|
|
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1195070)
Did humans negotiate this TA?
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1195074)
No. Attorneys did.
Hey!! :D |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1195010)
In rough terms, the CRJ 700 earns 40% more revenue on about a 15% operational cost increase when compared to the -200. The Next Gen 900 carries approximately 18% more revenue than a -700 at the same (to +5%) cost as a -700.
On a CASM basis the airlines report the Next Gen 900 is less expensive than a B717 (using AirTran's pay rates). At Delta the delta might be larger due to our better pay. Alpha and Slow have not come after me yet on this point, but I am told they disagree based on numbers from Delta management & I will admit that gleaning real data from the DOT numbers is difficult because of the complexity of the capacity purchase agreements. My educated guess (confirmed by TA results) is that management wants the Next Gen -900 more than they want the 717. While I think I am coming to the decision to vote "YES," there is no real fear that the 717 (or something else) hangs in the balance. I also have not detected a FUD campaign from our MEC. My Reps have been candid in our discussions. |
Originally Posted by Roadie85
(Post 1194840)
Didn't the pilot group take a hugh paycut compared to the other employee groups at Delta? Looks to me that all the employees will be enjoying profit sharing and pay raises. The problem is the pilots are no where near prebankruptcy rates and everyone else is. We're also allowing more RJ's. The B717's will ensure the parking of a/c on the property, likely larger a/c. One last thought, I want to see the SURVEY results.
Just to throw some fact out there: NWA bankruptcy wages in 2006: 12yr FO 757 = $96.75 12 yr FO A320= $93.12 Current TA January 2013: 12yr FO 7ER = $145.63 12yr FO A320 = $134.76 So these wages are between 43% & 50% more than the NWA bk rates which is more than I had expected. I don't have the pay tables for prior to bk at NWA or DAL so I don't really know what they look like in relation to those figures. I just can't believe that the bk rates were that bad. I just guess my mind doesn't want to remember those days. |
88 pilots on reserve will probably see a 30% or so raise.
We all admit that this does not meet our expectations that we filled out in the survey. The difference day one is 7.2% give or take. One must ask if the reward is worth the risk for 140 million dollars. Just an honest question. You must take the emotion out of this, look at it objectively and go from there. |
The biggest problem with the TA is that it is not what the pilots asked for in the survey. The problem we have is not with the company, but with ALPA. In this case ALPA has taken the position that they believe they know what is best for us. Why even bother surveying the pilot group then? No where in the survey was I asked what I would be willing to accept to get a quick deal. The survey was geared toward a normal section 6 process. Basically we have had almost no input as to what we would be willing to accept to get a quick deal. We have not been asked our time value of money.
If we ratify this TA we set a dangerous precedent, showing ALPA that they can ignore our input, or in this case not ask our input when it became clear that an expedited process might be possible. We all pay dues to be represented and have our voices heard. In this instance, ALPA has ignored our input and crafted a TA based on the company's desire to get a deal quick. Who has ALPA represented here? |
Also you math gurus, at the end of this deal, what raise is need to get to C2K 2004 rates?
|
Too funny.
Hey, question. If Delta wants this contract so badly right now why are we to believe they wouldn't renegotiate fixes to a rejected TA just as fast? |
Originally Posted by Superdad
(Post 1195091)
The biggest problem with the TA is that it is not what the pilots asked for in the survey. The problem we have is not with the company, but with ALPA. In this case ALPA has taken the position that they believe they know what is best for us. Why even bother surveying the pilot group then? No where in the survey was I asked what I would be willing to accept to get a quick deal. The survey was geared toward a normal section 6 process. Basically we have had almost no input as to what we would be willing to accept to get a quick deal. We have not been asked our time value of money.
If we ratify this TA we set a dangerous precedent, showing ALPA that they can ignore our input, or in this case not ask our input when it became clear that an expedited process might be possible. We all pay dues to be represented and have our voices heard. In this instance, ALPA has ignored our input and crafted a TA based on the company's desire to get a deal quick. Who has ALPA represented here? I strongly suggest a talk or two with each of your reps, and then go from there. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1195093)
Too funny.
Hey, question. If Delta wants this contract so badly right now why are we to believe they wouldn't renegotiate fixes to a rejected TA just as fast? True, and it is something I am weighing. There is a lot of reason to think about this. The converse is true too. Would they stay stick it, and then go ahead with their plans anyway, leaving us out in the cold, and not enjoying any of the improvements? Honest question all need to answer, and not one based on anger or fear (There are a lot of changes in here that are impressive, and the actual costing is always higher than the modeling) |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:37 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands