Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 1216861)

Ha! That reminds me of when I was deadheading on a flight from MEM to DTW and there was a non-reving FA in the row behind me. A passenger was sitting next to her and I overheard him trying to pick her up. He asked her if she had a boyfriend and she said yes, he was a Navy plot. He told her he was a Navy pilot, too and had just gotten out. She asked him what aircraft he flew and he said F-15's. She told him she didn't think the Navy flew F-15's and the conversation went downhill from there.

I think it was the closest I ever come to getting dragged into the chief pilots office, because I wanted to turn around and laugh at him so badly -- but, I didn't. I did have a grim on my face like this :D though the whole way. :D

Maxim magazine used to have this section that would help prevent this from happening. It would be like "so your life sucks, but, you want to pick up a girl at a bar by telling her you're a Blue Angels pilot. Here is some terminology and things you need to know..."

So bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1216862)

Between 110-128 open NMB regulated open negotiations mediated over the last 3 years.

1 proffer of arbitration in the last 3 years.

ALL legacies out of bankruptcy are WAY below us, negotiating with the NMB for 3-7 years with nothing to show for it.

Yes. I think that is valid information.

Your information is valid if the company chooses to go that route. Do you have any information that supports your assumption that that is the way they will decide to go?

Or, to put it another way:

Refute my assertion that I think if the TA is voted down the company and union will get together quickly and put together a better TA.

My assumption is based on my belief that the company wants....no, the company needs a happy and productive pilot group. You know....Delta people. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd149 (Post 1216865)

I piddy da fool:p

I had pity at first --like for a second. Then with the way the FA handled him, all I could do is laugh. I laugh about it every time I think about it (like now). :D

It seems we didn't extract enough from Delta according to Council 20.
Is there anyway we can go to Bombardier and say "Hey you want the CRJ900 line to stay open? Send a little love our way!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by grasshopper (Post 1216811)

If it's all doom and gloom you're afraid of with the economy then the idea that this is a growth deal should be off the table. So that leaves us with a TA that ain't too hot in a contracting airline situation. Sure we can squeeze more hourly pay out of this but in many ways we pay a little for it. Is it worth the amount you'll get to permanently give away jobs? The MEC is selling their product. If they don't then why would anyone vote for it anyway...by the way...several of their own did not vote in favor. It's really up to you and I would understand your reasons but I don't really follow the logic here. Management will always look for the best deal whether it's this deal or the next...I expect no less from them. There will be some other angle on the next contract...it's their job to give us a carrot at all the levels.

just say you're senior and you want the pay...I'd accept that

I think one difference between the no voters and me comes down to realistic expectations. I think most of my Navy Fitreps read something like, “Sets low goals and then fails to achieve them.”:D I don’t really view this contract as a growth contract as you have indicated. Consequently, I have much lower and much more realistic expectations than you. I don’t like giving up jobs either, but that isn’t the way I see it. We are gaining mainline jobs and terminating DCI jobs. If this is incorrect, I would like to see your math on the matter. Secondly, of the 5 members that voted no, I have been told that during negotiations they didn’t even bring up the reasons for which they voted no. Only after the vote did they mention they were dissatisfied. Lastly, I will partially agree to your last statement, but that is only a small part of why I’m voting in favor of this thing. To me, I’m not seeing all of these bad things guys are bringing up like giving away jobs. BTW: I’m a realist, not a pessimist. I call it like I see it. Moving right along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd149 (Post 1216813)

Waves,

Agree with most of what youre saying. I too am holding my nose and voting yes. You'll have to scroll way back to see my poker and military analogies,but simply this is a crappy TA......it's an ok extension.

Ferd

Exactly Ferd!

Quote:

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 1216829)

Why do you say that all we could realistically hope for? Do you have any information to support that statement?

Do you have any information to refute it?:confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1216844)

That line of thinking is a very fine one indeed. The TA is clearly giving up things to get things. You can argue its a net gain if you want to, so let's call it that for the sake of argument.

But we're still giving up things to get things. So if we need to take the deal because of how bad the economy and our peer set is, just how much worse do things need to get (post TA) for us to be right back at the negotiating table dealing in concessions? One of the biggest "gains" by the pro-TA folks is the pay. 19.7% "raise" even though some of it was paid for in flat out sold jobs including gifting the 100K lbs jets at non-union/won't-hire-furloughed-DL-pilots DPJ, and some of it was in the form of securing permanent profit sharing pay. If things get bad, we still have that pay, right?

But wait, what's the first thing to go when things get bad? OK thats debatable between pay and any block hour/ratio "restrictions" on RJ's, but they both go pretty quickly.

If things get real bad what's harder to do, keep 255 at 255, or force the company to park (or grossly underutilize) DC-9-10 replacement jets at DCI that are twice as expensive to park as their mainline equivalent DC-9-30's?

So if we need to yes the TA because of the perilous environment we find ourselves in, we guarantee we will get 100% of the negatives in the TA. That is non debatable. But how much of the positives that we got in exchange will we get to keep?

Then there's the matter of loopholes. The 2014/2015 window for DCI is absolutely unacceptable. No deal. If this thing is being sold as hard core block hour ratio protections, then it needs to deliver as such. Not yet another extremely management friendly compliance window so we can get hammered like the AFKLM JV with a 2.9 year no floor bottom and a one time snapshot rebalance followed by 2.9 years of no bottom. The LRJ block hour protections will work the same way, that's pretty clear.

And the lost jobs are gone forever. And the 50 or so DPJ jobs that we already paid for and resecured in arbitration will be gone forever too, to non union, won't hire DL pilots on furlough DPJ. Really?

Gloopy I never said nor would I ever imply that if things go really bad out there, we wouldn’t be going back to the table with lots of concessions. There are absolutely no guarantees of keeping ANY of the positive things in this TA. We have been there before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waves (Post 1216921)

Do you have any information to refute it?

So, I have to provide information to refute what you say?

You are the one who made such a definitive claim, so I assumed you had good reason, information, history, or something.

I'm simply asking why you think what you think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waves (Post 1216771)

....If we begin renegotiations, best we could realistically hope for would be a tweak here and there and maybe a percent or two increases in pay. If we go for the jugular, I would expect to see prolonged talks ending in another failure....

Have you considered that RA is not just negotiating with the pilots? He has an audience, ie, the other employee groups, as well as Wall Street. Do you think if this is voted down that he will quickly return to the table with a significantly better offer? What message about unions would that send to the groups that barely missed unionizing this last round and how much would that cost DAL, a fanatically anti-union company? Wouldn't it be doubtful he would want to be schooled by one of the two unions on the property, thereby reenergizing union drives at DAL? Could it be in fact possible and in fact likely, that he would not agree to a new deal, to show his audience the weakness of unions, thereby sparing DAL another round of union drives? The cost of the other groups becoming represented is a cost management no doubt considers and at what point does that outweigh his 'need' for a quick pilot deal?