|
|
Sailingfun:
Data point. Before Alitalia joined the JV, Delta's share of EASK were 51.7%. Pull AZ out of the data and we've lost around 2% - 3% (depending on the window, just trying to take an "honest" average). |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1312820)
Can someone explain to me how we are paid for qualification training, not CQ but "new airplane school." Thanks,
Denny Oh, and what does "PTP" mean on your schedule and do you get paid for it? No idea about the pay, but the PTP is a 48 hour buffer before you start training. It was one of the options on the AE bid. On mine, the first day after PTP is just checking into the hotel, and actual training starts the next morning. |
Originally Posted by DAWGS
(Post 1312842)
Great post. One more important point to add is this sets a precedent. This will be the first non-compliance issue with these JV agreements any group has faced. We are blazing new trails here and the company must abide by the agreement. If they do not abide by the agreement, MGT must know in no uncertain terms our cooperation is over with any and all agreements going forward. It should not be up for re-negotiation in any deal with VA.
The Company may feel our cooperation is not needed. They did not involve our pilot leadership before entering into this agreement with Virgin Atlantic. The trend has been for Delta management to violate scope, then negotiate their way out of compliance. IMHO we broke a trend line with C2012. Our scope recovery is probably saving us from furloughs. We must keep up that good work by enforcing our contract. Selling Delta pilot jobs is not on the table. It may take a lot more than "non cooperation with future endeavors." We will see. As for me, I like lobbying our government on behalf of Delta and ALPA. Hopefully this will be resolved. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1312808)
Sailing,
Not trying to be argumentative. I appreciate your post. We should not "ask" for anything. We should not trade members' jobs. Aside from being immoral, there is nothing reasonable we could ask for which could economically replace the loss of widebody Captain positions. What you refer to as "essentially the same" is an actual loss of around 3.5 percent to as low as 44/56. Your block hour comparison was good information, but it does not change the contract. We were sold our forbearance in exchange for growth and believed management. The growth is a requirement of the contract we agreed to. Instead, we comparably shrank. We must demand compliance. Nothing else will do. Any renegotiation of our JV must cure the deficit and close down the measurement window to a year or less. If we are to stipulate to a post cure remedy, it must be something which acts as a inpenetrable deterrent, perhaps an agreed release for self help. Recall that Delta is paying for its share of the excess JV flying. Delta has control of this situation. We trusted management in good faith. if we are to maintain that good faith, there must be a good faith cure. Your suggestion to write your Reps is good. Perhaps we even all pile in to the MEC meeting in February to lobby our own Reps. Anyone know our MEC Chair's leanings on this issue? We have an excellent group of pilots representing us, but, there will be those individuals voicing an opinion to trade compliance for some special interest trinket, or a trifle of pay. The majority who want Delta to invest in Delta, save Delta jobs and this Company's future need to ensure their voices are heard louder and more clearly. Your point is valid going forward. By the time the process runs its course the company will have had 4 plus years of non compliance. You can not impose retroactive flying. There has to be a penalty to the company for that time period. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1312801)
I deleted some posts on here due to a quote from one of our soon to be former union leads using a gunship friendly fire incident resulting in a soldiers death to poke fun at a user. How incredibly disrespectful.
Just curious...why did you delete my reply to Gunship Guy ?? :confused: Regards, BG |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1312880)
Your point is valid going forward. By the time the process runs its course the company will have had 4 plus years of non compliance. You can not impose retroactive flying. There has to be a penalty to the company for that time period.
|
Originally Posted by GunshipGuy
(Post 1312655)
News channel was on sometime today and the queen of the house sees the scroll at the bottom mentioning something about a contract agreement with United & Continental. So what did I hear? "42% pay increase? Why didn't I get that?":eek:
|
It is good to see constructive discussion. The important thing you both bring up is contact your reps!! Make sure they know you want compliance.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1312880)
Your point is valid going forward. By the time the process runs its course the company will have had 4 plus years of non compliance. You can not impose retroactive flying. There has to be a penalty to the company for that time period.
If we can get the new contract rammed through in record time via "constructive engagement," why should it take 4 years to end their contract non-compliance? Is the "constructive engagement" less of a two-way street than it appears? Only when it suits them? That being said I agree that compensation for the period of grievance is needed in addition to the ending of the non-compliance/violation. Compensation in exchange for allowing them to continue the violation with our agreement is the no-no. |
Originally Posted by APCLurker
(Post 1312946)
If we can get the new contract rammed through in record time via "constructive engagement," why should it take 4 years to end their contract non-compliance? Is the "constructive engagement" less of a two-way street than it appears? Only when it suits them? That being said I agree that compensation for the period of grievance is needed in addition to the ending of the non-compliance/violation. Compensation in exchange for allowing them to continue the violation with our agreement is the no-no. But as long as we all jump at the chance to email the government about transferring our Haneda slot, or swapping slots at LGA, but we have no interest in bashing down the company's door over a section 1 violation, then the company has no motivation to do anything differently ALPA or not - 10,000 angry pilots would make for a productive direct relationship with the company. But since only 100 or so are probably troubled by this issue on a daily basis... Guess the question is - what is our goal? I'd quote the SPC Chairman but it's probably something along the lines of "continue constructive engagement". That's not planning - that's pandering to the company and the majority of happy pilots at Delta. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:51 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands