Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-23-2012, 07:58 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
One thing you guys must at least consider with DCI, we need the feed and 117 seat jets cannot do all of it. The Cseries could, but it is a few years to market. For the near term(3-8 yrs) we need lift or we will lack a domestic feed network and go the way of Pan Am.
No one likes the RJ sales, no one, but as Sink said, there is a broader picture on this issue. There are many really good items in Section 1. I also agree that the costing of them is probably not in our favor. Out of all of the fears that many had, some came true in section 1, but so did the quids.
In the rest of the agreement, I have not talked to one pilot that has their expectations met, even with the expectation RA created with a expedited process and an agreement prior the amendable date. It comes down to if you are OK with the work rule and compensation scheme changes in the current TA or not.
No one likes the RJ sales, no one, but as Sink said, there is a broader picture on this issue. There are many really good items in Section 1. I also agree that the costing of them is probably not in our favor. Out of all of the fears that many had, some came true in section 1, but so did the quids.
In the rest of the agreement, I have not talked to one pilot that has their expectations met, even with the expectation RA created with a expedited process and an agreement prior the amendable date. It comes down to if you are OK with the work rule and compensation scheme changes in the current TA or not.
One thing my union and my company should consider is that Delta pilots are more than capable of flying 70 or 76 seat Rj's.
Ain't no shame in our game. My first day as a major airline captain, I flew a 75 seat DC-9-10 from DTW to MDW, and I was damn proud.
Someone needs to put the memo out to the higher ups that we want to fly those airplanes. Delta pilots don't discriminate against any lift carrying airplanes, big or small.
05-23-2012, 08:00 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by newKnow
Even if it is hard capped at 325, all I know is that 325 is a lot.
Originally Posted by johnso29
Then what fear do you have in voting YES, if they'll just add them anyway? 
I thought 255 would be the last time but obviously it isn't. So if we increase to 325, how long until we're asked to increase to 400? And then how long until we hear these 76 seat jets are killing us, can you give us some relief and agree on paper to allow us to outsource larger jets right now in exchange for a pinky promise to give you more somethings someday?
Or better yet, you know these ratios are making all of these large RJs already on property unprofitable. So we know you guys are getting killed by Section [ ] so let's agree to exchange a better ratio for us for some relief for you. Deal?
05-23-2012, 08:03 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
I agree.
Well we're playing with semantics here. I guess a better way to phrase this, if we increase the outsourced 51-76 seat fleet from 255 jets to 325 jets... will that be the last time it's raised?
I thought 255 would be the last time but obviously it isn't. So if we increase to 325, how long until we're asked to increase to 400? And then how long until we hear these 76 seat jets are killing us, can you give us some relief and agree on paper to allow us to outsource larger jets right now in exchange for a pinky promise to give you more somethings someday?
Or better yet, you know these ratios are making all of these large RJs already on property unprofitable. So we know you guys are getting killed by Section [ ] so let's agree to exchange a better ratio for us for some relief for you. Deal?
Well we're playing with semantics here. I guess a better way to phrase this, if we increase the outsourced 51-76 seat fleet from 255 jets to 325 jets... will that be the last time it's raised?
I thought 255 would be the last time but obviously it isn't. So if we increase to 325, how long until we're asked to increase to 400? And then how long until we hear these 76 seat jets are killing us, can you give us some relief and agree on paper to allow us to outsource larger jets right now in exchange for a pinky promise to give you more somethings someday?
Or better yet, you know these ratios are making all of these large RJs already on property unprofitable. So we know you guys are getting killed by Section [ ] so let's agree to exchange a better ratio for us for some relief for you. Deal?
Sorry FTB. I just needed some fun. It's been so tense here lately, that I just couldn't resist.
05-23-2012, 08:05 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Originally Posted by JungleBus
A month ago, we were all in pretty unanimous agreement that 255 was way too freaking many. 
05-23-2012, 08:06 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 710
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Unbelievable. Cave in on scope AGAIN folks or you'll go the way of Pan Am! Shameful. I cannot believe we have pilots who think you have pilots best interests in mind.
It's like I've always said about you acl, your core positions change depending upon who you've last spoken with. To think that you have verbally slain people like me for selling scope to line my own pocket while keeping you off the DAL list for a decade, and now you're advocating doing far worse. Incredible.
Carl
It's like I've always said about you acl, your core positions change depending upon who you've last spoken with. To think that you have verbally slain people like me for selling scope to line my own pocket while keeping you off the DAL list for a decade, and now you're advocating doing far worse. Incredible.
Carl
We could offer to fly these 76-seaters at industry rates. The company would STILL say no. It's all about control.
05-23-2012, 08:07 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by newKnow
acl,
One thing my union and my company should consider is that Delta pilots are more than capable of flying 70 or 76 seat Rj's.
Ain't no shame in our game. My first day as a major airline captain, I flew a 75 seat DC-9-10 from DTW to MDW, and I was damn proud.
Someone needs to put the memo out to the higher ups that we want to fly those airplanes. Delta pilots don't discriminate against any lift carrying airplanes, big or small.
One thing my union and my company should consider is that Delta pilots are more than capable of flying 70 or 76 seat Rj's.
Ain't no shame in our game. My first day as a major airline captain, I flew a 75 seat DC-9-10 from DTW to MDW, and I was damn proud.
Someone needs to put the memo out to the higher ups that we want to fly those airplanes. Delta pilots don't discriminate against any lift carrying airplanes, big or small.
05-23-2012, 08:09 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 7ERB, no M88, no 7ER, no A320, NEXT!
Posts: 397
I fired this off to the NC chairman, not that I really expect a response:
A few questions I would like answered please:
Why the 35% DCI hiring requirement? Why is this in my contract?
Why is there still a gap between the 88/90 pay rate and the 737 pay rate? They have virtually identical seat capacities!
Why are we subsidizing our pay rate increases with a decrease in profit sharing? Especially when the company is projecting huge profits for the next few years!
Why are we using negotiating capital to get rid of an aircraft we know the company does not want?(50 seaters)
I am a junior guy, why am I being asked to subsidize and early retirement package for senior guys who are going to leave anyway? In addition, there is no guarantee they will take the package, but I will have given up money to offer it to them!!!!!!
Why are Southwest captains still making $27 an hour more than our 737 captains?
The company has stated that the 717 will be a replacement jet, so why are we allowing ourselves to be tricked into thinking those jets will mean pilot hiring?
Lastly, I strongly believe that I am worth more than what is being offered in this TA. In addition, I am certain the pilot group, as a whole, was asking for better pay rates than what is in this TA. Why did you ignore the wishes of the pilot group?
A few questions I would like answered please:
Why the 35% DCI hiring requirement? Why is this in my contract?
Why is there still a gap between the 88/90 pay rate and the 737 pay rate? They have virtually identical seat capacities!
Why are we subsidizing our pay rate increases with a decrease in profit sharing? Especially when the company is projecting huge profits for the next few years!
Why are we using negotiating capital to get rid of an aircraft we know the company does not want?(50 seaters)
I am a junior guy, why am I being asked to subsidize and early retirement package for senior guys who are going to leave anyway? In addition, there is no guarantee they will take the package, but I will have given up money to offer it to them!!!!!!
Why are Southwest captains still making $27 an hour more than our 737 captains?
The company has stated that the 717 will be a replacement jet, so why are we allowing ourselves to be tricked into thinking those jets will mean pilot hiring?
Lastly, I strongly believe that I am worth more than what is being offered in this TA. In addition, I am certain the pilot group, as a whole, was asking for better pay rates than what is in this TA. Why did you ignore the wishes of the pilot group?
05-23-2012, 08:13 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
Posts: 1,898
Originally Posted by slowplay
Not exactly...
Take a look at our current Section 14.F and G. The company presently has the right to do what you suggest. With the TA their rights are restricted, plus they have to pay for any required verification. For review:
15>7
100>anytime they wanted to.
100%>75%
Take a look at our current Section 14.F and G. The company presently has the right to do what you suggest. With the TA their rights are restricted, plus they have to pay for any required verification. For review:
15>7
100>anytime they wanted to.
100%>75%
I'm looking at it right now, and all I can say is you are wrong.
The company can only presently inquire and ask you about the general nature of illness, and only if it's over 7 days of absence can they require a doctors note. This new language adds the "discussion with chief pilot" and also adds the benchmark of 100 hours of usage where you MUST provide a doctors certificate to the company. It also STRIKES the part where verification is not normally required for absences less than 7 days in duration (that is huge), and ADDS language that allows pretty much ANY absence to be subject to the program.
Now pretty much every pilot I know will be providing a doctors note to the company, under this TA, whereas before none was REQUIRED. This is a huge win for the companys Sick Leave Monitoring Program that ALPA falsely claims was eliminated, and a huge concession for the pilots... heck, it could cost you your very job.
It also adds language where you "may" "VERIFY" your illness to the CPO by providing a doctors certificate to them, otherwise your illness will be considered "UNVERIFIED". In other words, you are not really sick and will be considered an abuser subject to inquiry unless you provide a DOCTORS CERTIFICATE for EVERY ILLNESS. That's what this section creates! Can't anyone see that? The Flight Attendants currently have this!!
In other, other words... The company no longer needs to call you when you are sick, because YOU"LL BE CALLING THEM!!!
And if you think that's brilliant, get this: YOU'LL be paying the doctor unless the CPO specifically asks you for verification. But you'll verify anyway, because that's how this program is set up. It's all on YOU. Every time you get sick you'll be thinking "should I go to the Doctor and get a verification in case I get sick again sometime this year?" And you will!
Last edited by flyallnite; 05-23-2012 at 08:50 PM.
05-23-2012, 08:14 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by Superdad
I fired this off to the NC chairman, not that I really expect a response:
A few questions I would like answered please:
Why the 35% DCI hiring requirement? Why is this in my contract?
Why is there still a gap between the 88/90 pay rate and the 737 pay rate? They have virtually identical seat capacities!
Why are we subsidizing our pay rate increases with a decrease in profit sharing? Especially when the company is projecting huge profits for the next few years!
Why are we using negotiating capital to get rid of an aircraft we know the company does not want?(50 seaters)
I am a junior guy, why am I being asked to subsidize and early retirement package for senior guys who are going to leave anyway? In addition, there is no guarantee they will take the package, but I will have given up money to offer it to them!!!!!!
Why are Southwest captains still making $27 an hour more than our 737 captains?
The company has stated that the 717 will be a replacement jet, so why are we allowing ourselves to be tricked into thinking those jets will mean pilot hiring?
Lastly, I strongly believe that I am worth more than what is being offered in this TA. In addition, I am certain the pilot group, as a whole, was asking for better pay rates than what is in this TA. Why did you ignore the wishes of the pilot group?
A few questions I would like answered please:
Why the 35% DCI hiring requirement? Why is this in my contract?
Why is there still a gap between the 88/90 pay rate and the 737 pay rate? They have virtually identical seat capacities!
Why are we subsidizing our pay rate increases with a decrease in profit sharing? Especially when the company is projecting huge profits for the next few years!
Why are we using negotiating capital to get rid of an aircraft we know the company does not want?(50 seaters)
I am a junior guy, why am I being asked to subsidize and early retirement package for senior guys who are going to leave anyway? In addition, there is no guarantee they will take the package, but I will have given up money to offer it to them!!!!!!
Why are Southwest captains still making $27 an hour more than our 737 captains?
The company has stated that the 717 will be a replacement jet, so why are we allowing ourselves to be tricked into thinking those jets will mean pilot hiring?
Lastly, I strongly believe that I am worth more than what is being offered in this TA. In addition, I am certain the pilot group, as a whole, was asking for better pay rates than what is in this TA. Why did you ignore the wishes of the pilot group?
SD;
I can answer your question:
Because that is what the company told us they wanted.
05-23-2012, 08:31 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
I agree we should fly them and want a sunset or a sort of sunset. No gtf's is a great start, but it need to be expanded to anything but the current types of hulls. I am all for improving this any chance we get.
* Delta management want's more cheap flying 70 seaters.
* We want to fly 70 seaters.
* Somehow there is also a provision in the TA that provides for 35% of new hires to come from DCI carriers.
Why not let the company have the 70 seaters operated under whatever DCI carriers workrules and pay they want for 3 years, then have those pilots and planes come under the Delta banner/certificate for bidding by all Delta pilots afterwards?
Then you would probably have a slam dunk passage for the TA -- even with all the other sore spots.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
