|
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1439940)
+717!! :rolleyes:
Carl |
Originally Posted by DLpilot
(Post 1439846)
Downside would be the guys that come to work sick just to save those hours.
|
From 2009:
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 715189)
Just a reminder that scope has been tightened since Moak has been your MEC chairman, and that the total number of RJ's flying under DCI/Airlink colors has decreased substantially. Delta is capped on the number of 70-76 seat aircraft without substantial mainline growth.
Originally Posted by LeineLodge
(Post 715219)
Slow,
While I respect your insights and opinions, you've GOT TO stop using this line as a defense of Moak's and the MEC's scope stance. I agree they have done an outstanding job with the merger, SLI, etc, but the ONLY reason we have seen a "substantial" decrease in RJ flying is the economics of the 50 seater. If it were economically feasible and/or advantageous to the company for some other reason (stick it to labor during section 6 maybe) then every single one of those parked RJ's could come back. We need to take our very next opportunity to cinch up the RJ limits while they are down. It wouldn't cost the company anything (other than future flexibility) to agree to cap RJ's at their current number - don't have that number readily available - as opposed to the number our scope allows. Oh yeah, and once and for all maybe they could communicate their stance on scope, so we could all sleep a little better at night. I'm still not convinced that a deal won't be reached to allow CPZ or RAH 190/195's for a "short time" to bridge the gap to our "100 seaters." I would love to hear something official regarding our stance along the lines of NOT ONE MORE SEAT, NOT ONE MORE POUND, NOR ONE MORE AIRFRAME OVER THE CURRENT LIMITS. This may be our stance (and absolutely should be), but we'd never know since it hasn't been communicated. With your insight to the workings/stances of the MEC, can you make me/us feel better about this? It's not real comfortable with the threat coming from both sides (NB and WB's.)
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 715227)
Yup, what they said. ;)
[FTB note: highlighted red emphasis was from the original post, bold emphasis is mine]
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1439927)
What trend? A decrease in RJ flying? An increase in mainline flying? Profits at $100+ barrel of oil? Open CA positions AE after AE? Absolutely. :)
http://bossip.files.wordpress.com/20...pg?w=450&h=338 |
Originally Posted by MD88Driver
(Post 1439902)
What, in your opinion, are the aircraft that are now staying if a few of the 900s are growth? Honest question, no flaming intended.
|
As Slow mentioned 3 years prior to TA 2012,
"Delta is capped on the number of 70-76 seat aircraft without substantial mainline growth." We successfully negotiated out of that substantial mainline growth requirement."NOT ONE MORE SEAT, NOT ONE MORE POUND, NOR ONE MORE AIRFRAME OVER THE CURRENT LIMITS." Was changed to read: "NOT ONE MORE SEAT, NOT ONE MORE POUND, NOR ONE MORE AIRFRAME OVER THE CURRENT LIMITS unless you give us 717s you got for very cheap and are excited about while parking the 50 seaters that DAL saw as costly airplanes 'are customers don't particularly prefer' and adding 76 seat jets they do prefer." And "C2K RESTORATION!" Was rewritten to say "DAL 7ERA pay = SWA 737-500 pay and we pay for it [see Q2 2012 earnings call] by allowing the jumbo RJ fleet to grow, parking the costly 50-seat fleet, adding 'capital efficient' 717s, plus reducing the profit sharing to fund the cost growth." http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/a.../2944936_o.gif |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1440005)
As Slow mentioned 3 years prior to TA 2012,
"Delta is capped on the number of 70-76 seat aircraft without substantial mainline growth." We successfully negotiated out of that substantial mainline growth requirement."NOT ONE MORE SEAT, NOT ONE MORE POUND, NOR ONE MORE AIRFRAME OVER THE CURRENT LIMITS." Was changed to read: "NOT ONE MORE SEAT, NOT ONE MORE POUND, NOR ONE MORE AIRFRAME OVER THE CURRENT LIMITS unless you give us 717s you got for very cheap (which will be filled with displaced 7ER pilots) and are excited about while parking the 50 seaters that DAL saw as costly airplanes 'are customers don't particularly prefer' and adding 76 seat jets they do prefer." And "C2K RESTORATION!" Was rewritten to say "DAL 7ERA pay = SWA 737-500 pay and we pay for it [see Q2 2012 earnings call] by allowing the jumbo RJ fleet to grow, parking the costly 50-seat fleet, adding 'capital efficient' 717s, plus reducing the profit sharing to fund the cost growth." http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/a.../2944936_o.gif |
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
(Post 1439887)
You guys keep saying this. I did not call anybody a liar. What I said before posting the words of the chairman was:
The TA was not a simple listing of facts. It was spun to high heaven with conjecture and a heavy dose of best case scenarios which are not playing out. It was a sales job. It should have been a proposal that rested on it's own laurels period, without all the used car salesman bullet points that almost appear to have been provided by management who greatly benefited from this contract. Maybe that's part of the constructive engagement. Sell what management wants and certain individuals are granted future "fruit baskets". The fact is that all of the red highlighted points in the Chairman's letter in fact proved to be true. That seems to be a pretty strong endorsement of that letter. It's not a sales job when you are telling the truth. I think you are just naive if you think that there will be a straight recitation of TA bullet points with no explanation. The MEC spends a great deal of time studying the industry and the environment we negotiate in. There is a lot of work researching and negotiating the changes to the contract. If you expect that all of that context will be left out of the TA discussion then you are mistaken. It would be a dereliction of duty to ignore those facts which form the entire context of the deal. What you call "used car salesman" bullet points are simply arguments that don't match up with your preconceived bias. For instance when some reps stated that "if we reject this deal, management will come back shortly and give us a better deal" you latched onto that as if it came from the mouth of God. The facts are that these reps had no earthly idea that this would happen, they just made it up. Recent history has shown that not only is that belief sadly mistaken but in fact the opposite is true. I can give you labor group after labor group that acted on this false assumption and ended up with a worse deal, often substantially worse (think Airtran and Southwest). I have yet to hear anyone give any example within the last decade or two where this assumption proved to be a wise move. So you have reps whose beliefs run completely counter to history (and common sense if you ask me) and yet you don't complain about their "sales job". You think a sales job is anything that doesn't match your thoughts. You think "straight facts" are anything that does match your thoughts. So spare me the sanctimony. Again, we seem to live in bizarro world where failure becomes the road map to success and success is ignored. Constructive engagement has led this industry out of the depths of the bankruptcy era doldrums. Every pilot group that tried your tactics has failed and failed and failed some more. Only one pilot group was moving forward and digging out of the hole we were in and that was Delta using constructive engagement. We signed two straight industry leading contracts within 4 years of each other. The rest of the industry: zero. We averaged a 41% lead on the competition when our last deal was signed. 41%. Explain that sales job. The rest of the industry is just trying to catch up now. So if you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore reality while you satisfy your anger then I say you are just immature. There has rarely been such a stark contrast between the failure of your methods and the success of constructive engagement. So you can snark away all you want with your childish insults. Someone else with more maturity will keep digging you out of that hole and like a dead weight you can latch on for the ride. |
I wonder what the Q2 2012 earnings call had looked like if we had voted the TA down?
"Well, we didn't get the pilots to agree to a new pilot agreement. So we have decided to push back coming to an agreement for 8 years or so, to be super punitive. We told them we had a fleeting opportunity coming right around the corner and they still weren't interested. So we have decided that the pilots, the airline, and our investors need to be punished for what the pilots did on their one and only vote opportunity. uhhhh...But don't worry, we are okay with walking away from those cheap and relatively new 717s because frankly restructuring our fleet with two class regional jets and capital efficient 717s wasn't that big of a deal to begin with. We are very happy to keep the more than 200 50-seaters we so wanted to get rid a month ago. We love the 50-seaters despite the fact our customers don't prefer them and they're 'significantly' costly. We will happily operate them for decades to come. And I want to take a moment here to give a shot out to Southwest CEO Gary Kelly for being willing to allow us to walk from the once in a lifetime 717 deal if our pilots, unproductive pilots under the current PWA, didn't agree to our terms on the first vote. Now I want to take a moment here and tell you what we're really excited about. And that's the addition of Dash 8 Q400s. I know we just retired our last propeller aircraft and I was, contingent on the pilots voting yes, very willing to celebrate that fact. But now we'll just buy 500 of these range limited, expensive, large footprint and weak kneed aircraft that nobody else wants." http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_led49gyufo1qdlkgg.gif |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1440007)
Well, I would say the same thing about you and other people that opposed the TA. The problem that I had with those people is that they didn't even attempt to stick to the facts, they simply made up anything that came along, and the DPA crowd was all too quick to disseminate this factually incorrect material.
The fact is that all of the red highlighted points in the Chairman's letter in fact proved to be true. That seems to be a pretty strong endorsement of that letter. It's not a sales job when you are telling the truth. I think you are just naive if you think that there will be a straight recitation of TA bullet points with no explanation. The MEC spends a great deal of time studying the industry and the environment we negotiate in. There is a lot of work researching and negotiating the changes to the contract. If you expect that all of that context will be left out of the TA discussion then you are mistaken. It would be a dereliction of duty to ignore those facts which form the entire context of the deal. What you call "used car salesman" bullet points are simply arguments that don't match up with your preconceived bias. For instance when some reps stated that "if we reject this deal, management will come back shortly and give us a better deal" you latched onto that as if it came from the mouth of God. The facts are that these reps had no earthly idea that this would happen, they just made it up. Recent history has shown that not only is that belief sadly mistaken but in fact the opposite is true. I can give you labor group after labor group that acted on this false assumption and ended up with a worse deal, often substantially worse (think Airtran and Southwest). I have yet to hear anyone give any example within the last decade or two where this assumption proved to be a wise move. So you have reps whose beliefs run completely counter to history (and common sense if you ask me) and yet you don't complain about their "sales job". You think a sales job is anything that doesn't match your thoughts. You think "straight facts" are anything that does match your thoughts. So spare me the sanctimony. Again, we seem to live in bizarro world where failure becomes the road map to success and success is ignored. Constructive engagement has led this industry out of the depths of the bankruptcy era doldrums. Every pilot group that tried your tactics has failed and failed and failed some more. Only one pilot group was moving forward and digging out of the hole we were in and that was Delta using constructive engagement. We signed two straight industry leading contracts within 4 years of each other. The rest of the industry: zero. We averaged a 41% lead on the competition when our last deal was signed. 41%. Explain that sales job. The rest of the industry is just trying to catch up now. So if you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore reality while you satisfy your anger then I say you are just immature. There has rarely been such a stark contrast between the failure of your methods and the success of constructive engagement. So you can snark away all you want with your childish insults. Someone else with more maturity will keep digging you out of that hole and like a dead weight you can latch on for the ride. ALFA, I voted yes on the last contract but it is not all peaches and cream here at DAL. Yes we had a 41% advantage in pay rates, and yet CAL 2005 hires are making more than late 90 hires at DAL because 2005 hires at CAL can hold 757 CAPT. Ditto for Hawaiian with many post 2000 hires holding CAPT. Post 2000 SWA Pilots are making more than DAL Pilots hired 10 years earlier. Pay rates are only half of the equation - progression is the other half. We may be doing good (relative to BK rates) in pay, but we are a big fat "Fail" when it comes to progression. Hopefully it will get better soon but for many guys it may already be too late. I believe DAL is in a very good position in the long term but the bottom half of the list have been stagnating for well over 10 years. Scoop |
fwiw from 23APR13
PJ: "We will begin taking delivery of 8 to 10 aircraft per month starting in September, which will allow us to retire nearly 40 older mainline aircraft, primarily 757s and the remaining DC-9s and over a 50-seat regional -- over 40 50-seat regional jets by the end of the year. These retirements will produce meaningful maintenance and fuel savings later this year. To the extent that we make changes to our fall capacity levels, we would have the opportunity to retire even more aircraft. We are also beginning to see the benefits of our maintenance redesign, which is allowing us to reduce our component and engine expense by pursuing market part-out opportunities. And we are on track to achieve $600 million in cumulative savings from our structural initiatives in 2013." |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:29 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands