Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-29-2012, 04:41 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
You miss the point. I used a 7 year guy just to illustrate about where the captain on that airplane might be in terms of seniority. And then I showed you exactly why that airplane will never be flown by a 7 year guy. I am not doing a dissertation, but thanks for the suggestion. My bottom line point is that there is absolutely no way those 76 seat airplanes can come here and be competitive.. none.
Wait a minute... are you saying that guys would fly that for $50/hour in the left seat??? Really????
05-29-2012, 04:47 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Second, when does the company have to park 76 seaters under this TA?
05-29-2012, 04:51 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
................
05-29-2012, 04:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 560
When the staffing is even more lean (it hasn't been lean for some time due to "capacity restraint....parking airplanes) you will get called 7 times and you will get flown as much as they can legally fly you. Nobody should use what is happening now as a gauge for what will happen in the future.
I concur. We don't know what will happen down the road, but we can put protections in the PWA to limit the damage that happens to us as pilots. Too bad this TA actually does the opposite.
05-29-2012, 05:10 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 243
You miss the point. I used a 7 year guy just to illustrate about where the captain on that airplane might be in terms of seniority. And then I showed you exactly why that airplane will never be flown by a 7 year guy. I am not doing a dissertation, but thanks for the suggestion. My bottom line point is that there is absolutely no way those 76 seat airplanes can come here and be competitive.. none.
Wait a minute... are you saying that guys would fly that for $50/hour in the left seat??? Really????
Wait a minute... are you saying that guys would fly that for $50/hour in the left seat??? Really????
If you think we can't fly the 76 aircraft we also need to look into outsourcing several hundred more aircraft in our fleet in order to make Delta most cost competitive. For that matter maybe we should be taking a pay cut in order to make ourselves more competitive with other Legacy carriers.
Based on 12 year Captain rates, compared to UCAL we are 16-25% better paid currently and we are 28-32% better paid than USAIR. According to Slowplay it only takes a 33% increase to bring the 70+ seaters to mainline. To me it seams reasonable.
How is it that we can compete against UCAL and USAIR very successfully at a 25-32% premium but not bring >50 seat flying back in house at a 33% increase?
05-29-2012, 05:15 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
What's the cost of a CRJ-200 lease?
And what is the cost of a C-Series jet?
And what is the cost of a C-Series jet?
05-29-2012, 05:21 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
very interesting prespective;
to say i'm less than enamored with this ta should be obvious to anyone who knows me. I'll start by apologizing to the north pilots about some of the references i'll be making because my experience is as a former lec chairman in cvg who served during to the run-up to and during all but the last month of our c2k. Even that mec had factions that were relatively more or less aggressive in dealing with management. While that contract resulted in what was probably the gold standard of all time in terms non-cargo compensation and work rules, many of us felt strongly that money was left on the table. Consider that within weeks of the ink drying on the signature blocks, delta went out and spent millions on hundreds of new plasma tvs(expensive new tech at the time) to put in gatehouses around the system. Proves nothing, right?
Shortly after that ta, i was contacted be a friend still on the mec, one of four no voters, to help write the con paper, a requirement of the policy manual at the time. The resulting product was completed and turned over to the mec communications committee. Despite content that included clearly delineated fact and supposition, and without our approval, the teeth of that paper was edited out and released to the pilot group. Shortly thereafter, the requirement for a con paper disappeared from mec practice. I illustrate the example to make the following point: Your dues money is being used to communicate only a positive message about this agreement, and opinions, like those of the dtw lec, will reach a limited number of us. It is also my opinion that those on the mec that have implied that they voted on an agreement they disagreed with in principle to pass it on to their pilots, are symptomatic of this pilot group as a whole. Not all, but plenty of those who will vote for this ta are way too comfortable being pushed around, and, in my opinion, unaware of what value our unique skill set deserves.
I'm a relatively junior dtw 777a (though still a cvg council 108 member) so my nest is pretty well feathered compared to those fighting the various quirks unique to more junior pilots. But we have several things in common too, like our hatred for flying being farmed out to those not on our seniority list. Coming from cincinnati, the original nesting ground for 50 seat rjs, nobody is more aware of the folly of that pos. Did you know that a crj was never designed to make money? That it was only created to lose less money on thin, high revenue feeder routes to hubs than an available mainline a/c? Ever see an airline flying 50-seaters standing on its own without a code share, and profitable? No! They need the voodoo accounting practices of fee-for-departure invented by delta's own ron allen back in the early 90's. This realization is all too apparent to today's management that really feel the pain under the current price of fuel. The cost of continuing their operation is real leverage in negotiations, and the move to profitable 76-seaters is a no-brainer for management. The cost of bags and pax left behind on poorly designed a/c is significant.
But there are scope issues that affect my end of the seniority list also. Taxi into cdg and see the dozens of 747s,777s,330s, and the occasional 380 sitting there at any given time, and you have to ask yourself why we, as one of the largest airlines in the world, have less than 30 combined 777s and 747s. (no slight to our 330 brethren, just trying to make a point.) at the beginning of this process, i was assured by our mec chairman that two contract comparisons would be published this time. One with our domestic competitors, and one for international. They did go talk to our amis in europe but decided they couldn't publish those stats, due to privacy concerns agreed to. My suspicion is that our brothers and sisters overseas, with their lifetime medical and retirements, with their shorter flying months, with their annual strikes that add to their vacation time, probably cost their respective companies considerably more than we cost ours. But rather than stating proof for or against this supposition in general terms, our leaders didn't think we'd need that information. So if my supposition has any validity, why does delta continue to farm out as much int'l flying as they do? They won't when they have this agreement. There will be 777-300 order shortly after we agree to this agreement. Yes, this is a good thing. But is it worth accepting a ta that everyone's first reaction to is 'that'll never pass' or 'that'll be the end of alpa on the property!?'
the combined concessions of the delta south pilots in sla 46 and bankruptcy sla 51 cut the annual cost of that pilot group from about $2.9 billion to about $1.5, if my memory serves me. (i don't know the cost of concessions to the north pilots, but i think we can assume similar percentages.) in the years since those were inked, that's over $8 billion we voted this company. Think about that the next time you taxi by concourse f in atl or into the ramp at jfk. Think about that when we strap on a 737-900 in a few years, or read about the corporate debt being paid down, or the $7+billion cash on hand. I do. These are all good things for us as part of the delta family. Is there no room for better payback for pilot groups that helped navigate bankruptcy, fought off a unnatural takeover bid, and whose merger was as seamless as any in the industry? The pay rates that came out of this ta are the result of crossing a line of becoming way to cozy with management in our joint interests mentioned above. Add in the pattern bargaining pressure national uses to make their job easier and less threatening to their bottom line and you have just put yourself in an uncomfortable position of being told the requirement to press-to-test has disappeared. Hence, another ta presented with a we'll get 'em next time sentiment. Fool me once.....
Lastly, the work rules and quality of life issues are lost in a rushed to agreement. The 3:15 vacation bank is still well short of the 3:40 to 3:45 the company first valued it at when we lost touching trips around 1990. And that was with a sixth and sometimes a seventh week of annual vacation. There are no real seniority rights on reserve when we don't recover our previous 'low-yellow.' this would have been a further balancing of the new gains and concessions in reserve scheduling. This list could go on, but we now know that surveying the pilots is only a square to fill.
In conclusion, this for me is an easy albeit expected no vote. We used to ignore swa pay rates in the past because they didn't compare well, them not having nearly our pension plan. Now they have similar ones (or better,) and any agreement must start with equaling or exceeding their 737 rates. We are still in the dark on how our code share partners value and reward their pilots. We have not achieved nearly enough quality of life improvements. We have not improved our retirement enough. Let's go back and do this right, even if it means sacrificing the security being offered. The pressures on managements business plan are probably such that there's more on the table.
(name deleted)
777a-dtw
to say i'm less than enamored with this ta should be obvious to anyone who knows me. I'll start by apologizing to the north pilots about some of the references i'll be making because my experience is as a former lec chairman in cvg who served during to the run-up to and during all but the last month of our c2k. Even that mec had factions that were relatively more or less aggressive in dealing with management. While that contract resulted in what was probably the gold standard of all time in terms non-cargo compensation and work rules, many of us felt strongly that money was left on the table. Consider that within weeks of the ink drying on the signature blocks, delta went out and spent millions on hundreds of new plasma tvs(expensive new tech at the time) to put in gatehouses around the system. Proves nothing, right?
Shortly after that ta, i was contacted be a friend still on the mec, one of four no voters, to help write the con paper, a requirement of the policy manual at the time. The resulting product was completed and turned over to the mec communications committee. Despite content that included clearly delineated fact and supposition, and without our approval, the teeth of that paper was edited out and released to the pilot group. Shortly thereafter, the requirement for a con paper disappeared from mec practice. I illustrate the example to make the following point: Your dues money is being used to communicate only a positive message about this agreement, and opinions, like those of the dtw lec, will reach a limited number of us. It is also my opinion that those on the mec that have implied that they voted on an agreement they disagreed with in principle to pass it on to their pilots, are symptomatic of this pilot group as a whole. Not all, but plenty of those who will vote for this ta are way too comfortable being pushed around, and, in my opinion, unaware of what value our unique skill set deserves.
I'm a relatively junior dtw 777a (though still a cvg council 108 member) so my nest is pretty well feathered compared to those fighting the various quirks unique to more junior pilots. But we have several things in common too, like our hatred for flying being farmed out to those not on our seniority list. Coming from cincinnati, the original nesting ground for 50 seat rjs, nobody is more aware of the folly of that pos. Did you know that a crj was never designed to make money? That it was only created to lose less money on thin, high revenue feeder routes to hubs than an available mainline a/c? Ever see an airline flying 50-seaters standing on its own without a code share, and profitable? No! They need the voodoo accounting practices of fee-for-departure invented by delta's own ron allen back in the early 90's. This realization is all too apparent to today's management that really feel the pain under the current price of fuel. The cost of continuing their operation is real leverage in negotiations, and the move to profitable 76-seaters is a no-brainer for management. The cost of bags and pax left behind on poorly designed a/c is significant.
But there are scope issues that affect my end of the seniority list also. Taxi into cdg and see the dozens of 747s,777s,330s, and the occasional 380 sitting there at any given time, and you have to ask yourself why we, as one of the largest airlines in the world, have less than 30 combined 777s and 747s. (no slight to our 330 brethren, just trying to make a point.) at the beginning of this process, i was assured by our mec chairman that two contract comparisons would be published this time. One with our domestic competitors, and one for international. They did go talk to our amis in europe but decided they couldn't publish those stats, due to privacy concerns agreed to. My suspicion is that our brothers and sisters overseas, with their lifetime medical and retirements, with their shorter flying months, with their annual strikes that add to their vacation time, probably cost their respective companies considerably more than we cost ours. But rather than stating proof for or against this supposition in general terms, our leaders didn't think we'd need that information. So if my supposition has any validity, why does delta continue to farm out as much int'l flying as they do? They won't when they have this agreement. There will be 777-300 order shortly after we agree to this agreement. Yes, this is a good thing. But is it worth accepting a ta that everyone's first reaction to is 'that'll never pass' or 'that'll be the end of alpa on the property!?'
the combined concessions of the delta south pilots in sla 46 and bankruptcy sla 51 cut the annual cost of that pilot group from about $2.9 billion to about $1.5, if my memory serves me. (i don't know the cost of concessions to the north pilots, but i think we can assume similar percentages.) in the years since those were inked, that's over $8 billion we voted this company. Think about that the next time you taxi by concourse f in atl or into the ramp at jfk. Think about that when we strap on a 737-900 in a few years, or read about the corporate debt being paid down, or the $7+billion cash on hand. I do. These are all good things for us as part of the delta family. Is there no room for better payback for pilot groups that helped navigate bankruptcy, fought off a unnatural takeover bid, and whose merger was as seamless as any in the industry? The pay rates that came out of this ta are the result of crossing a line of becoming way to cozy with management in our joint interests mentioned above. Add in the pattern bargaining pressure national uses to make their job easier and less threatening to their bottom line and you have just put yourself in an uncomfortable position of being told the requirement to press-to-test has disappeared. Hence, another ta presented with a we'll get 'em next time sentiment. Fool me once.....
Lastly, the work rules and quality of life issues are lost in a rushed to agreement. The 3:15 vacation bank is still well short of the 3:40 to 3:45 the company first valued it at when we lost touching trips around 1990. And that was with a sixth and sometimes a seventh week of annual vacation. There are no real seniority rights on reserve when we don't recover our previous 'low-yellow.' this would have been a further balancing of the new gains and concessions in reserve scheduling. This list could go on, but we now know that surveying the pilots is only a square to fill.
In conclusion, this for me is an easy albeit expected no vote. We used to ignore swa pay rates in the past because they didn't compare well, them not having nearly our pension plan. Now they have similar ones (or better,) and any agreement must start with equaling or exceeding their 737 rates. We are still in the dark on how our code share partners value and reward their pilots. We have not achieved nearly enough quality of life improvements. We have not improved our retirement enough. Let's go back and do this right, even if it means sacrificing the security being offered. The pressures on managements business plan are probably such that there's more on the table.
(name deleted)
777a-dtw
05-29-2012, 05:26 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,097
The following quotes are copied from here http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/so...president.html
This is what scares me. Even the AirTran guys have unanswered questions from SWA leadership and SWAPA.
Do the AirTran 717 pilots have any protection from SWA letting them go? Because straight from the horses mouth, SWAPA isn't going to represent then.
It may not have accelerated anything, but come 2015, there will be no fence to cross. We will all be SWA pilots at that time and ALL on the SWA CBA.
"AirTran pilots are covered by the Southwest/SWAPA CBA upon entering training for service as Southwest pilots. AirTran pilots who have not entered training for service as Southwest pilots by January 1, 2015 will be covered by the SWAPA-Southwest CBA on January 1, 2015."
"AirTran pilots are covered by the Southwest/SWAPA CBA upon entering training for service as Southwest pilots. AirTran pilots who have not entered training for service as Southwest pilots by January 1, 2015 will be covered by the SWAPA-Southwest CBA on January 1, 2015."
There are a lot of questions about who transitions when as a result of the B717 going to Delta. The union apparently has heard so many people are "angry as hornets" over yet another gut punch from SWA*, that they robo called everyone at home telling them to remain focused on a safe flying operation and not to be distracted in the cockpit by the announcement. In addition, AT ALPA will have people from the Critical Incident Response Program in the crew lounge in the coming days.
In the mean time, it looks like most AirTran FO's will continue to be on the B scale all the way to 1 Jan 2015, another 2.5 years, while they watch the quality of the lines continue to decline. Then they are looking forward to spending the first 20 years at SWA as FO's before they upgrade (if they are lucky enough to have 20 years left). But at least they have the SWA culture to look forward to.
To recap, you now have an entire airline of 1600 pilots who don't have answers as to when they will transition or what happens to the transition bid. In reality, the SWA ATL base probably disappeared with the announcement and nearly every AirTran pilot will be forced to commute.
*No one thinks the decision to sublease the B717 to Delta is a bad business decision, it's just that the announcement by SWA made no mention of the major, major impact of this decision on the AirTran pilot group. Either GK doesn't realize the scope of the problem or worse, he doesn't care. Even the management types they sent to ATL the day after the announcement admitted they had no answers. They did say that the are realizing that the biggest burden of the merger is being borne by the AirTran pilots. Ya think?
In the mean time, it looks like most AirTran FO's will continue to be on the B scale all the way to 1 Jan 2015, another 2.5 years, while they watch the quality of the lines continue to decline. Then they are looking forward to spending the first 20 years at SWA as FO's before they upgrade (if they are lucky enough to have 20 years left). But at least they have the SWA culture to look forward to.
To recap, you now have an entire airline of 1600 pilots who don't have answers as to when they will transition or what happens to the transition bid. In reality, the SWA ATL base probably disappeared with the announcement and nearly every AirTran pilot will be forced to commute.
*No one thinks the decision to sublease the B717 to Delta is a bad business decision, it's just that the announcement by SWA made no mention of the major, major impact of this decision on the AirTran pilot group. Either GK doesn't realize the scope of the problem or worse, he doesn't care. Even the management types they sent to ATL the day after the announcement admitted they had no answers. They did say that the are realizing that the biggest burden of the merger is being borne by the AirTran pilots. Ya think?
Do the AirTran 717 pilots have any protection from SWA letting them go? Because straight from the horses mouth, SWAPA isn't going to represent then.
05-29-2012, 05:32 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Food for thought:
If we assume the 717 leases, the first ones start to expire in 2017 and the last ones expire in 2024. It would be a short term lease. Those jets would need a replacement and as far as I am aware the CS or the Neo are the only logical alternatives. This reality may put scope at the front table right when retirements are kicking in and Dal is in a pilot crunch. Just food for thought.
05-29-2012, 05:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 243
I'm done with this. The decision you need to make is the one of whether you want to get rid of 50 seaters before their leases run out. Voting no will ensure that we have MORE 76s than would be allowed in the TA, and MORE 50s than would be allowed in the TA. Other than that, yeah, by voting no, we get rid of the 70 seaters. If you still do not understand this, send me a PM.
The 50 seaters are not in our control. Delta will still have to negotiate the departure of these aircraft and if we don't pass the TA Delta will still find a way to get the fleet to where they want it. Delta has successfully destroyed
several of their regional carriers already.
You claim that voting no will ensure that we will have more 76 seaters than this TA would allow and this is not true. It is an assumption that you are making that Delta would use a pump and dump scenario to do this which would cost a huge amount to Delta thanks to the grievance settlement from a few years ago requiring airplanes needing to be on the property to be counted.
Delta already said that the 717 deal is dependent on this TA so without it there are no 717s to take us over 767 mainline aircraft, therefore the 76 seaters stay at 153 and Delta keeps working at parking 50 seats at every possible opportunity. If this is just a bluff by Delta they could by the 717s anyway but they must take delivery of every one of them with out parking any mainline aircraft for the time it take to get all of the 70 seat aircraft traded/sold and new 76 seat aircraft bought. This means that Delta would have one huge surplus of aircraft including DC9s they really want to park if they really did intend to "pump and dump." It makes no financial sense for Delta to do this as it would require several years of a huge surplus in the fleet.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
