|
|
Originally Posted by Fly4hire
(Post 1425717)
The NRT hub is not dying, its evolving. This current downturn may be permanent or not. Overflight will take on more importance, but DAL does not have the metal to do it, and won't unless we get a large WB order very soon. Even then this will play out over the next decade, not over the summer.
It you look at what we have done with AMS and CDG and our previous European point to point it speaks in favor of a long future for NRT connections even if Japan O&D shifts towards HND. While the Japanese want to get rid of 5th freedom, they can't for the time being and can only bypass by de-leveraging NRT through HND. ALPA is smart to evaluate and plan, but it is not some do or die emergency action item as some are suggesting. Any claim that NRT is dead or on life support is fear mongering. DAL would no sooner pull the plug on NRT than they would LHR. If they are changing the NRT frequencies its because yield management is driving it. It can drive it back the other direction as well. Time will tell. With the percentage of revenue that comes from our Asia operations I would expect the company to look at every opportunity to protect and build that revenue. The suggestion that they would kill NRT if we don't give them a (permanent?) exemption and that the MEC is protecting the pilots from the company drawing down NRT is preposterous. Look at the official MEC response vs. who is yelling fire. I'm surprised we haven't heard from the usual suspects yet that the NRT slots are the reason we are not hiring. Why as are they trying to de-leverage ALPA's position? Fly the airplane - cancel the warning - read the checklist - do not hurry So why not take this opportunity to expand our protections? |
Its becoming entirely obvious that our contract Section 1 is dysfunctional.
The company pretty much ignores it and DALPA has no intention of ever enforcing it. I'm beginning to think that the whole scope clause kabuki dance that management and DALPA perform is only for the benefit of the line pilots. To maintain the illusion that we have some control. I suppose all that may be the inevitable result of a fast changing industry. Circumstances change so rapidly that its not in either party's interest to actually pay any attention to the language in the contract. We just re-write the language for every contingency or "opportunity" that management presents us with. We traded more large RJs for some 717s that were probably coming anyway and to get rid of some 50 seaters that were going to be retired anyway. When RAH bought Midwest the ALPA lawyers just came in and told us the part of our contract that we thought prevented them from flying 717s was not enforceable anyway. Now we are about to trade our NRT flying for some fancy new protections or maybe some new 330s that are coming anyway. Given that situation, maybe we should just be using whatever leverage we can gain from the company's need to modify the contract to maximize our incomes. We should just calculate whatever revenue is going to be gained from allowing these NRT codeshares to continue and tell them we want 75% of it. In cash. Paid annually along with the profit sharing. Take it or leave it. Our scope clause has proven useless for actually controlling scope. We might as well get some money for it. You know we're going to re-write that NRT flight quota. Changed circumstances require it. Why bother pretending that DALPA will miraculously write some new scope clause that is any less carved in Jello than the current one. Same goes for the AF/KLM production balances. Management knows we're going to re-write it. We won't force them to follow the contract if they say it would be unprofitable. Might as well just get some cash for all of our constructive engagement. Why do we constantly go through this charade for nothing in return? Show me the money. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1425768)
So why not take this opportunity to expand our protections? |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1425763)
So you don't blame the pilots for voting in the BK contracts? Because ALPA told them to do so? Or the guys that opened the RJ box forever changing our industry? And if we're unable to think for ourselves, are we really in a position to question our union? I mean, if I can't read a TA and decide by myself how I need to vote, then I really have no room to criticize the union. Right? ;)
Btw, your lawyer tells you to agree to this contract, you look at it and say but what about that? They assure you "that" is good and makes this not only a good deal but a great deal. Oh and hate to tell you the only one you'll get... SIGN. You trust them that its good and your only option, you sign. If you get screwed, I'm pointing all fingers at the lawyer. Lawyer pushes back from having blame put on them and says this is a hard job you know. Well then quit. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1425793)
Its becoming entirely obvious that our contract Section 1 is dysfunctional.
The company pretty much ignores it and DALPA has no intention of ever enforcing it. I'm beginning to think that the whole scope clause kabuki dance that management and DALPA perform is only for the benefit of the line pilots. To maintain the illusion that we have some control. I suppose all that may be the inevitable result of a fast changing industry. Circumstances change so rapidly that its not in either party's interest to actually pay any attention to the language in the contract. We just re-write the language for every contingency or "opportunity" that management presents us with. We traded more large RJs for some 717s that were probably coming anyway and to get rid of some 50 seaters that were going to be retired anyway. When RAH bought Midwest the ALPA lawyers just came in and told us the part of our contract that we thought prevented them from flying 717s was not enforceable anyway. Now we are about to trade our NRT flying for some fancy new protections or maybe some new 330s that are coming anyway. Given that situation, maybe we should just be using whatever leverage we can gain from the company's need to modify the contract to maximize our incomes. We should just calculate whatever revenue is going to be gained from allowing these NRT codeshares to continue and tell them we want 75% of it. In cash. Paid annually along with the profit sharing. Our scope clause has proven useless for actually controlling scope. We might as well get some money for it. You know we're going to re-write that NRT flight quota. Changed circumstances require it. Why bother pretending that DALPA will miraculously write some new scope clause that is any less carved in Jello than the current one. Same goes for the AF/KLM production balances. Management knows we're going to re-write it. We won't force them to follow the contract if they say it would be unprofitable. Might as well just get some cash for all of our constructive engagement. Why do we constantly go through this charade for nothing in return? Show me the money. I agree this is a sticking point for many here! This contract was a step in the right direction (also means trust but verify). What the company would have done, should have done is one side of the equation on what we pilots should have or would have or could have done. Still without question in my mind, this TA captured and limited RJ flying. Again, 50 or 76 seats makes no difference. LESS RJ PILOTS FLYING LESS DAL PASSENGERS and more mainline block hours. Is this a true statement or not??? I have a whole lot more burning issues with this TA, this was a win for many of pilots if you look at the whole with respect to RJ's... But then again I am a nut from LAX too!:D |
off topic...sorry
do you know if we can use the employee TSA line (is it north side?) at ATL out of uniform and with kids when we travel? don't want to go through the MRI machines! |
Yes, you can. Did it a few days ago.
|
Fig if you look at the earnings calls post TA passage you see that they hated the 50 seaters, the 717s were a once in a lifetime golden opportunity and they wanted more large regional jets. More importantly, they seem to indicate they wanted to shrink, up gauge, improve and reduce frequency on the RJ side of system.
Put that together with the 717 rumors prior to the TA and the picture it paints is the 717s were already a done deal. And they already wanted to reduce DCI but they had to get us to approve more super premium jumbo RJs to make that work like they wanted. So how did they get us to relax the jumbo RJ part of our scope clause? They told us if and ONLY if we'd allow more 76 seaters they'd let us have the 717s they already acquired. As a bonus they'd shrink DCI to the size they already intended for it to be. And if we act now they'd add a ratio that shifts percentages but not the flying. On this part of the TA we didn't score a touchdown, we threw a pick six. |
Fwiw people if you're sick call in sick. Just so the guy next to you doesn't have to burn sick time and money going to the doctor and get the kids sick. I know there are people on this site that basically say if you can type on the computer you're good to fly. Not so.
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1425847)
Fwiw people if you're sick call in sick. Just so the guy next to you doesn't have to burn sick time and money going to the doctor and get the kids sick. I know there are people on this site that basically say if you can type on the computer you're good to fly. Not so.
Well we gave away our union protection from the company in the latest contract, that for me was a one issue no vote. I know we got rid of the 75% and all, but what's to stop the company from coming after you if they feel you're abusing sick time? The company is already saying "don't fly if you're sick". That is not the same as "fit to fly". Have fun explaining the difference to the Chief Pilot. The union has effectively washed their hands of any responsibility to defend the pilot group against harassment from the company. Just wait until the next contract negotiations... this will get ugly. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:37 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands