|
|
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1202054)
As someone who has gotten tired of posting, but who has still been paying a lot of attention to this stuff, I've got to say that this letter by Steve most closely expresses my fears of what's in this TA. I've met him a few times, which doesn't mean he's more or less credible than the more positive posters on the TA, but there is something to be said about someone who points out what is good, bad, and ugly and not just all the good with it.
I've gotten over the pay issue. It's slow to get where I want it, but whatever. I've always said scope was more important than pay. Admittedly, I never mentioned work rules. Probably, because I never thought we would give any up. I've also gotten over some of the more onerous work-rule changes. If I ever make it to a position where I consistently fly long trips and get sick more than once in a year, I'll get a doctors note, and fight about it later. No problemo. What I haven't gotten over is scope and the pilot productivity increases. Any additional 70+ seaters to be flown by someone else is a LOT to me. The bottom line to me is that we are going in the wrong direction with those. I don't remember how the survey was worded, but I wish it had made the distinction between 50 seaters and 70+ seaters. When I'm flying, the guys/gals I fly with never look at 50 seaters and say, "there goes my left seat job." But, when a 70 seater goes by, at some point during the trip, undoubtedly they will say something to that effect. Does the NC and MEC know that there is a distinction between the two made in our pilot group? Unfortunately, I believe we have been compensated for in the opposite direction that what we wanted: less 70+ seaters, 50 seaters -- more if you want them, we hate 'em and know the passengers do, too. Like I said, we are going in the wrong direction with 70 seaters, and what's disheartening is that there is no acknowledgment by the MEC or the company that we want the amount of 70 seaters to decrease. Next is the ALV +15 issue for reserves and ALV 84 for lineholders. I know on its face, these are huge issues that will cost pilot jobs. I know Slow has posted and tried to explain the formula that is supposed to protect against a loss of pilots, but it makes little sense. Why does the company want increased productivity from us and why did we give it up, only to be "protected" with some formula? Maybe someone can explain it to me in simplistic terms? Both of these are big issues for me. It doesn't make sense for me to vote in a TA under the pretense of the time value of money, if that TA causes me to be displaced to a lower paying position for less money. Assuming Captain Mayer was totally asleep for the entire week of presentations, and no one took notes for him, is the reason he wrote some of the stuff he wrote above, what part did he miss? Thanks in advance. I've been refraining from posting over the last month or so as I studied the arguments. Like you, I am in complete agreement with Captain Mayer. His letter reflect my sentiments exactly. I'll be voting no. Regards all, Buzz |
I've sat on the sidelines as an observer for a while. But I just want to interject some thoughts that I'm concerned about.
We all know the Delta/NWA pilots gave. We gave to the tune of 50% during the 2004-2007 timeframe. We gave on the seniority list with outsourcing. Prior to 9/11/01, the combined DAL/NWA list was north of 17000. Today, nearly 11 years later, I'm still not at my original hire number at Delta. We lost nearly 5,000 jobs to outsourcing. There's a dollar figure there. Billions saved due to our outsourcing. There are dollar figures on the LOA's we've signed. There's real dollar figures in frozen or terminated pensions. And now, there's potential dollar figures we give by saving the company money on major overhauls of the CRJ-200s. The number I've heard is somewhere near $1.5 billion. $1.5 billion. If true, what's our reward for that. If we were able to achieve 25% of that number for the pilot group that number is $375 million. Divided by 12,000 pilots, that's $31,200/ pilot. Divided by 860 hours per year of flying that would be $36/hour. Divided by the three year contract, that would be an average of $12/hour/pilot. Is that factored at all into our new rates? That's real, hard money DAL is not throwing out on an outdated, uncompetitive airplane. It's only achieved by our TA and relaxation of the additional 76 seaters. While I can see merit long term towards getting rid of the 50 seat capacity and capping and reducing the RJ numbers I want to know we are getting a reward for that. That's our leverage! The 717s are not carrots. Its a stick and a carrot. The stick is refusal of this TA lands us in no man's land. The carrot is more movement for the '97-'08 guys. But let's not for a moment lose sight of the fact that this is a business decision. Glen Hauenstein and Bob Cortelyou have been foaming at the mouth for a 100 seater. They are getting them. They will be here no matter what. This makes good business sense for us and Glen and Co. will find a way to maximize their revenue potential. An agreement with us is not the reason this plane is coming to our property. Its a convenient association, but its not the reason. This airplane will only come because GH knows he will make a killing with it and no other Legacy carrier could fit it into their fleet. Finally, I want to point out my beef with the payrates. My father-in-law used to be on the Fed Reserve. He's currently CEO of a bank. We were visiting with him last month and I brought up we were in negotiations with the company. He said that's good and that we need to be thinking long term with regards to our pay. He said the only way out of our debt crisis is through inflation. The inflation needed to bring us under control would mean we would need to make double what we are now in ten years just to enjoy the lifestyle we have now. That means on MD-88 FO 12 year pay at $120k, I would need to be making $240k in 2022 to have the same relative lifestyle. That pegs inflation at around 7%/ year which is around the corner. That's what we need to average to not see a relative pay cut. That means we need at least 21% on this contract not to be worse off in 3 years than we are now. Since we are at 18.5% that means effectively we will be taking a 3% paycut on this deal if his numbers are correct. Given that he's a player in the banking industry and has real insider contacts I have no reason to doubt him. If we fail to get that, we will need to do that much better on successive contracts. But what is our leverage? Our leverage is Scope and future acquisitions. I firmly believe this industry will have realized the final rounds of acquisitions over the next five years. After that, what will our leverage be? I can't answer that but I want us to capitalize now to the best of our abillity based on what our leverage is. Please continue to vet this deal out. Richard is to smart a guy not to have a plan B, C, D, etc. What is our Plan B, C? He will not allow his leverage as CEO of the only successfully merged airline to fall just because we quibbled over small %. That small number to a $35 billion company is huge to a pilot group. Anyways, off to bed. Good luck guys! DAL |
Originally Posted by DAL4EVER
(Post 1202120)
I've sat on the sidelines as an observer for a while. But I just want to interject some thoughts that I'm concerned about.
We all know the Delta/NWA pilots gave. We gave to the tune of 50% during the 2004-2007 timeframe. We gave on the seniority list with outsourcing. Prior to 9/11/01, the combined DAL/NWA list was north of 17000. Today, nearly 11 years later, I'm still not at my original hire number at Delta. We lost nearly 5,000 jobs to outsourcing. There's a dollar figure there. Billions saved due to our outsourcing. There are dollar figures on the LOA's we've signed. There's real dollar figures in frozen or terminated pensions. And now, there's potential dollar figures we give by saving the company money on major overhauls of the CRJ-200s. The number I've heard is somewhere near $1.5 billion. $1.5 billion. If true, what's our reward for that. If we were able to achieve 25% of that number for the pilot group that number is $375 million. Divided by 12,000 pilots, that's $31,200/ pilot. Divided by 860 hours per year of flying that would be $36/hour. Divided by the three year contract, that would be an average of $12/hour/pilot. Is that factored at all into our new rates? That's real, hard money DAL is not throwing out on an outdated, uncompetitive airplane. It's only achieved by our TA and relaxation of the additional 76 seaters. While I can see merit long term towards getting rid of the 50 seat capacity and capping and reducing the RJ numbers I want to know we are getting a reward for that. That's our leverage! The 717s are not carrots. Its a stick and a carrot. The stick is refusal of this TA lands us in no man's land. The carrot is more movement for the '97-'08 guys. But let's not for a moment lose sight of the fact that this is a business decision. Glen Hauenstein and Bob Cortelyou have been foaming at the mouth for a 100 seater. They are getting them. They will be here no matter what. This makes good business sense for us and Glen and Co. will find a way to maximize their revenue potential. An agreement with us is not the reason this plane is coming to our property. Its a convenient association, but its not the reason. This airplane will only come because GH knows he will make a killing with it and no other Legacy carrier could fit it into their fleet. Finally, I want to point out my beef with the payrates. My father-in-law used to be on the Fed Reserve. He's currently CEO of a bank. We were visiting with him last month and I brought up we were in negotiations with the company. He said that's good and that we need to be thinking long term with regards to our pay. He said the only way out of our debt crisis is through inflation. The inflation needed to bring us under control would mean we would need to make double what we are now in ten years just to enjoy the lifestyle we have now. That means on MD-88 FO 12 year pay at $120k, I would need to be making $240k in 2022 to have the same relative lifestyle. That pegs inflation at around 7%/ year which is around the corner. That's what we need to average to not see a relative pay cut. That means we need at least 21% on this contract not to be worse off in 3 years than we are now. Since we are at 18.5% that means effectively we will be taking a 3% paycut on this deal if his numbers are correct. Given that he's a player in the banking industry and has real insider contacts I have no reason to doubt him. If we fail to get that, we will need to do that much better on successive contracts. But what is our leverage? Our leverage is Scope and future acquisitions. I firmly believe this industry will have realized the final rounds of acquisitions over the next five years. After that, what will our leverage be? I can't answer that but I want us to capitalize now to the best of our abillity based on what our leverage is. Please continue to vet this deal out. Richard is to smart a guy not to have a plan B, C, D, etc. What is our Plan B, C? He will not allow his leverage as CEO of the only successfully merged airline to fall just because we quibbled over small %. That small number to a $35 billion company is huge to a pilot group. Anyways, off to bed. Good luck guys! DAL Right now I am far from convinced that this is the best we can do nor am I convinced that we will need a follow on TA with a merger. Btw, you are in this boat too! |
Excellent post DAL! Spot on!
|
Originally Posted by DAL4EVER
(Post 1202120)
I've sat on the sidelines as an observer for a while. But I just want to interject some thoughts that I'm concerned about.
We all know the Delta/NWA pilots gave. We gave to the tune of 50% during the 2004-2007 timeframe. We gave on the seniority list with outsourcing. Prior to 9/11/01, the combined DAL/NWA list was north of 17000. Today, nearly 11 years later, I'm still not at my original hire number at Delta. We lost nearly 5,000 jobs to outsourcing. There's a dollar figure there. Billions saved due to our outsourcing. There are dollar figures on the LOA's we've signed. There's real dollar figures in frozen or terminated pensions. And now, there's potential dollar figures we give by saving the company money on major overhauls of the CRJ-200s. The number I've heard is somewhere near $1.5 billion. $1.5 billion. If true, what's our reward for that. If we were able to achieve 25% of that number for the pilot group that number is $375 million. Divided by 12,000 pilots, that's $31,200/ pilot. Divided by 860 hours per year of flying that would be $36/hour. Divided by the three year contract, that would be an average of $12/hour/pilot. Is that factored at all into our new rates? That's real, hard money DAL is not throwing out on an outdated, uncompetitive airplane. It's only achieved by our TA and relaxation of the additional 76 seaters. While I can see merit long term towards getting rid of the 50 seat capacity and capping and reducing the RJ numbers I want to know we are getting a reward for that. That's our leverage! The 717s are not carrots. Its a stick and a carrot. The stick is refusal of this TA lands us in no man's land. The carrot is more movement for the '97-'08 guys. But let's not for a moment lose sight of the fact that this is a business decision. Glen Hauenstein and Bob Cortelyou have been foaming at the mouth for a 100 seater. They are getting them. They will be here no matter what. This makes good business sense for us and Glen and Co. will find a way to maximize their revenue potential. An agreement with us is not the reason this plane is coming to our property. Its a convenient association, but its not the reason. This airplane will only come because GH knows he will make a killing with it and no other Legacy carrier could fit it into their fleet. Finally, I want to point out my beef with the payrates. My father-in-law used to be on the Fed Reserve. He's currently CEO of a bank. We were visiting with him last month and I brought up we were in negotiations with the company. He said that's good and that we need to be thinking long term with regards to our pay. He said the only way out of our debt crisis is through inflation. The inflation needed to bring us under control would mean we would need to make double what we are now in ten years just to enjoy the lifestyle we have now. That means on MD-88 FO 12 year pay at $120k, I would need to be making $240k in 2022 to have the same relative lifestyle. That pegs inflation at around 7%/ year which is around the corner. That's what we need to average to not see a relative pay cut. That means we need at least 21% on this contract not to be worse off in 3 years than we are now. Since we are at 18.5% that means effectively we will be taking a 3% paycut on this deal if his numbers are correct. Given that he's a player in the banking industry and has real insider contacts I have no reason to doubt him. If we fail to get that, we will need to do that much better on successive contracts. But what is our leverage? Our leverage is Scope and future acquisitions. I firmly believe this industry will have realized the final rounds of acquisitions over the next five years. After that, what will our leverage be? I can't answer that but I want us to capitalize now to the best of our abillity based on what our leverage is. Please continue to vet this deal out. Richard is to smart a guy not to have a plan B, C, D, etc. What is our Plan B, C? He will not allow his leverage as CEO of the only successfully merged airline to fall just because we quibbled over small %. That small number to a $35 billion company is huge to a pilot group. Anyways, off to bed. Good luck guys! DAL |
Maybe we ought to do a Charity Bribe to see if they'd release the Survey Results? :D
So collect money, put out a press release, if the bribe works we send it to Children's Healthcare, if it doesn't, nobody is charged. Idea origination: Get Donald Trump to post a picture of how his hair looks when he wakes up, money goes to St Judes... Voting | Charity Bribes |
I'm curious (if the TA is ratified, and I'm a NO vote BTW) where the line will be drawn on "critical category staffing" for the early out? DALPA has already said that we are going to lose 300 (give or take) jobs to efficiencies during this agreement.
Here is how I see staffing going down the next few years under the TA: 1 - We lose 300 jobs to efficiencies right off the bat. 2 - IF we get lucky, we will have 250 or so early outs. Call it a wash, BEST CASE? 3 - The airline is still a bit over staffed. 4 - Military guys and a handful of furlough bypasses want to come back. 5 - As the senior folks leave, many of the spots on the fat international categories aren't backfilled. 6 - Folks that took the early out constitute the majority of the guys that would have been leaving in the next three years anyways, so its unlikely we will see many retirements within three years of the early out. This takes us through mid 2013. 7 - The 737-900s and the 717s start showing up about the same time in 3Q 2013. People will have been displaced off the 757 prior to this, making that airplane that much more senior. The 717s we get in 2013 will be a total wash as the DC9s finally fly west. The only positives we can hope for here is that domestic demand is up and we keep a few more 757s than we get 900s - I'm not planning on it. 8 - Its the end of 2013 and pilot block hours are very similar to current levels. No immediate retirements on the horizon (everyone that would have been going just took the early out). 9 - Now its early 2014 and all we can do is HOPE that the 717s were indeed growth for mainline (in place of the 50 seaters). After about the first 10 (of 2014) or so are delivered, the airline is just about properly staffed. BEST CASE, beyond the 25th-30th 717 that we deliver, we should look for growth of pilot block hours requiring new hires. 10 - They MIGHT hire late 2013 to early 2014 for the 600-750 (SWAG) jobs the remaining 58 717s bring? IF they aren't displacing off of widebodies due to lack of international demand. 11 - After the hiring is done for those spots completed by mid 2015, we MIGHT start to see the retirements slowly start back up and really ramp up at the end of the decade (that's still 8 years away folks). Below is a list of the categories guys hold that are due to retire in the next 4 years (ending June 1, 2016) based on age 65. I estimate they represent very likely candidates for the early out. Obviously, the numbers have to be taken in context. Age only is considered, not seniority. Some may be old but junior and ineligible for the package. Certainly, there will be a few pilots less than 61 years old interested in early outing. I was just curious if I could find a category that would be really short with the early out. Based on age only, it was much more spread out than I thought. If a category isn't listed, there are no retirements from it in the next 4 years. I've listed a % for any category that has more than 10% retiring from there. ATL777A - 55 - 28% ATL777B - 6 ATL765A - 22 - 24% ATL765B - 2 ATL7ERA - 25 ATL7ERB - 10 ATL330A - 8 ATL330B - 6 ATL767A - 8 ATL767B - 4 ATL320A - 5 ATL320B - 1 ATL73NA - 13 ATL73NB - 2 ATLDC9A - 1 ATLM88A - 10 ATLM88B - 9 CVG73NB - 1 DTW777A - 7 - 10% DTW777B - 1 DTW744A - 31 - 15% DTW744B - 16 DTW7ERA - 7 DTW7ERB - 4 DTW330A - 19 - 12% DTW330B - 9 DTW320A - 10 DTW320B - 1 DTWDC9A - 1 LAX7ERA - 9 LAX7ERB - 6 LAX73NA - 2 MSP7ERA - 11 MSP7ERB - 5 MSP320A - 18 MSP320B - 3 MSPDC9A - 4 MSPM88A - 7 NYC765A - 4 NYC765B - 6 NYC7ERA - 20 NYC7ERB - 3 NYC320A - 3 NYC73NA - 9 SEA7ERA - 7 SEA7ERB - 1 SEA330A - 10 - 10% SEA330B - 6 SLC7ERA - 8 SLC7ERB - 6 SLC320A - 4 SLC320B - 1 SLC73NA - 1 SICA - 44 SICB - 20 TOTAL =503 |
Originally Posted by FIIGMO
(Post 1201608)
Now that is a good read.........
Carl |
Originally Posted by casual observer
(Post 1201771)
anybody else heard a rumor about 777's or heavy airbus acquistions
Carl |
Originally Posted by Elvis90
(Post 1201909)
Just arrived in ATL for my first day as an ATL-based MD-88 FO. I happened to walk in the pilot ops area during ALPA's presentation of the TA. Lots of contentious questions.
I was waiting by the hotel van area and a captain sat down next to me. We struck up a conversation about the TA. I asked him about his opinion, and he is voting yes. I listened while he talked about scope & pay saying that this is good enough. Then he asked me my opinion. Boy, did he get hot under the collar...even began comparing our education levels. I was being respectful, but his responses were typically, "didn't you hear what ALPA said?" The 50-seat jet issue is the big question...he talked about trading them for 76-seaters...why not flown by Delta pilots? Why not trade with Bombardier to get C-series jets flown by Delta pilots? The company has stated that 717's are replacing 50-seaters' lift. I think they could do the same in lieu of 76-seaters. Then we talked about inflation. He did not want to discuss it. I said in effect, we're getting a 10% pay raise at the end of 3 years due to inflation. We discussed the fact that the company approached ALPA for a deal...and if we wait 6 months it all falls through in his mind. I shook his hand and thanked him for chatting after my van showed up. We have to remember the HUGE role DALPA played in getting this "highly educated" man's vote. We cannot let DALPA shirk its responsibilities when the fallout happens. Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:04 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands