|
|
Originally Posted by Rogue24
(Post 1451982)
Non-complinace comes at a price. My Rep is very aware of it, and wants to know what the lack of progression and jobs has cost this group. It we get to 2015 and he is still in office he will push the issue, and hard, but thinking that DAL will fork over billions in new jets to pacify this non-complinace is a pipe dream. Non-compliance is non-complinace and is dealt with through a grievance or negotiation. Nothing new here. The price and the equitable solution are easy math: Build a staffing model for our contractual share, then staff it; whether we perform the flying or not. If the Company is unwilling to staff for what it agreed to do, then take that staffing model, net what we have now. The result is our lost earnings (without consideration for the quality of life lost ... hence a compromise position). There is a concern that this common sense good faith solution is "too expensive" for the Company. Well then, call the New York times and tell them there is a "labor problem brewing at Delta Air Lines." How expensive is the panic selling to $8 a share? (I'm an employee. My part is showing up on time and doing my job) We are all partners and thanked for doing our part until the rubber meets the road at scope compliance. Just as Richard Anderson said about Boeing, Delta is in apparent breach of their agreement. IMHO labor should tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may (or at least come to the table with the willingness to rock the boat). Hey, don't get me wrong. It is great our share price is where it is and some managers are reaping well deserved gains. I enjoy sharing in that success too, but we've got a contract and dammit, it should be enforced in good faith or we call it what it is. |
Originally Posted by MD88Driver
(Post 1451991)
After nearly a decade in the mighty MD88 I'm thinking of moving airplanes. Quick question...if I go to the ER and say after a year decide to move to another plane and take a VD, do I carry my extra year lock to the new plane plus the 2 year freeze on the new training? Or does the VD wipe out any seat lock you have had on the aircraft?
Thanks... There is contract language reducing your seat lock to 9 months for the er specifically. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1452013)
Rogue24,
The price and the equitable solution are easy math: Build a staffing model for our contractual share, then staff it; whether we perform the flying or not. If the Company is unwilling to staff for what it agreed to do, then take that staffing model, net what we have now. The result is our lost earnings (without consideration for the quality of life lost ... hence a compromise position). There is a concern that this common sense good faith solution is "too expensive" for the Company. Well then, call the New York times and tell them there is a "labor problem brewing at Delta Air Lines." How expensive is the panic selling to $10 a share? (I'm an employee, my share is showing up on time and doing my job) We are all partners and thanked for doing our part until the rubber meets the road at scope compliance. Just as Richard Anderson said about Boeing, Delta is in apparent breach of their agreement. IMHO labor should tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. That is exactly how labor is costed in the real world. |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1451768)
I got the distinct impression from all the reps that they were not getting very much input from the line pilot and would like a lot more.
I'm not asking for a long response, I know they are busy and have lives, but a two sentence reply - I got your email, thanks and here's briefly what I think, wouldn't be too hard would it? |
Originally Posted by Rogue24
(Post 1451982)
Europe still is in the tank, what do want DAL to do, fly widely unprofitable flying just so we can progress or do you prefer them to execute the business plan that is trending above 2billion a year in profit?
If Europe ever recovers and medium to high yield ridership returns we stand to profit greatly on the balance of block hr flying on the TAJV. It was a JV that was built for upside growth. Kind of hard to have that for the last five years when the world economy has been in the crapper. Sucks but that is a harsh reality. Non-complinace comes at a price. My Rep is very aware of it, and wants to know what the lack of progression and jobs has cost this group. It we get to 2015 and he is still in office he will push the issue, and hard, but thinking that DAL will fork over billions in new jets to pacify this non-complinace is a pipe dream. On a second note, AF's ability to pull down flying was affected by French law prohibiting much of it. In the first part of this year, that low was watered down and AF pulled down a lot of flying. Non-compliance is non-complinace and is dealt with through a grievance or negotiation. Nothing new here. (but isn't that exactly what Air France and Alitalia are doing?) I digress. I just want to see ALPA show a little spine for the first time in a decade. The RLA and the NMB will not be involved. Our contract is signed and in effect. We need to cost out the damages we are suffering as a result of giving up our scope clause and then make management pay us. I am sick and tired of the continuous small modifications to our contract that allow just a little bit more outsourcing every time and us getting nothing in return. You say deal with it through a grievance. The last time we settled a scope grievance Moak gave up on the 76 seater numerical limit in exchange for nothing except "clarifying" the language. (we'll get 'em next time) And then that language was superseded in the new contract anyway. That's bull****. Its that kind of "constructive engagement" that really makes ALPA look like a branch of management. ENFORCE MY CONTRACT !! And if management comes to us claiming that changed circumstances absolutely dictate some modifications, then SHOW ME THE MONEY ! |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1452000)
Sam Mason does a great job for our pilots.
Back when this deal was done (and immediately appeared in peril) the CS Committee pointed out we were tracking about where we had been prior to inclusion of Alitalia in our JV. As stated in the previous post, our MEC wants to grow our flying and achieving growth was thought to be well worth the "price" (my characterization) of the expanded measurement window. At the the time it was management's stated intention to grow to 50% of the bigger pie (with AZ filling). Then the European economic decline occurred and Air France was no where near as nimble as Delta in constraining capacity. (news reports at that time reflected the stress Air France and Delta had maintaining their liason amoureuse) Things are changing and Delta's nimble. The British economy is rebounding well and we just added a 7ER flight from Seattle to Heathrow. As I understand it, the VA JV (which is supposed to be live by 1/1/14) is not going to be rolled into our current transatlantic JV. If this continues to be the case then it is probably better for us than adding Virgin to our share. I would argue we are splitting the Atlantic; this is not the "English Channel Joint Venture." Also, Delta said they are not going to merge numbers in any way with Virgin. So we will be able to track the results of that operation transparently on Delta's reports. We here in the bleachers can see that game being played out. The Seattle flight is a win. Also, we have hit our metrics ... time for a Widebody acquisition ... JMHO. On the surface that sounds like an amazing idea, but think of this..... We have been overstaffed the entire time we have been in the three year measurement period since AZ jointed the NAJV, correct? We have been very overstaffed on many WB jets; company decision. The 330, 744, and 777 have been over staffed to the point of MD's. The ER has just seen over 100 FO seats removed because they are so far over staffed from the operational formula. I am sure we all agree on this. I would venture to bet, that if you used a staffing formula for your non-complinace you would realize that we would have been well above the extra staffing needed to staff the 7 333's from DTW to AMS that it would take to be in compliance. Now I know you are going to retort that it has to be for staffing on jets that fly in the JV, but this summer all of them are. We have 777's to AMS, and 330's all over the place. I even think there is a 744 doing Euro service this summer. Point is that we have probably been adequately staffed for your suggestion the last few years given the level of over staffing that we have experienced. If that was your financial quid, then the company already paid, eh? |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1452014)
When you leave the 88 for the er, you will not want to leave. If you survived a decade on the 88 with all your hair, it will start growing in Viking blonde. You will gain a little weight until you figure out not to eat everything offered. You will sleep in comfortable hotels in nice places. You will become a beer snob even if you don't drink. You will think you've been $crewed unless you have at least 1 Germany per month on your line. Green slips will be fun to fly. You will be epic.
Having metaphorically described the career path of every Delta pilot I know ... here's your new ride: http://images.hemmings.com/wp-conten...7/12/mgbgt.jpg ... now the question is, which one? |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1452032)
I agree its unrealistic to expect an airline to fly the ocean at a loss just to preserve jobs.
(but isn't that exactly what Air France and Alitalia are doing?) I digress. I digress... I just want to see ALPA show a little spine for the first time in a decade. The RLA and the NMB will not be involved. Our contract is signed and in effect. On the Pacific, a pithy Fifth Freedom Code Share agreement is all that keeps 316 weekly slots as a floor. RA stated in the earnings call that NRT is stable and the growth is from Transpac additions. Were is your leverage to show you the money, with a steel spine? We need to cost out the damages we are suffering as a result of giving up our scope clause and then make management pay us. I am sick and tired of the continuous small modifications to our contract that allow just a little bit more outsourcing every time and us getting nothing in return. You say deal with it through a grievance. The last time we settled a scope grievance Moak gave up on the 76 seater numerical limit in exchange for nothing except "clarifying" the language. (we'll get 'em next time) And then that language was superseded in the new contract anyway. That's bull****. Its that kind of "constructive engagement" that really makes ALPA look like a branch of management. ENFORCE MY CONTRACT !! And if management comes to us claiming that changed circumstances absolutely dictate some modifications, then SHOW ME THE MONEY ! You think that DALPA is not tolling the costs? GMAB. Any grievance would come from the MEC on this one, and if the Chair tried to do it on his own, I do not think that would end well, alas if may be a new chair and diffinately a new MEC since we are talking 2015. Every base has elections that will put new people in except ATL, DTW and SLC, they just got elected. |
Originally Posted by Rogue24
(Post 1452034)
Point is that we have probably been adequately staffed for your suggestion the last few years given the level of over staffing that we have experienced. If that was your financial quid, then the company already paid, eh? You raise an interesting point and I'd dare say ALPA's been working on that calculation. Very early when this was calculated it is my understanding the result was as published ... enough crews to staff for the 7 330's from the Motor City to the Stoner City and back again. The choice of the 330 probably means, what, 10 to 12 7ER's to generate EASK balance? The fact the Company's been squeezing the list to staff the bottom ( MD88 / 717 ) from the middle (76 & ER to 320 & 737 to MD88 & 717 ) suggests if the Company had held extra staffing that they aren't doing so any more. Yours is an interesting theory. But, not interested if it is a trial balloon for excused noncompliance. We've really got to do something to alleviate stagnation that results in the vast majority of our narrow body First Officers being qualified for membership in AARP. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1452050)
Rogue,
You raise an interesting point and I'd dare say ALPA's been working on that calculation. Very early when this was calculated it is my understanding the result was as published ... enough crews to staff for the 7 330's from the Motor City to the Stoner City and back again. The fact the Company's been squeezing the list to staff the bottom ( MD88 / 717 ) from the middle (76 & ER to 320 & 737 to MD88 & 717 ) suggests if the Company had held extra staffing that they aren't doing so any more. Yours is an interesting theory. But, not interested if it is a trial balloon for excused noncompliance. We've really got to do something to alleviate stagnation that results in the vast majority of our narrow body First Officers being qualified for membership in AARP. My point is if you want to toll and staff for those loses via seats, the look back would apply and we have had a lot of pilots sitting in seats that did not have flying attached to them. It may actually hurt you on a look back but may be a good idea going forward. Its in how it is done. Taking EASK's and formalizing that in to seats not staffed may be the best bet for our pilots, but forcing a staffing solution on a look back may result in no need for payback to our group. Just food for thought. The whole, know the answer to the question before you ask it thing. It might be something that a resolution could make the MEC look at though. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:27 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands