Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-11-2012, 02:05 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Originally Posted by Timbo
Nearly 20 years ago (early 1993) I was displaced off my (bottom) MD88 Capt. seat when DAL sold their DC9's and all the more senior DC9 guys came to the 88. Then DAL gave all that DC9 flying to Com Air and ASA to fly with their brand new RJs. I called DALPA to ask What the Fark are they doing, giving OUR flying to CA and ASA to fly with JETS?? I ranted;
"WHY AREN'T WE FLYING THOSE JETS??!"
The answer I got from DALPA was, "You don't want to fly those little jets, Capt. would only pay $50/hr, and that's less than what the L1011 Engineers make! We CAN'T have Captains making LESS than engineers!"
We had just furloughed for the first time in the history of DAL, I said, "You're right, I don't want to fly it (I was displaced back to the 757 F/O seat) but I'll bet all those FURLOUGED guys would LOVE to fly it!"
7 years later (2000) I'm at In Command, with Leo the CEO speaking to our class, one of the guys asked about why we can't fly the RJ's at mainline. Leo's answer was, "We can't afford to have you fly them, even at their current pay rates, because we also pay you 30% override, in benefits..."
This was about a year before 9-11, and well before our 42% pay cuts and loss of pension. In bankruptcy I was sure we could finally wrangle back some of our outsourced flying, since our pay rates were reduced 42%, and that pesky 30% override was basically gone.
But...once again, DALPA's attitude was, "You don't want to fly those little jets." and again, we had guys out on furlough who would have LOVED to have been flying those little jets.
I don't know what DALPA's problem is, maybe it's arrogance, but a jet is a jet, and a job is a job. I see no reason why we shouldn't be flying those jets. If it says DELTA on the side, it should be flown by Delta Pilots...or so I would think.
It's too expensive to have 'mainline pilots' flying RJ's ???
Really??
What about the expense of having 8 different CEO's and management teams, for our 8 different DCC's?? And 8 different scheduling depts. and 8 MX depts. and 8 different training depts, etc.??
I think the only way to 'fix this' is if all 8 of our DCC's get together and file for Single Carrier Status, and get included in our contract and onto our SL.
But, would DALPA support that?
"WHY AREN'T WE FLYING THOSE JETS??!"
The answer I got from DALPA was, "You don't want to fly those little jets, Capt. would only pay $50/hr, and that's less than what the L1011 Engineers make! We CAN'T have Captains making LESS than engineers!"
We had just furloughed for the first time in the history of DAL, I said, "You're right, I don't want to fly it (I was displaced back to the 757 F/O seat) but I'll bet all those FURLOUGED guys would LOVE to fly it!"
7 years later (2000) I'm at In Command, with Leo the CEO speaking to our class, one of the guys asked about why we can't fly the RJ's at mainline. Leo's answer was, "We can't afford to have you fly them, even at their current pay rates, because we also pay you 30% override, in benefits..."
This was about a year before 9-11, and well before our 42% pay cuts and loss of pension. In bankruptcy I was sure we could finally wrangle back some of our outsourced flying, since our pay rates were reduced 42%, and that pesky 30% override was basically gone.
But...once again, DALPA's attitude was, "You don't want to fly those little jets." and again, we had guys out on furlough who would have LOVED to have been flying those little jets.
I don't know what DALPA's problem is, maybe it's arrogance, but a jet is a jet, and a job is a job. I see no reason why we shouldn't be flying those jets. If it says DELTA on the side, it should be flown by Delta Pilots...or so I would think.
It's too expensive to have 'mainline pilots' flying RJ's ???
Really??
What about the expense of having 8 different CEO's and management teams, for our 8 different DCC's?? And 8 different scheduling depts. and 8 MX depts. and 8 different training depts, etc.??
I think the only way to 'fix this' is if all 8 of our DCC's get together and file for Single Carrier Status, and get included in our contract and onto our SL.
But, would DALPA support that?
I don't know you that well, but.....
And...
That is EXACTLY how I feel.
07-11-2012, 02:16 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Mesabah
No, DALPA would not support that, it would create a conflict of interest since ALPA would have to sue its regional pilots to make sure Delta pilot's seniority is protected during any type of scope recapture scenario.
Renups or an agreed to sli remove that risk. Real question is why would th regional guys want it when DALPA and Rhen Dal pilots are still giving up career enhancing jets to DCI?
If there was a strategic vision with the scope modification we just made or PWA there would be a stick involved. As it stands it's a one time mod with a next time mod of the 50's and 70's on deck.
07-11-2012, 02:19 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Timbo
Nearly 20 years ago (early 1993) I was displaced off my (bottom) MD88 Capt. seat when DAL sold their DC9's and all the more senior DC9 guys came to the 88. Then DAL gave all that DC9 flying to Com Air and ASA to fly with their brand new RJs. I called DALPA to ask What the Fark are they doing, giving OUR flying to CA and ASA to fly with JETS?? I ranted;
"WHY AREN'T WE FLYING THOSE JETS??!"
The answer I got from DALPA was, "You don't want to fly those little jets, Capt. would only pay $50/hr, and that's less than what the L1011 Engineers make! We CAN'T have Captains making LESS than engineers!"
We had just furloughed for the first time in the history of DAL, I said, "You're right, I don't want to fly it (I was displaced back to the 757 F/O seat) but I'll bet all those FURLOUGED guys would LOVE to fly it!"
7 years later (2000) I'm at In Command, with Leo the CEO speaking to our class, one of the guys asked about why we can't fly the RJ's at mainline. Leo's answer was, "We can't afford to have you fly them, even at their current pay rates, because we also pay you 30% override, in benefits..."
This was about a year before 9-11, and well before our 42% pay cuts and loss of pension. In bankruptcy I was sure we could finally wrangle back some of our outsourced flying, since our pay rates were reduced 42%, and that pesky 30% override was basically gone.
But...once again, DALPA's attitude was, "You don't want to fly those little jets." and again, we had guys out on furlough who would have LOVED to have been flying those little jets.
I don't know what DALPA's problem is, maybe it's arrogance, but a jet is a jet, and a job is a job. I see no reason why we shouldn't be flying those jets. If it says DELTA on the side, it should be flown by Delta Pilots...or so I would think.
It's too expensive to have 'mainline pilots' flying RJ's ???
Really??
What about the expense of having 8 different CEO's and management teams, for our 8 different DCC's?? And 8 different scheduling depts. and 8 MX depts. and 8 different training depts, etc.??
I think the only way to 'fix this' is if all 8 of our DCC's get together and file for Single Carrier Status, and get included in our contract and onto our SL.
But, would DALPA support that?
"WHY AREN'T WE FLYING THOSE JETS??!"
The answer I got from DALPA was, "You don't want to fly those little jets, Capt. would only pay $50/hr, and that's less than what the L1011 Engineers make! We CAN'T have Captains making LESS than engineers!"
We had just furloughed for the first time in the history of DAL, I said, "You're right, I don't want to fly it (I was displaced back to the 757 F/O seat) but I'll bet all those FURLOUGED guys would LOVE to fly it!"
7 years later (2000) I'm at In Command, with Leo the CEO speaking to our class, one of the guys asked about why we can't fly the RJ's at mainline. Leo's answer was, "We can't afford to have you fly them, even at their current pay rates, because we also pay you 30% override, in benefits..."
This was about a year before 9-11, and well before our 42% pay cuts and loss of pension. In bankruptcy I was sure we could finally wrangle back some of our outsourced flying, since our pay rates were reduced 42%, and that pesky 30% override was basically gone.
But...once again, DALPA's attitude was, "You don't want to fly those little jets." and again, we had guys out on furlough who would have LOVED to have been flying those little jets.
I don't know what DALPA's problem is, maybe it's arrogance, but a jet is a jet, and a job is a job. I see no reason why we shouldn't be flying those jets. If it says DELTA on the side, it should be flown by Delta Pilots...or so I would think.
It's too expensive to have 'mainline pilots' flying RJ's ???
Really??
What about the expense of having 8 different CEO's and management teams, for our 8 different DCC's?? And 8 different scheduling depts. and 8 MX depts. and 8 different training depts, etc.??
I think the only way to 'fix this' is if all 8 of our DCC's get together and file for Single Carrier Status, and get included in our contract and onto our SL.
But, would DALPA support that?
Why? Why would they when we pass agreements like the last one by almost 2/3rds without any real heavy lifting in that arena?
The solutions or possibilities are plentiful, but there is no need when we respond to the last even as favorably as we did.
07-11-2012, 02:45 PM
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,728
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
The "in depth" study did not include investment losses, cap ex write offs, crashes, additional managerial expenses or the cost borne by mainline (ie redundant management structure). The study also did not include DIP financing, the cost of litigation (Skywest & Mesa) and the cost of walking business to our competitors.
While I understand methodology which excludes "unexpected" costs, these are real costs of outsourcing none the less.
The political choice we make is to NOT rub management's nose in these "unexpected costs." Instead our political slant is to justify outsourcing.
Delta's outsourcing looks good on paper from a short term perspective. The longer view would reveal it has been a disaster for both labor and Delta, Inc.
While I understand methodology which excludes "unexpected" costs, these are real costs of outsourcing none the less.
The political choice we make is to NOT rub management's nose in these "unexpected costs." Instead our political slant is to justify outsourcing.
Delta's outsourcing looks good on paper from a short term perspective. The longer view would reveal it has been a disaster for both labor and Delta, Inc.
Well we all know it makes no business sense to have all those redudant costs, serving one mainline. The real reason all Mainline Management teams (except South West) have outsouced the RJ feed is, Whipsawing. They can keep the sub-contractors under bidding each other. ALPA allows it, even supports it, at least, I've never seen a plan from them to stop it.
Over the past 20 yeasrs, South West has proven you can fly mainline jets on short haul routes, and still make money, even with zero High Value Customers, sitting in zero First Class Seats.
There was a time when customer service mattered at Delta Air Lines, but from what I have seen, that ship left the dock about 12 years ago...when our In Command class asked Leo about the p!ss poor service our customers were getting from ASA and Com Air, he said, "Hey, we're no worse than any one else." His attitude was, We are going to do as little as possible, service wise, as long as we can fill the jet.
Well, that was then, but now we have to compete with Emirates and Singapore and lots of other new international carriers, who have brand new airplanes and young, hot F/A's, and oh yeah, most domestic customers still love South West's F/A's much more than ours. We get to hear it from our family and neighbors every day...
"Wow, your flight attendants are REALLY OLD!"
But if we could get some of those young hot RJ F/A's on our International trips...I might start buying dinner for the F/A's again!
07-11-2012, 02:49 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by Timbo
Nobody has mentioned this one yet...
FAA proposes $987,500 penalty for Delta - Travel - News - msnbc.com
FAA proposes $987,500 penalty for Delta - Travel - News - msnbc.com
07-11-2012, 02:50 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Timbo,
The biggest savings is debt service on debt Dal holds on their ledger. Outsourcing allows others to hold our debt and Dal to pay it through operational service fees. We show less debt with a broader operational footprint with overall less debt service.
The biggest savings is debt service on debt Dal holds on their ledger. Outsourcing allows others to hold our debt and Dal to pay it through operational service fees. We show less debt with a broader operational footprint with overall less debt service.
07-11-2012, 02:58 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Renups or an agreed to sli remove that risk. Real question is why would th regional guys want it when DALPA and Rhen Dal pilots are still giving up career enhancing jets to DCI?
If there was a strategic vision with the scope modification we just made or PWA there would be a stick involved. As it stands it's a one time mod with a next time mod of the 50's and 70's on deck.
If there was a strategic vision with the scope modification we just made or PWA there would be a stick involved. As it stands it's a one time mod with a next time mod of the 50's and 70's on deck.
07-11-2012, 02:58 PM
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,728
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Timbo,
The biggest savings is debt service on debt Dal holds on their ledger. Outsourcing allows others to hold our debt and Dal to pay it through operational service fees. We show less debt with a broader operational footprint with overall less debt service.
The biggest savings is debt service on debt Dal holds on their ledger. Outsourcing allows others to hold our debt and Dal to pay it through operational service fees. We show less debt with a broader operational footprint with overall less debt service.
(name that movie)
07-11-2012, 02:59 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,993
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Timbo,
The biggest savings is debt service on debt Dal holds on their ledger. Outsourcing allows others to hold our debt and Dal to pay it through operational service fees. We show less debt with a broader operational footprint with overall less debt service.
The biggest savings is debt service on debt Dal holds on their ledger. Outsourcing allows others to hold our debt and Dal to pay it through operational service fees. We show less debt with a broader operational footprint with overall less debt service.
(know you know this ... just sayin)
07-11-2012, 03:27 PM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: MSP 7ERA
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by sailingfun
A in depth costing study was done. The numbers between the union and company were quite different however they showed even using best case numbers for us that a 70 seat operation could not be run at the mainline. When you start getting near 80 seats it becomes a he said she said discussion. That is how we have arrived at 76 seats. The company offered quite a bit if we would bump the number to 82 seats with a GW increase. It went down to the last hours of negotiations. I suspect now that number on the companies part was to allow Skywest to order the larger MRJ. They will not be able to do that with the current agreement and even Skywest management acknowledges that. The smaller jet complies with the current scope clause.
Speaking of I asked one of my Reps what the base by base breakdown was on the TA vote and he said they got the numbers but the MEC Chairman made them confidential.
Really.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
