|
|
Originally Posted by vprMatrix
(Post 1199568)
It is good that the non-disclosure / confidentiality agreements that all the airlines have with all the ALPA carriers allows them to freely share that info among competing carriers.
Originally Posted by vprMatrix
(Post 1199568)
I am surprised that United/Continental looked at those same numbers and decided to pursue 100% scope though. I know you will say look how well they are doing but they are not very happy with us right now because we are cutting the legs out from under them.
Oh, and I do look at how well they are doing. CAL has been negotiating for 4 years. UAL for 3 years. Merger equity has passed them by. $700 million dollars and 400 pilot jobs would have to be added by them if they came to our TA. What's the purpose of scope again? If UAL/CAL was so good, why did both furlough during the last downturn? UAL still has 1400 out and they have that little Aer Lingus issue.
Originally Posted by vprMatrix
(Post 1199568)
The numbers being quoted by FTB are from the Form 41 data which you say you use as a crosscheck. I will grant that the numbers presented are not correct due to the fact that many of the cost are hidden by reimbursement cost as well as the fact that Delta directly covers the cost of most of the handling and servicing of the aircraft and passengers. Delta also pays a operating margin to the DCI carriers which is very hard to quantify into hourly cost of the outsourced aircraft.
Originally Posted by vprMatrix
(Post 1199568)
The direct cost of the Pilot, FAs, and mechanics are the only true savings and there is money to be had in the scale of operation at Delta as well as the in operating margins paid to the DCI carriers. It will cost Delta more money but it's not an unthinkable or impossible amount.
Just curious, have you noted the error in your analysis regarding ownership costs, not just DCI costs in Delta's path to reduce DCI hull count? |
Originally Posted by CVG767A
(Post 1197162)
While you're right about the importance of your upgrade to your career, the NB to WB jump isn't the big deal you think it is. Just take a look at the 737 rate vs. the 767 rate. I know a few guys in my seniority range who stayed on the 73, and are very senior in category. They have far better schedules than I, while making only a little less money.
|
What are you willing to give up to get that? = cost neutral approach.
or How are you going to pay for that? = cost neutral approach. |
Alfa, got any more math problems? :D
We get a lot of data from those math problems. One I'd like to see and haven't yet found the data on dalpa is the average hours flown by a reserve pilot. Since the PBS Staffing Formula is designed around 60 hours, I want to see how far we are below it or at we at it? |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1198222)
I'm struck by our conversations of last year. Remember when acl65pilot and others were resonding to the DPA drive by saying: "Guys, we can't change horses in mid stream right now. We've waited a decade for our shot at a real Section 6 negotiations. It would be a disaster to wait this long, then screw it up on the verge of Section 6 beginning..." Remember that?
Well the future has played out and DPA did not get the votes. So we got our chance for a real Section 6 after a decade of waiting. And now we're going to vote YES to a TA that is cost neutral to the company before the real Section 6 even begins because the company is in a hurry. We waited a decade for that? Think guys, really think. Carl |
Originally Posted by Cogf16
(Post 1199748)
I'm sure our union has the figures, but clearly this contract is not "cost neutral to the company" I have seen the figure of 400 million/year and other similar ones thrown out. The company has MILLIONS of reasons to tell EVERYONE (Wall Street, Banks, other NON UNION employees) that it's cost neutral.
Carl |
Jumpseated with a couple of cool Bus pilots today. They were both mocking the T/A the whole way to MSP, and said they didn't know anyone who thought it was a good deal. The CA was particularly eager for the roadshows :D.
|
Originally Posted by JungleBus
(Post 1199757)
Jumpseated with a couple of cool Bus pilots today. They were both mocking the T/A the whole way to MSP, and said they didn't know anyone who thought it was a good deal. The CA was particularly eager for the roadshows :D.
I think I'm going to start off on the right foot and right after we say hi, start talking about what a great deal this TA and how generous RA was to agree to 4/8.5/3/3 plus 1% DC!!! :D |
Everyone should keep today's NN for posterity. In 2 years, you can add this common question to the bottom of this NN that will be asked of DALPA: "Why is DCI flying 325 76 seat RJ's and our fleet has gone backward since we signed the TA?"
Then add this answer right below it: "Turns out "ratio" didn't mean what we thought it meant. Our lawyers say there is no PWA violation. We'll fix it next time." Carl |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1199746)
Alfa, got any more math problems? :D
We get a lot of data from those math problems. One I'd like to see and haven't yet found the data on dalpa is the average hours flown by a reserve pilot. Since the PBS Staffing Formula is designed around 60 hours, I want to see how far we are below it or at we at it? 60 hrs average doesn't protect from the new higher ALV+15 max. (BTW max LCW would have been fair in my opinion) 60/month average x12 = 720 annual max Let's say a reserve gets close to the max in the 3 busy summer months 90hrs/month x 3 = 270 720 annual - 270 summer months = 450 remaining for the year 450/9 remaining months = 50hrs/month No relief from the staffing formula for that. Cheers George |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:41 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands