Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
06-07-2012 | 06:01 PM
Banned
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
From: DAL
06-07-2012 | 06:03 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
Denny
06-07-2012 | 06:09 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
Denny
06-07-2012 | 06:09 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Reducing the overall block hours at DCI is great. Reducing the number of RJ's is spectacular. I expected that this would happen as the inefficient 50-seaters were retired while we held the line on large RJ scope. I don't consider their early retirement a windfall any more than I do the early outs. They were both going to happen eventually. Now, however, we've found a way to effectively 'pay' for management to do what they want to do by further weakening our long-term position.
As a former DCI guy who did a good amount of flying that used to be done by DAL 737's, I saw the result of that outsourcing firsthand. I never wanted the 76-seaters at my company and chose never to fly them for that reason. This is my first opportunity to vote no on outsourcing more large RJ's. I haven't decided definitively how I'll vote, but this kind of outsourcing matters to me both for the practicality of reduced future leverage and for the principle of the thing. Outsourcing your own job feels, somehow, unwise.
06-07-2012 | 06:18 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
From: B737 CA
With the TA, you decrease the number of airframes at DCI, somewhat decrease the ASMs at DCI, decrease number of pilots working at DCI, and shift the balance of flying significantly towards mainline. These are all good things! None of us are arguing against them. The problem is by shifting DCI's fleet to one that is economical, capable, and popular with passengers, you are once again creating economic incentive to outsource. Yes, there are block hour ratios to protect you from the company responding to that incentive. The real money question is: will the company respect the contract? Will ALPA enforce the ratios if tested? Will the language hold up in court? Will the ratios survive the next contract?
These are the real questions because by the end of this contract, if ratified, DCI will be far more attractive than it is now, the company will once again consider them a viable alternative to mainline, there will be 230 76 seaters permanently ensconded at DCI, and a portion of the 102 70 seaters will be getting old. The pressure to allow more outsourcing will be huge, and the precedent will have been set.
Put another way, if there were some way to guarantee that the "hard caps" and ratios remained in place for the next 15 years, they would be a good deal and worth allowing the extra jumbo RJs. With this T/A though, it's only guaranteed for the next three years (if the company respects the contract) and it ensures there will be pressure for additional outsourcing at some point. You're trading decent protections for the next three years for a precarious situation in the years after that.
06-07-2012 | 06:19 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
From: A330B
I was referring to the combination of increasing the number of viable, long-term mainline replacement aircraft and increasing our efficiency which, together, appear to me a poor long-term solution for growth at the mainline.
Reducing the overall block hours at DCI is great. Reducing the number of RJ's is spectacular. I expected that this would happen as the inefficient 50-seaters were retired while we held the line on large RJ scope. I don't consider their early retirement a windfall any more than I do the early outs. They were both going to happen eventually. Now, however, we've found a way to effectively 'pay' for management to do what they want to do by further weakening our long-term position.
As a former DCI guy who did a good amount of flying that used to be done by DAL 737's, I saw the result of that outsourcing firsthand. I never wanted the 76-seaters at my company and chose never to fly them for that reason. This is my first opportunity to vote no on outsourcing more large RJ's. I haven't decided definitively how I'll vote, but this kind of outsourcing matters to me both for the practicality of reduced future leverage and for the principle of the thing. Outsourcing your own job feels, somehow, unwise.
Reducing the overall block hours at DCI is great. Reducing the number of RJ's is spectacular. I expected that this would happen as the inefficient 50-seaters were retired while we held the line on large RJ scope. I don't consider their early retirement a windfall any more than I do the early outs. They were both going to happen eventually. Now, however, we've found a way to effectively 'pay' for management to do what they want to do by further weakening our long-term position.
As a former DCI guy who did a good amount of flying that used to be done by DAL 737's, I saw the result of that outsourcing firsthand. I never wanted the 76-seaters at my company and chose never to fly them for that reason. This is my first opportunity to vote no on outsourcing more large RJ's. I haven't decided definitively how I'll vote, but this kind of outsourcing matters to me both for the practicality of reduced future leverage and for the principle of the thing. Outsourcing your own job feels, somehow, unwise.
06-07-2012 | 07:15 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
I was referring to the combination of increasing the number of viable, long-term mainline replacement aircraft and increasing our efficiency which, together, appear to me a poor long-term solution for growth at the mainline.
Well, all I can say is we would be significantly lowering the the total amount of outsourced aircraft and lowering ASMs. Along with the block hour ratio, if there is any growth it should benefit mainline way more than DCI. Also, DCI will be capped at 450 aircraft. There is only so much flying they can do.
Reducing the overall block hours at DCI is great. Reducing the number of RJ's is spectacular. I expected that this would happen as the inefficient 50-seaters were retired while we held the line on large RJ scope. I don't consider their early retirement a windfall any more than I do the early outs. They were both going to happen eventually. Now, however, we've found a way to effectively 'pay' for management to do what they want to do by further weakening our long-term position.
I have to ask, do you think my scenario that, currently, with the delivery of the '90's and 737-900's the company could reach 801 aircraft, get up to 255 76ers and dump mainline aircraft? I think it's entirely feasible. As far as the 50 seaters go, I think a lot of guys saying they are gonna leave and soon but I'm not convinced they are, especially if the company puts a lot of money into heavy checks.....
As a former DCI guy who did a good amount of flying that used to be done by DAL 737's, I saw the result of that outsourcing firsthand. I never wanted the 76-seaters at my company and chose never to fly them for that reason. This is my first opportunity to vote no on outsourcing more large RJ's. I haven't decided definitively how I'll vote, but this kind of outsourcing matters to me both for the practicality of reduced future leverage and for the principle of the thing. Outsourcing your own job feels, somehow, unwise.
All I can say to this is I wish we had never allowed it but we did...
Well, all I can say is we would be significantly lowering the the total amount of outsourced aircraft and lowering ASMs. Along with the block hour ratio, if there is any growth it should benefit mainline way more than DCI. Also, DCI will be capped at 450 aircraft. There is only so much flying they can do.
Reducing the overall block hours at DCI is great. Reducing the number of RJ's is spectacular. I expected that this would happen as the inefficient 50-seaters were retired while we held the line on large RJ scope. I don't consider their early retirement a windfall any more than I do the early outs. They were both going to happen eventually. Now, however, we've found a way to effectively 'pay' for management to do what they want to do by further weakening our long-term position.
I have to ask, do you think my scenario that, currently, with the delivery of the '90's and 737-900's the company could reach 801 aircraft, get up to 255 76ers and dump mainline aircraft? I think it's entirely feasible. As far as the 50 seaters go, I think a lot of guys saying they are gonna leave and soon but I'm not convinced they are, especially if the company puts a lot of money into heavy checks.....
As a former DCI guy who did a good amount of flying that used to be done by DAL 737's, I saw the result of that outsourcing firsthand. I never wanted the 76-seaters at my company and chose never to fly them for that reason. This is my first opportunity to vote no on outsourcing more large RJ's. I haven't decided definitively how I'll vote, but this kind of outsourcing matters to me both for the practicality of reduced future leverage and for the principle of the thing. Outsourcing your own job feels, somehow, unwise.
All I can say to this is I wish we had never allowed it but we did...
I have to look at the "big picture" scope clause in the TA and when I do I see a win for us. I do NOT like the increase in 76ers but when I see that 255 are allowed currently if the company meets 801 mainline aircraft (which I think is entirely possible), I have to really consider this a win.
Denny
06-07-2012 | 07:20 PM
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
I have to look at the "big picture" scope clause in the TA and when I do I see a win for us. I do NOT like the increase in 76ers but when I see that 255 are allowed currently if the company meets 801 mainline aircraft (which I think is entirely possible), I have to really consider this a win.
Denny
Denny
06-07-2012 | 07:40 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
They could, but they would have to get additional small (read: inefficient) aircraft to do it. There is no economic incentive for additional outsourcing. The opposite is true: there is economic incentive to *decrease* outsourcing right now because the 50s are such a drag. This is evidenced by the extraordinary lengths the company has been willing to go to in order to get out of them (killing Comair, Mesa lawsuit). Lesson learned: the company responds strongly to economic incentives.
They wouldn't have to get any more small aircaft at DCI. All they have to do is cut mainline and park aging aircraft and voila! Yes they do respond strongly to economic incentives. What do you think they will do if we turn this down and they then spend the money on heavy checks for the 50s? I suspect they will fly them to try and get the money back from doing the checks!
With the TA, you decrease the number of airframes at DCI, somewhat decrease the ASMs at DCI, decrease number of pilots working at DCI, and shift the balance of flying significantly towards mainline. These are all good things! None of us are arguing against them. The problem is by shifting DCI's fleet to one that is economical, capable, and popular with passengers, you are once again creating economic incentive to outsource. Yes, there are block hour ratios to protect you from the company responding to that incentive. The real money question is: will the company respect the contract? Will ALPA enforce the ratios if tested? Will the language hold up in court? Will the ratios survive the next contract?
You answered your own question better than I could have! That is why the ratio's are there. I will probably be called a "company man" for saying this but I have been proud to work for Delta thru my career so far. Over the years I have been here there has not been alot of head butting between Delta and DALPA. There have been instances where the contract has been violated and DALPA has grieved and won. FM II being one of them. I fully believe DALPA will grieve any known violation of the ratio. Only courts can decide that! I would say yes because our agreement is with Delta Air Lines and not DCI. Will the ratios survive? Only the next TA will tell but I would be highly surprised if they didn't...
These are the real questions because by the end of this contract, if ratified, DCI will be far more attractive than it is now, the company will once again consider them a viable alternative to mainline, there will be 230 76 seaters permanently ensconded at DCI, and a portion of the 102 70 seaters will be getting old. The pressure to allow more outsourcing will be huge, and the precedent will have been set.
It may be more attractive but it will definitely be smaller and isn't that what we are after? I cannot get passed the fact that, currently, DCI can reach 255 76ers if mainline gets to 801 aircraft and then Delta could dump mainline. You say some of the 70s are getting old, I rest my case with the pump and dump to 255 76ers.
Put another way, if there were some way to guarantee that the "hard caps" and ratios remained in place for the next 15 years, they would be a good deal and worth allowing the extra jumbo RJs. With this T/A though, it's only guaranteed for the next three years (if the company respects the contract) and it ensures there will be pressure for additional outsourcing at some point. You're trading decent protections for the next three years for a precarious situation in the years after that.
Unfortunately there will never be a guarantee of that. When in contract negotiations, every thing is negotiable. Well thanks for saying we get decent protections from the TA!
All I can say for the last is: You are only worth what you negotiate!
They wouldn't have to get any more small aircaft at DCI. All they have to do is cut mainline and park aging aircraft and voila! Yes they do respond strongly to economic incentives. What do you think they will do if we turn this down and they then spend the money on heavy checks for the 50s? I suspect they will fly them to try and get the money back from doing the checks!
With the TA, you decrease the number of airframes at DCI, somewhat decrease the ASMs at DCI, decrease number of pilots working at DCI, and shift the balance of flying significantly towards mainline. These are all good things! None of us are arguing against them. The problem is by shifting DCI's fleet to one that is economical, capable, and popular with passengers, you are once again creating economic incentive to outsource. Yes, there are block hour ratios to protect you from the company responding to that incentive. The real money question is: will the company respect the contract? Will ALPA enforce the ratios if tested? Will the language hold up in court? Will the ratios survive the next contract?
You answered your own question better than I could have! That is why the ratio's are there. I will probably be called a "company man" for saying this but I have been proud to work for Delta thru my career so far. Over the years I have been here there has not been alot of head butting between Delta and DALPA. There have been instances where the contract has been violated and DALPA has grieved and won. FM II being one of them. I fully believe DALPA will grieve any known violation of the ratio. Only courts can decide that! I would say yes because our agreement is with Delta Air Lines and not DCI. Will the ratios survive? Only the next TA will tell but I would be highly surprised if they didn't...
These are the real questions because by the end of this contract, if ratified, DCI will be far more attractive than it is now, the company will once again consider them a viable alternative to mainline, there will be 230 76 seaters permanently ensconded at DCI, and a portion of the 102 70 seaters will be getting old. The pressure to allow more outsourcing will be huge, and the precedent will have been set.
It may be more attractive but it will definitely be smaller and isn't that what we are after? I cannot get passed the fact that, currently, DCI can reach 255 76ers if mainline gets to 801 aircraft and then Delta could dump mainline. You say some of the 70s are getting old, I rest my case with the pump and dump to 255 76ers.
Put another way, if there were some way to guarantee that the "hard caps" and ratios remained in place for the next 15 years, they would be a good deal and worth allowing the extra jumbo RJs. With this T/A though, it's only guaranteed for the next three years (if the company respects the contract) and it ensures there will be pressure for additional outsourcing at some point. You're trading decent protections for the next three years for a precarious situation in the years after that.
Unfortunately there will never be a guarantee of that. When in contract negotiations, every thing is negotiable. Well thanks for saying we get decent protections from the TA!
All I can say for the last is: You are only worth what you negotiate!Denny
06-07-2012 | 07:44 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,105
Likes: 100
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
