Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
Yeah, poor New York. THey've gone from 900 pilots to 1300 pilots since the merger and added equipment.
There's some other possibilities that you haven't mentioned, like the MSP reps were briefed but don't remember because they were too busy practical joking and zip-tying people's luggage together, or they misrepresented their lack of knowlege. Yeah, the implications are troublesome.
Ask them about the great prank with the sex toy in front of female staff members....
There's some other possibilities that you haven't mentioned, like the MSP reps were briefed but don't remember because they were too busy practical joking and zip-tying people's luggage together, or they misrepresented their lack of knowlege. Yeah, the implications are troublesome.
Ask them about the great prank with the sex toy in front of female staff members....
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Capt
Posts: 2,041
and pay no attention to the 800 or so LESS TOTAL Jobs, but hey, it was a nice try at deflection.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Actually, I'd love to see the math. I even think this very exchange has already occured. If memory serves, sailing corrected the numbers.
I think we had about 300 A's, and up to 585 B's on the ER alone ~ 885 total
We had about, what, 50 in each seat on the 777? ~ 985 total
We had ~ 80 in each seat on the 73N ~ 1145 total
We had the same on the M88 ~ 1305 total
Today we have about 1,400 as far as I know. We lost the 777, added the A320, and the 765.
Seems to me my math must be slightly off, because the difference would be bigger. than just 95 seats pre vs. post merger. I'm sure we gained airplanes. Problem is, we gained more senior pilots. I don't think anyone would argue that New York post-merger wasn't more senior than pre-merger.
What really enrages me about slow's comments is their gratuitous nature. I tend to think of myself as fairly reasonable. I slid back about 15% relative seniority in category since the merger, and even though I have recaptured 13%, the flying is so poor that my QOL is far less attractive than 4 years ago. I try to let that go. Most guys I fly with try to put a neutral or positive spin on it, so we're not making each other miserable.
If I read slow correctly, though, we're just a bunch of ingrates.
But of course now I've screwed myself into the ceiling over another one of these slowfests, and wasted probably 30 minutes of my life. I may not be an ingrate, but I sure am a fool. I'm out of here.
I think we had about 300 A's, and up to 585 B's on the ER alone ~ 885 total
We had about, what, 50 in each seat on the 777? ~ 985 total
We had ~ 80 in each seat on the 73N ~ 1145 total
We had the same on the M88 ~ 1305 total
Today we have about 1,400 as far as I know. We lost the 777, added the A320, and the 765.
Seems to me my math must be slightly off, because the difference would be bigger. than just 95 seats pre vs. post merger. I'm sure we gained airplanes. Problem is, we gained more senior pilots. I don't think anyone would argue that New York post-merger wasn't more senior than pre-merger.
What really enrages me about slow's comments is their gratuitous nature. I tend to think of myself as fairly reasonable. I slid back about 15% relative seniority in category since the merger, and even though I have recaptured 13%, the flying is so poor that my QOL is far less attractive than 4 years ago. I try to let that go. Most guys I fly with try to put a neutral or positive spin on it, so we're not making each other miserable.
If I read slow correctly, though, we're just a bunch of ingrates.
But of course now I've screwed myself into the ceiling over another one of these slowfests, and wasted probably 30 minutes of my life. I may not be an ingrate, but I sure am a fool. I'm out of here.
Last edited by Sink r8; 12-11-2012 at 05:07 PM. Reason: Added exit.
Actually, I'd love to see the math. I even think this very exchange has already occured. If memory serves, sailing corrected the numbers.
I think we had about 300 A's, and up to 585 B's on the ER alone ~ 885 total
We had about, what, 50 in each seat on the 777? ~ 985 total
We had ~ 80 in each seat on the 73N ~ 1145 total
We had the same on the M88 ~ 1305 total
Today we have about 1,400 as far as I know. We lost the 777, added the A320, and the 765. Seems to me my math must be slightly off, because the difference would be bigger. than just 95 seats pre vs. post merger. I'm sure we gained airplanes. Problem is, we gained more senior pilots. I don't think anyone would argue that New York post-merger wasn't more senior than pre-merger.
What really enrages me about slow's comments is their gratuitous nature. I tend to think of myself as fairly reasonable. I slid back about 15% relative seniority in category since the merger, and even though I have recaptured 13%, the flying is so poor that my QOL is far less attractive than 4 years ago. I try to let that go. Most guys I fly with try to put a neutral or positive spin on it, so we're not making each other miserable.
If I read slow correctly, though, we're just a bunch of ingrates.
I think we had about 300 A's, and up to 585 B's on the ER alone ~ 885 total
We had about, what, 50 in each seat on the 777? ~ 985 total
We had ~ 80 in each seat on the 73N ~ 1145 total
We had the same on the M88 ~ 1305 total
Today we have about 1,400 as far as I know. We lost the 777, added the A320, and the 765. Seems to me my math must be slightly off, because the difference would be bigger. than just 95 seats pre vs. post merger. I'm sure we gained airplanes. Problem is, we gained more senior pilots. I don't think anyone would argue that New York post-merger wasn't more senior than pre-merger.
What really enrages me about slow's comments is their gratuitous nature. I tend to think of myself as fairly reasonable. I slid back about 15% relative seniority in category since the merger, and even though I have recaptured 13%, the flying is so poor that my QOL is far less attractive than 4 years ago. I try to let that go. Most guys I fly with try to put a neutral or positive spin on it, so we're not making each other miserable.
If I read slow correctly, though, we're just a bunch of ingrates.
I have no other info on Virgin than anyone else (not in the know). However, it has had to be in the works for some time. I read in the most recent DALPA email that they are waiting for more information from management in order to formulate the unions' plan...I don't believe that, does anyone else?
Possibly, like Check, I am waiting for the negotiators notepad that gives some bizarre lopsided benefit to Virgin, but calls it some kind of a "proud" win for DAL pilots.
It has been a fairly long time since we DAL pilots have had anything I would consider a big win, but I will, with everyone else, withhold judgement until the ink is dry.
Sadly, I have come to expect very little. I guess I am happy to have a job, that's something. It would be nice to know, beyond any doubt, that DALPA was a little more rottweiler-like in its protection of the interests of Delta pilots.
I agree, RA is a very solid CEO and his team has done great things for the corporation. That has absolutely nothing to do with my perspective on what DALPA has done for the Delta pilots.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,310
Your statement makes no sense at all. The job loss he is speaking of all came from well before the TA. The TA has been signed for just over 5 months. The main item that was a job giveback has not even been put into place at this point. The TA cost us jobs in some areas and those numbers are well quoted however it also generated jobs in other work rule areas that offset most of the loss. To claim the TA is why we have lost jobs since the merger is a bit stupid.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,310
Probably the metric we need to look at is EU flying from the beginning of the current AF/KLM JV, or AZ addition. Our flying has diminished to less than our agreed share. Some of us are watching our contract, and patiently waiting for the cure period.
My fear is:
- we've pulled a bunch of Euro flying
+ we have flown a little more LHR
- yet, we are below our half of the JV flying
-----------------------------
If we let "them" pull our LHR flying metric, we've lost pilots in the deal
The new deal should not provide the Company with an easy way out of not meeting the current agreement, but the task is going to be a tough nut to crack. Further, if we are owed our deficit, an adjusted smaller AF/KLM JV would make it even more difficult to cure. Overlapping and separate JV, with one already in arrears is going to be hard to fix.
Get behind your reps and push. ...
My fear is:
- we've pulled a bunch of Euro flying
+ we have flown a little more LHR
- yet, we are below our half of the JV flying
-----------------------------
If we let "them" pull our LHR flying metric, we've lost pilots in the deal
The new deal should not provide the Company with an easy way out of not meeting the current agreement, but the task is going to be a tough nut to crack. Further, if we are owed our deficit, an adjusted smaller AF/KLM JV would make it even more difficult to cure. Overlapping and separate JV, with one already in arrears is going to be hard to fix.
Get behind your reps and push. ...
Your statement makes no sense at all. The job loss he is speaking of all came from well before the TA. The TA has been signed for just over 5 months. The main item that was a job giveback has not even been put into place at this point. The TA cost us jobs in some areas and those numbers are well quoted however it also generated jobs in other work rule areas that offset most of the loss. To claim the TA is why we have lost jobs since the merger is a bit stupid.
And I might add, that I was the first person to point out that we were in fact shrinking as a pilot group when our managers and many on here claimed we were in an expansion mode... before the TA was signed.
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,993
Do you think the economy in Europe has had anything to do with the pull down in flying? Why did we have the large build up in Europe when we were already in the agreement with AF? Could it have been because Europe was doing quite well then compared to the rest of the world? Economic realities seem to have no place in a forum discussion however they do actually play a huge roll in management decisions on flying.
Scope is our contract.
Management writes the check for their share of Air France's flying. They could save that money and fly Delta jets. Might be inconvenient, but one contract or the other is under stress. It is my preference that the intent of our Pilot Working Agreement be honored. Surprised that you disagree.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 12-11-2012 at 07:19 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post