|
|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1331121)
MD90 numbers keep being thrown around, but from present position (current fleet count) how many more MD90's are we actually getting? How many beyond that are even out there for potential sale?
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1331121)
Are the Saudia MD90's really common enough with the B717 to operate as a common fleet? If so, how many do they have?
|
Originally Posted by flyallnite
(Post 1331562)
WRT the Pinnacle issue, I think there are too many tangents being introduced into the discussion unintentionally. Mil vs Civ, B-scale... not relevant.
I'm not all that up to speed on it, but it would seem at first glance that we have A.- a representational issue. Who should be involved and have a seat at the table when discussing agreements with other, wholly owned airlines regarding flying done on the DL code? ALPA has already stated that they are looking at this... for now, that's good enough for me. B. Is the nature of this agreement good for the piloting profession, and if not, should ALPA national be held accountable for the damage it causes? This point is arguable because on the plus side, it preserves jobs for ALPA pilots. That's what ALPA says. What I think rubs many of us the wrong way is the fact that DELTA negotiated the purchase of a company in bankruptcy, while securing aircraft for them to fly from the mainline ALPA unit, (under GREAT time pressure I might add) -then directly negotiated with it's ALPA pilot unit without so much as consulting with our ALPA unit an agreement which sets pay rates to the lowest in the industry by - and this is the really smelly part-- PROMISING jobs at the mainline for the more senior pilots in return for their vote. That reeks like a sell out, like something that ALPA should NEVER have supported, after all that's happened to the profession over the years-- this should be the last thing that we'd want to do as a professional organization. This sort of thing is what makes people wonder if ALPA is really a trustworthy agent of our interests. I think that without a full explanation, many pilots throughout the industry are going to wonder the same thing. |
|
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1331683)
I have no ALPA position although I have done work in the past. Delta management negotiates with numerous other entities about issues that don't affect my contract. We have a clause in our contract that requires our DCI carriers to provide the same type of preferential hiring for furloughed Delta pilots. In essence we are negotiating through a proxy with the DCI carriers management teams to ensure preferential hiring. I heard little uproar about that.
There is nothing to see here in my opinion. Delta management is the sole determinant of who they hire. Our contract requires them to make efforts to review/flow pilots from ALPA carriers but other than the limited flow arrangements (that were in place in the NWA contract prior to the merger) Delta still has 100% control over who gets to be a Delta pilot. If they decided that this agreement was in their best interest then they have that right to make this agreement as long as they honor their contractual obligations to us. There is no one that has suggested that this bridge agreement violates our contract in any way. ALPA is an association of unions that provide mutual support to try to improve the lives of the pilots they represent. In this case, the Pinnacle pilots faced a terrible choice of cutting their flying by over 50% while also cutting their salaries or have the company liquidated. There was no other plan than that. Delta management decided this deal was in their interest and that they would finance this deal; in exchange they would give Pinnacle pilots a leg up in the interview process to try to alleviate by some small amount the enormous pain that this deal encompassed. As a union member and a human being I have no problem with them trying to alleviate this pain. We have never controlled who Delta decides to interview (other than a few exceptions which they comply with) and so they are not affecting me. I guess my question to you is that if you had complete control of the union and if you were there in the room, would you have squashed this deal? Could you look at all those Pinnacle pilots and tell them all to suck it because you had somehow decided they were unworthy of an interview at Delta? Could you then come back and explain to me why my life and career were bettered by these pilots' suffering? I don't get any of this sturm and drang over this issue. As I said before this mostly seems like score settling of past grievances between RJ pilot groups. I find it hard to tell some guy he is going to lose his house and not be able to take care of his family because of some perceived slight from 10 years ago. Maybe I am just getting soft in my old age. Alfa, I am not opposed to the PNCL pilots coming aboard. My beef is that apparently our own ALPA officials were not part of the solution. The precedent is a dangerous one. Next could be Virgin Or any other group of pilots. My absolute disgust is that if it's true and the damn ALPA lawyers do not see the problem.... the problem then is these ALPA lawyers have no clue about future precedent or ramifications from their lack of forward thinking. As i have mentioned at a previous carrier I got to see first hand what a ALPA attorney is worth. My conclusion was, NOT MUCH! they are paid the same win, lose or draw. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1331232)
Can Boeing get to the point where they say never mind about that 787 thing because we're going to cease the program and trash everything we've made thus far, and still financially survive?
If they ever do find tghemselves in danger of a truly devistating A.D. all they have to do is give some away super cheap to SWA and that fixes that problem. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1331642)
JB-Scale is when employees who do the identical work, on identical equipment, are paid significantly less as a result of being hired after the preferred group of pilots.
Likewise, if we outsource 767-400 flying at drastically lower rates but we keep A330 flying at present rates, that, also, is not technically a B scale, but exactly like a B scale, plus the additional effect of outsourcing. The book definition is insufficient. Like equipment according to the book definition doesn't account for seat ranges, only make and model, which is ridiculously insufficient and irrelevant in defining the concept. Likewise, other terms like "scab" are borderline meaningless since strikes are so incredibly rare due to massive government interference, and one day likely will be made illegal or at least so impossible to get to that they are practically illegal, that the book definition won't even be possible, even though the same damage could be done by other means by like minded individuals. In any case, I just can't see how outsourcing 250+ DC-9-10 aircraft for bottom feeder wages isn't exactly like a B scale. I understand the book differences, but the effect is mostly the same and where it differs, it only piles on the negatives as an add on. Maybe "permitted types" needs to be changed in the definitions section to "C scale pilot wage destroying union busting flying" so we at least know what we're allowing. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1331660)
The 77 you started with were probably out of a pool of a thousand applicants. I have been on both sides of the coin. The military produces a fairly consistent end product which is why airlines have liked military pilots. A few always manage to slip through that are not so good. The civilian world can produce a pilot every bit as good as the military pilot however the standard deviation is much larger. The military program also allows pilots to experience many things in flying that as civilian pilot only hears about in conceptual form.
One thing lost in the discussion is that Delta has always placed a lot of emphasis on leadership positions held and education. This gives military pilots a large advantage in the interview process. They generally have had years of leadership training, management experience and above average performance in college. Most well above average with technical degrees. I once asked a interviewer at Delta why the high percentage of military pilots hired and he replied it was not the military training but the overall applicant. He said they typically had much better backgrounds outside flying and in the actual interview process they were far more polished. He said civilians who matched up in background and interview skills were just as likely to get hired. Sailing, I agree wholeheartedly with everything that you say above which is even more reason that I am surprised that DAL is relaxing the four year college degree, if in fact they are. Why not do what SWA did back around 1999/2000 when they dropped the ATP requirement to interview? If a Pinnacle Pilot successfully completes the interview process then he/she is hired contingent upon them completing their four year degree. They could even be given a seniority number when they interview, so they don't lose seniority while they complete their degree. Win/Win for everyone. DAL keeps the four year degree requirement intact, Pinnacle Pilots get hired by DAL, and any Pilots without a degree pick up a degree along the way, better preparing them to cope with the next furlough cycle. :p Scoop |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1331712)
Alpha,
I do not get your points. You equate Delta pilot labor to any other vendor that Delta management does a contract with. You go further to state that if Delta wants to do mutually exclusive deals with different pilot groups, none of our business. If this was just interviews, or even just a flow, the arguement could be made that its management's domain who to hire and where they source their future pilots from. They are not DALPA pilots until they get their number. Theoretically DAL could sign agreements with universities, flight academies, heck even the DoD itself to grant guaranteed interviews or new hire class numbers or percentiles, all completely without DALPA (or ALPA) permission or involvement. Although if we were talking about an ALPA carrier, a Ford-Cooksley violation would still likely occur, which is interesting and worth looking into as a separate issue. The major malfunction here though, is the guaranteed flying at a non Delta Air Lines carrier, PCL in this case. There have been fleet ratios and guarantees made at other express and connection carriers before, and even at DCI carriers, but the signatories on those have always been non Delta Air Lines carriers. In fact, non DAL carriers have been told by federal mediators that they are not even allowed to demand access to DAL management as part of the RLA and Section 6. Whatever they agreed to and signed had to be binding only to "their" airline. That even applied, especially applied, to wholly owned airlines like CMR and ASA. They could get guaranteed block hour or fleet count flying, but only their "company" could sign on the dotted line. If those promises were broken, they could grieve it, but only so far as their "company" and not with Delta. That is why this is a first, and a very, very, very B.F.D. PCL pilots now "own" 41 large RJ's worth of flying for the next 7 years and if they don't get it they can come after DAL, inc. DALPA was completely bypassed, in flagrant violation of Ford-Cooksley as well. Moak needs to withold his signature and they need to go back to the negoating table with PCL pilots. They can get whatever they want as long as PCL management signs it and not DAL management, and their recource to grieveance will be limited to PCL, regardless of their wholly owned status with DAL. DAL is free to hire as many PCL pilots as they want, with whatever flight time and degree requirements they want, as long as DAL management is not a signatory to the contract with another pilot group. That is what needs to be stopped, now, dead in its tracks. If not, rigorous enforcement of Ford-Cooksley should be persued immediately as a first step. And yes Alannis, that is ironic. |
When will Moak decide whether or not to sign it?
Assuming he does sign it....as Delta pilots, what's our next step? |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1331805)
When will Moak decide whether or not to sign it?
Assuming he does sign it....as Delta pilots, what's our next step? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:51 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands