Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-24-2012 | 04:18 AM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
I think this is part of what is frustrating, This doesn't take a whole lot of imagination:
* 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.
* 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.
That 25% IMO is feel good language. Period. We hire more than 35% of the new hires from this demographic. Its there because I do not see any more flow agreements happening. Just my 0.02. Further, there are a heck of a lot bigger issues in the TA than this stupid clause. Lets focus on those.
I also agree if the cumulative July 1 and Jan 1 pay was above LUV 73N rate, there would be none of this, even with the work rule and scope changes. I disagree that if we brought all of this flying back in house and kept the pay where its at in the TA, that there would not be a loud group irked because we they bought small jets with their raises.
The fact is that everyone shouted; "PAY PAY PAY" and they have stated scope was a distant second. Well we got Section 1 tied up throughout the spectrum and it cost 70 more large RJ's with the parking of 130 50 seaters(In this regard we need to realize RA has stated they have wanted em going, but the number were not decreasing. That whole actions louder than words thing) This will shrink DCI by 35-50% of their block hrs, and probably marginally on ASM's. Frankly, its a lot of RJ's and would have preferred none, but expected less from the rumors.
Its my determination that the company did a stellar job in negotiations and probably overreached. I have not seen so many pilots voting no across the spectrum in a really long time. From the DPA guy to the ALPA supporters, many are voting no, and have made up their mind on the product; weighed the risk reward of a possible three year wait, though unlikely and will take that risk over marginal reward.
There are some really good parts of this deal, and some stinkers that will increase productivity significantly; and it is my belief the full effects of these will not be known until we start getting short in the training pipeline in a year or two. In the end what I am reading is that this is a issue with the quality of the product. Its an issue that many are not willing to accept the product or will accept the product as is, because of fear of turning it down and not seeing anything for some time. (reality is this is unknown and a three year negotiation is unlikely with all of the work that has been done-my opinion) No one is in love with this product as a whole.
Educate yourself and then ask questions of people that are voting yes and no that you think have a really good grasp on the ramifications of the language one way or another. Plenty of time to have thoughtful debate before you vote.
05-24-2012 | 04:39 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
I'll agree the company probably overreached on this one (relative to what it takes to get 50%+, not relative to a 70% agreement). I definitely think the NC was correct to take this to the MEC, and the MEC to us, because it's probably close to acceptable, but might very well fall on the "no cigar" side.
Looks like Erskine had a better feel for this than Campbell. He knew to give us a little pat on the tushy after he was done with us. Campbell won't even sweet-talk, and that's kind of offensive.
Looks like Erskine had a better feel for this than Campbell. He knew to give us a little pat on the tushy after he was done with us. Campbell won't even sweet-talk, and that's kind of offensive.
Last edited by Sink r8; 05-24-2012 at 05:01 AM.
05-24-2012 | 04:43 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,601
Likes: 0
From: Dismayed
That 25% IMO is feel good language. Period. We hire more than 35% of the new hires from this demographic. Its there because I do not see any more flow agreements happening. Just my 0.02. Further, there are a heck of a lot bigger issues in the TA than this stupid clause. Lets focus on those.
Who are we to demand who the company hires. Perhaps we should require 35% from the USN or 35% from the USAF or from the girl scouts for that matter
.This line needs to go on the next go round. ALPA doesn't realize it's paying for its own demise.
05-24-2012 | 04:44 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
From: B737 CA
Of course. However, he is saying there's not nearly the protection you think there is in that language when the snapshot takes place 1.5 years from now. A whole lot of DC9s, MD80s, and even older 757s could be parked by then. There is historical precedent.
05-24-2012 | 04:55 AM
Sho me da money!
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
From: B25, Left
Written in the DALPA Forum, thought it provided some good arguments, not written by me. It's in response to the available TA point paper, which I have just finished reading.
-------------
Nearly all of your assumptions are worst-case scenario. When assessing risk, one has to assign a probability to the event(s.) Your whole premise hinges on your assessment that the negotiating environment from this day forward favors only the company. Not allowing that the environment could remain status quo or even improve for the pilots is flawed. You submit that the NC got the best deal available. If todays date was Dec. 31, 2012, that might be true. A TA reached 7 months early can reasonably signal these "tells" from management:
1. The 50 seat RJ is dead and RA is desperate to rid himself of these millstones. DCI carriers in or about to go into BK are unreliable feed partners. Tying the 717s to the TA appears to be a time-honored tradition to dangle tools before pilots that are coming on the property regardless.
2. RA believes that the negotiating environment going forward favors the pilots.
3. The contract at UAL could be more lucrative than this TA and RA wants to ink the deal prior to anyone getting a look at comparables.
4. RA's good working relationship with DALPA remains unchanged if the TA is rejected. An assumption that the MEC or NC willed be recalled is speculative, at best, given the ample time reamining to renegotiate.
5. A planned sell-down of payrates, triggering (in managements view) a rejection, allows time to sweeten the deal to levels already baked-in by the company.
6. The increasing likelihood that an Obama-appointed NMB would be unfavorable to the company should mediation be necessary.
These factors, taken singly or as a whole, would lead a seasoned negotiator to believe that the pilots should be able to extract a premium for agreeing early. No airline management has ever negotiated early believing themselves to be at a disadvantage.
The simple fact that all legacy pilot groups are still earning BK wages (with annual increases nominally representing COLA adjustments) dictates the aim of recapturing significant increases. Historically,as an average, legacy pilot wages have steadily declined since the late 70's-early 80's. An increase that has to allow for "black swan" events that will reduce any gains made in the inevitable give-backs the company will demand.
Critically, you fail to acknowledge that the pilots have significant leverage. With AA and UAL presently facing serious obstacles, RA sees a unique opportunity to put distance between DAL and the rest of their closest competitors. Delta pilots have a unique opportunity to realize this and gain maximum sustainable ground.
No one seriously expects full restoration, but to agree early to a mediocre contract would be to ignore basic factual conclusions. It would also be serious miscalculation to believe that Delta pilots don't realize this TA is more than just dollar numbers. It demands management to fully recognize past sacrifices and make good on their promise to run a world-class airline with a world-class contract.
-------------
Nearly all of your assumptions are worst-case scenario. When assessing risk, one has to assign a probability to the event(s.) Your whole premise hinges on your assessment that the negotiating environment from this day forward favors only the company. Not allowing that the environment could remain status quo or even improve for the pilots is flawed. You submit that the NC got the best deal available. If todays date was Dec. 31, 2012, that might be true. A TA reached 7 months early can reasonably signal these "tells" from management:
1. The 50 seat RJ is dead and RA is desperate to rid himself of these millstones. DCI carriers in or about to go into BK are unreliable feed partners. Tying the 717s to the TA appears to be a time-honored tradition to dangle tools before pilots that are coming on the property regardless.
2. RA believes that the negotiating environment going forward favors the pilots.
3. The contract at UAL could be more lucrative than this TA and RA wants to ink the deal prior to anyone getting a look at comparables.
4. RA's good working relationship with DALPA remains unchanged if the TA is rejected. An assumption that the MEC or NC willed be recalled is speculative, at best, given the ample time reamining to renegotiate.
5. A planned sell-down of payrates, triggering (in managements view) a rejection, allows time to sweeten the deal to levels already baked-in by the company.
6. The increasing likelihood that an Obama-appointed NMB would be unfavorable to the company should mediation be necessary.
These factors, taken singly or as a whole, would lead a seasoned negotiator to believe that the pilots should be able to extract a premium for agreeing early. No airline management has ever negotiated early believing themselves to be at a disadvantage.
The simple fact that all legacy pilot groups are still earning BK wages (with annual increases nominally representing COLA adjustments) dictates the aim of recapturing significant increases. Historically,as an average, legacy pilot wages have steadily declined since the late 70's-early 80's. An increase that has to allow for "black swan" events that will reduce any gains made in the inevitable give-backs the company will demand.
Critically, you fail to acknowledge that the pilots have significant leverage. With AA and UAL presently facing serious obstacles, RA sees a unique opportunity to put distance between DAL and the rest of their closest competitors. Delta pilots have a unique opportunity to realize this and gain maximum sustainable ground.
No one seriously expects full restoration, but to agree early to a mediocre contract would be to ignore basic factual conclusions. It would also be serious miscalculation to believe that Delta pilots don't realize this TA is more than just dollar numbers. It demands management to fully recognize past sacrifices and make good on their promise to run a world-class airline with a world-class contract.
I know you did not write this but here is my view on one point. (check my math it is eary)
UAL will never get a 43% pay raise in the next three years to beat this TA.
12 yr
Current UAL 747 rate $190
Current DAL rate 226
end of 3 years with 20% in this TA
DAL $271
UAL to Match 190*1.43
I dont like this TA either, but does anyone think UAL will get a 43% pay raise to match us in the next 3 years? Do we send this back? Will we get better rates, COLA, Scope? If this TA is voted down what arbitrator will say "your right 20% pay raise was not enough, DAL cough up more!" ****History is not in our favor. The question I have to ponder is what are the alternatives, pluses and minuses to a yes or no vote. The comparison math has to be a factor in looking forward as well as contract language.
I hope the debate stays the course here on APC, get informed look at the big picture, stay respectful. These are opinions, questions and points of view. Change and open minds with intellect not insults.....
**** I assume here the company drags this out the old fashion way and we are sitting here 3 years later at the table of an arbitrator. At that time he awards us 15-20%, but for 3 years we gained nothing. Just may be the risk we have to take.
05-24-2012 | 04:59 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
I'm waiting on the NNP on Section 1, And I'll study the language thereafter, but I think the ratios don't allow for what you describe.
05-24-2012 | 05:08 AM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
You still need to focus on this one as well. It's seen as clear proof of ALPA National's influence on this negotiation. Many have feared it, and to them this looks like proof.
Who are we to demand who the company hires. Perhaps we should require 35% from the USN or 35% from the USAF or from the girl scouts for that matter.
This line needs to go on the next go round. ALPA doesn't realize it's paying for its own demise.
Who are we to demand who the company hires. Perhaps we should require 35% from the USN or 35% from the USAF or from the girl scouts for that matter
.This line needs to go on the next go round. ALPA doesn't realize it's paying for its own demise.
Just my opinion, but I do not see anything wrong with it. In fact I am surprised the company agreed to it, and in my line of thinking it was a compromise other than a flow agreements with us. After all we all said preferential interviews/hiring over flows, and darn it if that is not what you see.
05-24-2012 | 05:10 AM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
I am trying to model that language right now, and when I read it, it stuck out to me as something I need to deeply look at. It may be fine, but I agree that the complexity and layering of the ratios, snapshot, and the triggers as the ratios change prior to the snap shot needs to be modeled and looked at.
05-24-2012 | 05:13 AM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Elvis,
I know you did not write this but here is my view on one point. (check my math it is eary)
UAL will never get a 43% pay raise in the next three years to beat this TA.
12 yr
Current UAL 747 rate $190
Current DAL rate 226
end of 3 years with 20% in this TA
DAL $271
UAL to Match 190*1.43
I dont like this TA either, but does anyone think UAL will get a 43% pay raise to match us in the next 3 years? Do we send this back? Will we get better rates, COLA, Scope? If this TA is voted down what arbitrator will say "your right 20% pay raise was not enough, DAL cough up more!" ****History is not in our favor. The question I have to ponder is what are the alternatives, pluses and minuses to a yes or no vote. The comparison math has to be a factor in looking forward as well as contract language.
I hope the debate stays the course here on APC, get informed look at the big picture, stay respectful. These are opinions, questions and points of view. Change and open minds with intellect not insults.....
**** I assume here the company drags this out the old fashion way and we are sitting here 3 years later at the table of an arbitrator. At that time he awards us 15-20%, but for 3 years we gained nothing. Just may be the risk we have to take.
I know you did not write this but here is my view on one point. (check my math it is eary)
UAL will never get a 43% pay raise in the next three years to beat this TA.
12 yr
Current UAL 747 rate $190
Current DAL rate 226
end of 3 years with 20% in this TA
DAL $271
UAL to Match 190*1.43
I dont like this TA either, but does anyone think UAL will get a 43% pay raise to match us in the next 3 years? Do we send this back? Will we get better rates, COLA, Scope? If this TA is voted down what arbitrator will say "your right 20% pay raise was not enough, DAL cough up more!" ****History is not in our favor. The question I have to ponder is what are the alternatives, pluses and minuses to a yes or no vote. The comparison math has to be a factor in looking forward as well as contract language.
I hope the debate stays the course here on APC, get informed look at the big picture, stay respectful. These are opinions, questions and points of view. Change and open minds with intellect not insults.....
**** I assume here the company drags this out the old fashion way and we are sitting here 3 years later at the table of an arbitrator. At that time he awards us 15-20%, but for 3 years we gained nothing. Just may be the risk we have to take.
05-24-2012 | 05:26 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Likes: 0
The TA ratio is 1.56 mainline block hours to 1 DCI block hour if all 70 jets get delivered (and they only get that if all 88 B717's come). The ratio is currently 1.19-1. Make all the a/c deliveries on mainline purely replacement, and DCI will get much smaller than an equivalent 450 a/c.
There aren't a whole lot of DC-9's left (20?), but I expect there will be quite a few older 757 and A320 parked. Through 2015 we're scheduled to take 88 B717, 25 MD-90 added in service and 60 new 737-900. That's 173 aircraft in 3 1/2 years. When you factor in the DCI jets being parked and the block hour ratio, a lot more Delta flying will be done by Delta pilots.
For a guy worried about flow, that's a good thing.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
