|
|
Originally Posted by Going2Baja
(Post 1434766)
If this happens we need to see a change in the rates. Time to pay for seats. 320 = 7NG. 321/900 = 757.
Baja.
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1434776)
Totally agreed there. The 333 carries more pax than the 777 and is way bigger than the 764, too... not a bad idea to match that up while we're at it.
If DALPA & management think the B737-900ER equals a WB rate, then how will an arbitrator interpret that when creating an ISL between two carriers that operate B737-900ERs? |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1434785)
I am 100 percent against longevity base pay. The guys that want this are at the top of the pay scale, but not on the highest paying plane. We should not even have longevity factored into our pay. It ties us to our specific airline thus reducing leverage. A new hire 717 first officer should make the same as a 12 year 717 first officer. They do the exact same job. We are the only industry where you cannot take your skills to another company for the same price. We should be trying to eliminate our entire scale other than the 12 year scale.
|
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1434787)
If Virgin joins the Transatlantic JV, the EASK shares get renegotiated and we wait out another compliance period before we measure and a year after that before the company must cure.
If VA doesn't get lumped in with the existing Transatlantic JV, 1.E.8 becomes very interesting. 75% of the flying of Delta's revenue share would flip the balance of flying between DAL and VA in favor of DAL. Measured every Quarter with a 12-month lookback. Which would you rather see? Cheers George P.S. Hauenstein is now on the Virgin BOD. Also the 2nd largest US destination from LHR is not currently in the codeshare list. I would imagine a forthcoming slot will come as part of some near term negotiations with other players... Oh and t, your wish is coming true, Virgin is adding capacity in MCO making it all 744 service... I would rather see the VA JV outside the AF/KLM. And with that in mind, it is a clean sheet of paper. all that lookback stuff you are talking about doesn't exist in that setting. Having Hauenstein on the BOD is what I was afraid of. he will look really hard at profitable routes and advise them to get rid of the non profitable ones... those 747s in MCO might have a short lifespan. |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1434862)
So does that mean that if the NWA-ALPA merger proposal for the SLI included longevity based pay you would have been fine with it? You should have made that suggestion back then and we could have alleviated a lot of heartache. ;)
The problem with your argument in a SLI scenario is that we use our seniority for more than just bidding for equipment and seat. Every year we use it to bid vacation. Every 9 months we use it to bid for CQ. Every month we use it to bid for trips, days off, and to have a schedule that is either blockholder or reserve. Finally, for every trip that includes more than one captain or FO, it is used to decide who gets what break, who does the walkaround, and who gets to be the ultimate decision maker. Or, are you saying you wouldn't have a problem with not exercising seniority in these things? If so, can I have your schedule for next month? :D |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1434919)
I am saying that a case could be made because equipment wouldn't matter. The example of a SEA based AK pilot would hold true, and in that case it wouldn't make sense for them to commute halfway across the country to fly Carl's whale when they could make the same coin driving to work unless they had a woody for it. Then Carl would be able to do the dinner and a movie turns for the same coin and be home every night instead of crossing 8 time zones... I am NOT saying that I would promote it, but it would have a certain logic.
|
Originally Posted by DAWGS
(Post 1434788)
Where does VX fit into all this? We pump up the Virgin brand, buy 49% of VA, but where does that lead Virgin America? Just makes no sense for us to build the name of a competing domestic brand.
|
IMHO, when it comes to an Alaska merger, I think the incentive to commute, especially for those already commuting, to a big jet to do big jet flying is too alluring for some even if the pay was the same.
I'm sure there would be pilots living in SEA that would gladly do a once maybe twice a month commute to DTW to fly the 747/777 or ATL to do the 777 even if the pay was the same as the 737. |
|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1434912)
I would rather see the VA JV outside the AF/KLM. And with that in mind, it is a clean sheet of paper. all that lookback stuff you are talking about doesn't exist in that setting.
(And for the record, I was unimpressed we only managed to secure 75% of the flying of Delta's revenue share.) Unless we negotiate something else, PWA 1.E.8 stipulates we fly 75% of the flying of Delta's revenue share. With Delta owning 49% of VA that means nearly half the VA revenue stream at VA goes to Delta. Put another way, in the VA DAL JV, Delta gets 75% of the total revenue stream...and per PWA 1.E.8 we get 75% of the flying of Delta's revenue share or roughly 56.3% of the flying. In PWA 1.8.E it also spells out that share is measured quarterly with a 12 month lookback. That's our opening position. Hat tip to the negotiators who put that in the contract. Hopefully we can realize that part of our contract language. The value of VA is in the LHR slots. If Hauenstein rationalizes the VA network and shrinks the VA operation, do you really think the slots will just go unused, or is it possible Delta takes advantage of the slots to add much needed connectivity to the SkyTeam network where it currently doesn't exist? Virgin not joining the Transatlantic JV is a very good thing for us. That's my point. Now stop being so darn negative t! :D Cheers George |
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1434950)
know your contract...1.E.8 was added last summer.
(And for the record, I was unimpressed we only managed to secure 75% of the flying of Delta's revenue share.) Unless we negotiate something else, PWA 1.E.8 stipulates we fly 75% of the flying of Delta's revenue share. With Delta owning 49% of VA that means nearly half the VA revenue stream at VA goes to Delta. Put another way, in the VA DAL JV, Delta gets 75% of the total revenue stream...and per PWA 1.E.8 we get 75% of the flying of Delta's revenue share or roughly 56.3% of the flying. In PWA 1.8.E it also spells out that share is measured quarterly with a 12 month lookback. That's our opening position. Hat tip to the negotiators who put that in the contract. Hopefully we can realize that part of our contract language. The value of VA is in the LHR slots. If Hauenstein rationalizes the VA network and shrinks the VA operation, do you really think the slots will just go unused, or is it possible Delta takes advantage of the slots to add much needed connectivity to the SkyTeam network where it currently doesn't exist? Virgin not joining the Transatlantic JV is a very good thing for us. That's my point. Now stop being so darn negative t! :D Cheers George http://www.hobotrashcan.com/wordpres.../pc-130604.jpg |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:07 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands