Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-05-2013, 04:38 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Duplicate post
09-05-2013, 04:41 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Capt
Posts: 2,023
Originally Posted by n9810f
You know we put winglets on about a dozen of the 757's from around 638 up through many of the 660 series ships.
09-05-2013, 04:54 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
And the basis for this opinion is where?
Carl
Carl
The dues rate shall be 1.75% upon initial certification by the National Mediation Board. On January 1st of the second full fiscal year following initial certification, the dues rate shall drop annually by 0.25% every year until reaching a minimum dues rate of 1%. Special Circumstance Exception: Six (6) months prior to the amendable date of the Pilot Working Agreement, or upon early opening of negotiations if greater than six (6) months prior to the amendable date, or upon notification of a possible bankruptcy or merger initiated by the Company, the dues rate will temporarily increase by 0.5% until the new contract is ratified, or bankruptcy proceedings or merger integration is complete.
0.5 % <--- Special Circumstance Exception mentioned above
1.75 + .5 = 2.25
October 1, 2014 is 6 months prior to the opening of Section 6.
What concerned me even more is that currently there are 3 different negotiations occurring. Will my dues also go up for that? It does not say that it will go up by 0.5% only for Section 6 negotiations.
09-05-2013, 04:59 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by shiznit
How about YOUR post a page ago!?!?!?
1.75% <--- dues on Oct 1, 2014
0.5 % <--- Special Circumstance Exception mentioned above
1.75 + .5 = 2.25
October 1, 2014 is 6 months prior to the opening of Section 6.
What concerned me even more is that currently there are 3 different negotiations occurring. Will my dues also go up for that? It does not say that it will go up by 0.5% only for Section 6 negotiations.
1.75% <--- dues on Oct 1, 2014
0.5 % <--- Special Circumstance Exception mentioned above
1.75 + .5 = 2.25
October 1, 2014 is 6 months prior to the opening of Section 6.
What concerned me even more is that currently there are 3 different negotiations occurring. Will my dues also go up for that? It does not say that it will go up by 0.5% only for Section 6 negotiations.
Carl
09-05-2013, 05:04 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: Boeing Boss
Posts: 335
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Read it again shiznit.
Carl
Carl
What will the dues rate be on October 1, 2014, six months prior to the amendable date of the PWA?
Sorry if I'm reading too much into your replies, but they seem to be indirect. If shiznit is wrong, give us the correct numbers, and show your work.
09-05-2013, 05:36 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 269
Originally Posted by SawF16
I see exactly what you are saying, and I can see how on the surface that may intimidate folks. Not to get too far into the weeds, but if you are talking Alaska, they are ALPA as well, which would indicate ALPA merger policy. I doubt that any ALPA/ALPA merger with our group would end in an amicable non arbitrated list; I think most of us would expect it to go to arbitration. I'm no ALPA policy wonk, but I don't believe that "pay rates" are part of the ALPA merger policy. The considerations in that case: "in no particular order and with no particular weight now include but are not limited to career expectations, longevity, and status and category."
Yes I realize that pay rates can certainly be brought up due to the "not limited to" clause, but I think we will find the mergers which have been arbitrated using this methodology haven't really included it.
However, if you want to start with the assumption that we somehow get 737-9 and A-321 rates up to the same as the 777, who cares if the potential 737-9 operating merger candidate's pilots get merged with our most senior pilots via a direct ratio? Not saying this would happen, but like I said previously, these guys would be bringing their own equally high paying airplanes with them. What makes any of us think they would want our 777 flying if they can make the same money staying right where they are? (Or even if they do, when they "move up" to a 777/747 seat, they are vacating another Capt seat that pays exactly the same- hard to call that a loss to be honest). At that point we are looking solely at the question of do we really value that type of flying for the sake of itself vs do we value it for its higher paying status. I think we have heard plenty of very senior folks weigh in on this.
I would have to say the real losers in a potential tie up with Alaska in particular would be their junior FO's. Take a look at how senior anything remotely west goes at Delta. Even at a straight ratio not accounting for equipment a great deal of those guys would be getting the boot from their west coast bases over time. The same thing happened to junior FO's in SLC, LAX, and more recently to FOs in MSP. That is assuming of course the company would not add additional capacity to those bases in a post-merger scenario.
I'm not advocating a T2 style LGB, and I'm certainly not saying that the rates for either of these aircraft will actually be the same as the 75/76 (or the 777 from your example). I'm just pointing out the flaw in logic in advocating lower pay for the 737-9 and the A321 based on fear of it giving those aircraft status equal to 767/777/name your fleet in some potential future merger scenario.
Yes I realize that pay rates can certainly be brought up due to the "not limited to" clause, but I think we will find the mergers which have been arbitrated using this methodology haven't really included it.
However, if you want to start with the assumption that we somehow get 737-9 and A-321 rates up to the same as the 777, who cares if the potential 737-9 operating merger candidate's pilots get merged with our most senior pilots via a direct ratio? Not saying this would happen, but like I said previously, these guys would be bringing their own equally high paying airplanes with them. What makes any of us think they would want our 777 flying if they can make the same money staying right where they are? (Or even if they do, when they "move up" to a 777/747 seat, they are vacating another Capt seat that pays exactly the same- hard to call that a loss to be honest). At that point we are looking solely at the question of do we really value that type of flying for the sake of itself vs do we value it for its higher paying status. I think we have heard plenty of very senior folks weigh in on this.
I would have to say the real losers in a potential tie up with Alaska in particular would be their junior FO's. Take a look at how senior anything remotely west goes at Delta. Even at a straight ratio not accounting for equipment a great deal of those guys would be getting the boot from their west coast bases over time. The same thing happened to junior FO's in SLC, LAX, and more recently to FOs in MSP. That is assuming of course the company would not add additional capacity to those bases in a post-merger scenario.
I'm not advocating a T2 style LGB, and I'm certainly not saying that the rates for either of these aircraft will actually be the same as the 75/76 (or the 777 from your example). I'm just pointing out the flaw in logic in advocating lower pay for the 737-9 and the A321 based on fear of it giving those aircraft status equal to 767/777/name your fleet in some potential future merger scenario.
There are many way to skin this cat. Another way is to make 321/739 pay 757 pay, move the 767 and 753 to the 330/765 pay(or create a sub category for these two jets), band the 320/319/738/737 and band the m88/90/717.
Don't these deliveries start to show up in 2016? Isn't that after the amendable date? If 321 pay for the 757 pay is a must or bust, there are multiple ways to deliver that while being strategic.
09-05-2013, 05:45 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by Rogue24
NewK is also very well versed on the legal and arbitration systems. I would take what he say with more weight than the next guy wrt to these matters. Seniority is forever.
There are many way to skin this cat. Another way is to make 321/739 pay 757 pay, move the 767 and 753 to the 330/765 pay(or create a sub category for these two jets), band the 320/319/738/737 and band the m88/90/717.
Don't these deliveries start to show up in 2016? Isn't that after the amendable date? If 321 pay for the 757 pay is a must or bust, there are multiple ways to deliver that while being strategic.
There are many way to skin this cat. Another way is to make 321/739 pay 757 pay, move the 767 and 753 to the 330/765 pay(or create a sub category for these two jets), band the 320/319/738/737 and band the m88/90/717.
Don't these deliveries start to show up in 2016? Isn't that after the amendable date? If 321 pay for the 757 pay is a must or bust, there are multiple ways to deliver that while being strategic.
Why isn't the 744 elevated in pay over the 777-200 and on par with the 777-300?
Why isn't the 330 pay banded with the 777?
09-05-2013, 05:45 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Splash
Carl - Can you tell us what the dues will be on January 1, 2014 if DPA were to win certification on December 31, 2013?
What will the dues rate be on October 1, 2014, six months prior to the amendable date of the PWA?
Sorry if I'm reading too much into your replies, but they seem to be indirect. If shiznit is wrong, give us the correct numbers, and show your work.
What will the dues rate be on October 1, 2014, six months prior to the amendable date of the PWA?
Sorry if I'm reading too much into your replies, but they seem to be indirect. If shiznit is wrong, give us the correct numbers, and show your work.
Our amendable date is December 31, 2015. Six months prior to December 31, 2015 is July 1, 2015. Now from the DPA as posted by hitimefurl and highlighted by shiznit:
The dues rate shall be 1.75% upon initial certification by the National Mediation Board. On January 1st of the second full fiscal year following initial certification, the dues rate shall drop annually by 0.25% every year until reaching a minimum dues rate of 1%. Special Circumstance Exception: Six (6) months prior to the amendable date of the Pilot Working Agreement, or upon early opening of negotiations if greater than six (6) months prior to the amendable date, or upon notification of a possible bankruptcy or merger initiated by the Company, the dues rate will temporarily increase by 0.5% until the new contract is ratified, or bankruptcy proceedings or merger integration is complete.
Therefore, to answer your question, dues on January 1, 2014 = 1.75%. Dues rate on October 1, 2014 = 1.75% because you wrongly state above that October 1, 2014 is 6 months prior to the amendable date of our PWA.
This is what I mean when I say hitimefurl and shiznit are only posting their opinions. They are entitled to their opinions, but they often include gross distortions and mischaracterizations of the written word.
Carl
09-05-2013, 06:10 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 80
After the merger bid SEA because our trips in LA suck. Unless you like redeye turns to MEX and GDL. Then LA is the place for you😉
09-05-2013, 06:21 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MadDog gear slinger
Posts: 568
I'm not as concerned about the percentage of my pay that goes toward dues as I am about how those dues are spent. Forget the tired examples of oil paintings, limos for kids in private school and such, the total inefficiency of the spending is one thing. But I don't like the conflict of interest that my ALPA dues money is spread over. I said the same thing when I drove RJ's, there should be a union for them, and one for us.
ALPA, IMHO, is like any other large entity;because of it's vast size, it becomes self serving.
ALPA, IMHO, is like any other large entity;because of it's vast size, it becomes self serving.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
