide the same due diligence.
How you vote is entirely up to you. But please make your decision only after you take the time to thoroughly familiarize yourself with the contents of the TA.
We will be in touch shortly, and we will see you in the lounge. Please feel free to call or write to us with any questions that you have about the TA. We will give you the facts, without spin. Our goal is to make sure you have all the information you need to make an informed and reasoned business decision.
Make no mistake—this is your union, this is your contract, this is your decision.
As we are sure you have already learned, yesterday your MEC approved the tentative agreement for a new contract. Your reps approved this agreement because we believe that it represents a very real and significant improvement to the job security, pay, benefits, retirement, and working conditions of the Delta pilots, and it does so before the amendable date of our current contract.
Many of you have written and called us, and we appreciate your input. In some unfortunate cases, people are reacting strongly to rumors or to an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of what the TA contains. This is a natural byproduct of the absence of information during the voting process. Now that the voting is complete, the MEC will be providing all the information that you will need to make an informed decision. Additionally, your NY reps will be communicating with you as much as possible, both in the lounge and with future e-mails and newsletters.
In the meantime, we ask you to please consider that 31 rational and (hopefully!) intelligent people just spent seven long and intense days studying and debating the merits of this TA before voting on it; it is important that you provide the same due diligence.
How you vote is entirely up to you. But please make your decision only after you take the time to thoroughly familiarize yourself with the contents of the TA.
We will be in touch shortly, and we will see you in the lounge. Please feel free to call or write to us with any questions that you have about the TA. We will give you the facts, without spin. Our goal is to make sure you have all the information you need to make an informed and reasoned business decision.
Make no mistake—this is your union, this is your contract, this is your decision.
05-22-2012 | 06:36 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Ultimately if we give away fewer 76 seaters, I believe that it will translate into more mainline Delta pilot jobs. I don't care what the mainline fleet count is, I'm done giving the company any additional 70 seat jets.
05-22-2012 | 06:38 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Ive gotta run, but I do want to start filling out the... bracket?
I'll split it up anyway necessary and as always I think we need to look at worst case scenario and exactly what the production balance language is.
Still, I have to say any 51+ seater over 255 is a no vote for me so the retention of the 101 70 seaters is mind boggling. I'll say for me this is kind of an academic exercise almost just to see how bad this could be BUT it's worth the information and discussion points nonetheless.
I'll split it up anyway necessary and as always I think we need to look at worst case scenario and exactly what the production balance language is.
Still, I have to say any 51+ seater over 255 is a no vote for me so the retention of the 101 70 seaters is mind boggling. I'll say for me this is kind of an academic exercise almost just to see how bad this could be BUT it's worth the information and discussion points nonetheless.
05-22-2012 | 06:39 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 435
Likes: 16
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.
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?
3. Guys wanted SWA pay on day 1. This contract achieves that, when factoring in the differential DC contributions.
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. 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.
So, while I am not at all happy with where the payrates ended up in this TA, when I look around at my fellow aviators, all I can say is, time to step up and help out. We can't do it alone.
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.
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?
3. Guys wanted SWA pay on day 1. This contract achieves that, when factoring in the differential DC contributions.
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. 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.
So, while I am not at all happy with where the payrates ended up in this TA, when I look around at my fellow aviators, all I can say is, time to step up and help out. We can't do it alone.
I am actually quite happy with the proactive engagement of our MEC and administration in ALPA. I wish they ran their committee structure the same way
That being said, there is an emotional element to all of this, and that. Has to be factored into the mix. We are humans, and we act on emotion. I got the chance to read through the agreement in the back of an MD88 last night. There is a lot of good in there. There is also a lot of give back. But, hey, it's negotiating right? I guess you can fall back to that except for that sticky human element of emotion. This contract should have been 99% give back to us, and it isn't. Quite the opposite. It seems to also fall short of where we wanted to be post contract. TO said that we would not sacrifice quality of expediency. We have. I have several more readings to go, but gleaned a few nuggets. Incidentally, I notice that you elect to use 80 hours, and the ensuing percentage as you example of pay increase, when indeed not all months will be an 80 hour guarantee, and those months are able to come with increased productivity to offset the increased pay. That is part of that pesky more give and take than should be necessary after enduring the contract we have been under for 7 years--and that is but one example.
I actually like the advances made in section 1. Again, there is more give on our part than I think is necessary. We are bailing the company out again with regard to RJs, but at least we are reigning it in overall. The JVs have good language there as well. Yet again we see "circumstances beyond the company's control". As T said, the company would likely get it anyway if necessary. The company shouldn't need to staff airplanes with other than Delta pilots in the event of a circumstance for which they. Have no control. Additionally, nobody has mentioned 1b 46, where once again we have snuck in some overweight corporate jets into the "exceptions". So much for that big coup. They break the contract, we catch it, they have to cease. Now it is codified. Human emotion interferes with my proactive engagement function in this manner.
The exceptions for Chautauqua and Shuttle America are troubling as well. There needs to be sunsetting here.
Speaking of DCI, I am not in favor of guaranteeing certain percentages of our classes for DCI pilots. This reeks of "meet and confer" and I don't like it. Big fuss is raised on the alpa boards of not bringing 76 seats to mainline, because they will be flown by pilots not yet hired, yet here we are negotiating for pilots not hired.
Lest anyone be accusatory, I am not for the increase in 76 seat jets. Management created this problem, and they should fix it, but they cannot without our help. I would like to believe that we're it not for the other jabs we receive when we should be receiving mostly return on our investment.
Section 3 is low. End of story. Profit sharing ,needs to stay the same, period.
Section 5. Great job. Hotel for CQ. EXCELLENT. Now all we need is hotel for new hires all the way through training and that section will be complete.
Section 7. Fail. To be sure, the are gains. 5 way split-good. Increase in vacation per day-good. Lack of 6th week, bad. Pay per day of vacation-bad, still. This could have been a great stride without setting off alarms on wall street.
Section 11. Sli pay at 85 hours encourages parking yourself in the boys club. My opinion is that these guys park themselves for QOL and don't need the extra money as well. But I digress.
Section 12. Duty period average. Another great gain that could have been without setting off alarms on wall street. 4:30 doesn't cut it. I will give a B for effort and getting it in there to improve upon, but it doesn't help out all that much. The reason for falling short on this is weak, IMO.
Section 14. Finally, we get rid of something which shouldn't have been there in the first place. Not a big fan of showing preference of one group over another, extra sick pay after your 19th year. Definitely a better section in this agreement.
Section 23. Such a detailed section that I want to attend a roadshow just for this. Most notably what stuck out to me was the LACK of reroute penalties. This company wants to be on time. That's fine. Then pay me for changing the layover I bid when I am running 10 minutes late for "circumstances beyond my control"
Reserve definitely better. No question. However, offsets in productivity nullify some of the benefit.
I reserve further comment and judgement for when I am better educated-especially scheduling, r&i.
Just the first of many read throughs on a 1:40 minute flight.
05-22-2012 | 06:40 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
via a pm, here is a take on this section 1 issue:
Scenario: 76 seaters can be "fast accessed" with a new narrow body category of B717/A319. No production balance on the way up. Get new NB and 76 seaters.
Now, the 76 seaters are here, to stay, and DC-9's (18) old MD-88's, A319, old 757 get parked.
"But there is a production balance of Mainline NB to DCI"
When does that snapshot start?
July 2014
two years to shrink, don't think it will happen?
Scenario: 76 seaters can be "fast accessed" with a new narrow body category of B717/A319. No production balance on the way up. Get new NB and 76 seaters.
Now, the 76 seaters are here, to stay, and DC-9's (18) old MD-88's, A319, old 757 get parked.
"But there is a production balance of Mainline NB to DCI"
When does that snapshot start?
July 2014
two years to shrink, don't think it will happen?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
