Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-21-2013 | 10:24 AM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
09-21-2013 | 11:15 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
From: DAL FO
When you consider that only 3 or 4 of the last 13 years have been profitable, it seems an okay trade. You are now getting that 5% profit sharing reduction, in the full amount, guaranteed every year.
But both of you already know this. Let's just whine a little more about something that the pilot group ratified...
Carry on with your pessimistic pep rally guys - the sky is falling!
09-21-2013 | 11:24 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
You guys are acting like this is some revelation. It has been widely acknowledged that about 2% of the 4/8.5/3/3 was monetized profit sharing.
When you consider that only 3 or 4 of the last 13 years have been profitable, it seems an okay trade. You are now getting that 5% profit sharing reduction, in the full amount, guaranteed every year.
But both of you already know this. Let's just whine a little more about something that the pilot group ratified...
Carry on with your pessimistic pep rally guys - the sky is falling!
When you consider that only 3 or 4 of the last 13 years have been profitable, it seems an okay trade. You are now getting that 5% profit sharing reduction, in the full amount, guaranteed every year.
But both of you already know this. Let's just whine a little more about something that the pilot group ratified...
Carry on with your pessimistic pep rally guys - the sky is falling!
Now again for me pay was trumped by scope, but I'm in a minority there, but 4/8.5/3/3 was below a lot if not most expectations with a profitable company. Can't imagine what the number was before we sold scope and borrowed from profit sharing to get it up to 4/8.5/3/3
09-21-2013 | 11:57 AM
Sho me da money!
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
From: B25, Left
How do we figure 2% was monetized if profit sharing is a variable? Is it just 2% if Delta goes to a $3 and $3.5B profit while raises hold at 3%?
Now again for me pay was trumped by scope, but I'm in a minority there, but 4/8.5/3/3 was below a lot if not most expectations with a profitable company. Can't imagine what the number was before we sold scope and borrowed from profit sharing to get it up to 4/8.5/3/3
Now again for me pay was trumped by scope, but I'm in a minority there, but 4/8.5/3/3 was below a lot if not most expectations with a profitable company. Can't imagine what the number was before we sold scope and borrowed from profit sharing to get it up to 4/8.5/3/3
FTB,
All due respect, but can you once again clearly explain to me how we sold scope? Scope was improved at the DCI level... Shoulda or woulda, " we can make mgt do this or that"were not options to vote on...Voting no was the only option and dealing with HUGE unknowns..... I have a lot of heart burn about the last contract... But DCI scope was not one of them... IMHO we tightened a lot of the DCI scope up... an rj is an rj.... 50 76 seats does not matter they were here they could have had more!!! Less DCI aircraft with less DCI pilots flying less Delta passengers....
FIIG
09-21-2013 | 11:59 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
FTB,
All due respect, but can you once again clearly explain to me how we sold scope? Scope was improved at the DCI level... Shoulda or woulda were not options to vote on... I have a lot of heart burn about the last contract... But DCI scope was not one of them... IMHO we tightened a lot of up... an rj is an rj.... 50 76 seats does not matter they were here they could have had more!!! Less DCI aircraft with less DCI pilots flying less Delta passengers....
FIIG
All due respect, but can you once again clearly explain to me how we sold scope? Scope was improved at the DCI level... Shoulda or woulda were not options to vote on... I have a lot of heart burn about the last contract... But DCI scope was not one of them... IMHO we tightened a lot of up... an rj is an rj.... 50 76 seats does not matter they were here they could have had more!!! Less DCI aircraft with less DCI pilots flying less Delta passengers....
FIIG
09-21-2013 | 12:10 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
Actually the KC-135 was/is a derivative of the B-707. KC-135 guys that got their ATP and could show their time in the KC were able to get a "Commercial Privileges" endorsement for the B-707/720 on their ticket. (I got one.) Once I got my first ATP Type (757/767), the "commercial privileges" was taken off and I now have a type the B-707/720.
Denny
Denny
09-21-2013 | 12:12 PM
:-)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 1
Cost Neutral? I'd say after everything that has gone on since ratification, the contract has been cost positive, for management.
The PWA raises don't even come close to the regional rate reset and 9E savings from the scope swap.
The PWA raises don't even come close to the regional rate reset and 9E savings from the scope swap.
09-21-2013 | 12:22 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
From: DAL FO
To keep the math easy, lets say $2.5B used to be (prior to C2012) worth $15 in profit sharing to the pilot group. Now under C2012 its worth $10. We lose a full $5 in profit sharing (the company gains the max advantage of the profit sharing reduction.) This $5 is roughly equal to 2% in pilot pay for the year.
Now, lets say DL only makes $1.25B (half of the example above.). Under C2012 this is worth $5 to the pilot group in profit sharing. But now, since we converted 5% to our hourly rates, you still get the $5 from above, bringing us to a net of $10. Under the old contract, the profit sharing would have been equivalent to $7.50 - or $2.50 less than C2012.
If DL loses money, or breaks even, you still get the $5. At this end of the range Delta received the minimum benefit of the reduction, as they saved nothing but still had to pay us the $5 that was turned into pilot pay rates. Bottom line it takes some of our risk out of the equation.
09-21-2013 | 12:28 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
Not that I think we have a chance that DALPA will allow MEMRAT for this LOA they're about to ratify, but if they did - this is what I hope we members would focus on. This is our current relevant Scope language:
----------------------------
2. Without the consent of the Delta MEC, neither the Company nor any Company affiliate will enter into or maintain an agreement or arrangement with any foreign air carrier performing international partner flying that permits the Company or any Company affiliate to book or ticket under the Company’s or Company affiliate’s designator code, reserve, block, and/or purchase for resale:
a. more than 40% of the passenger seats in any month on any pair of flight segments in a city pair (e.g., CDG-ATL-CDG) of such foreign air carrier,
b. a monthly average of more than 175 passenger seats per flight segment (e.g., CDG- ATL or ATL-CDG) of such foreign air carrier to and from destinations other than Mexico, the Caribbean, Canada or Central America, or
c. a monthly average of more than 75 passenger seats per flight segment of such foreign air carrier to and from Mexico, the Caribbean, Canada or Central America, and
d. passenger seats on any Fifth Freedom flight segment between Japan and Asian cities beyond Japan, unless 316 weekly NRT slots are scheduled to be utilized in Company flying.
----------------------------
What I've bolded above is what will be removed or rendered toothless in this new LOA.
How many times have we all talked about real penalties for the company or even snap-backs when our PWA is violated? This is an example of language that does just that. This language is there to allow Delta to outsource our jobs by allowing Delta passengers to be flown on non-Delta metal by non-Delta pilots...but ONLY IF Delta utilizes 316 NRT slots every week. If Delta doesn't utilize 316 NRT slots per week, they can no longer maintain the code share. In other words, the code share must immediately end.
Is there any wonder why management has asked for these "negotiations?" This is the kind of punishing language that management just hates. And DALPA is about to remove its teeth without MEMRAT.
Carl
----------------------------
2. Without the consent of the Delta MEC, neither the Company nor any Company affiliate will enter into or maintain an agreement or arrangement with any foreign air carrier performing international partner flying that permits the Company or any Company affiliate to book or ticket under the Company’s or Company affiliate’s designator code, reserve, block, and/or purchase for resale:
a. more than 40% of the passenger seats in any month on any pair of flight segments in a city pair (e.g., CDG-ATL-CDG) of such foreign air carrier,
b. a monthly average of more than 175 passenger seats per flight segment (e.g., CDG- ATL or ATL-CDG) of such foreign air carrier to and from destinations other than Mexico, the Caribbean, Canada or Central America, or
c. a monthly average of more than 75 passenger seats per flight segment of such foreign air carrier to and from Mexico, the Caribbean, Canada or Central America, and
d. passenger seats on any Fifth Freedom flight segment between Japan and Asian cities beyond Japan, unless 316 weekly NRT slots are scheduled to be utilized in Company flying.
----------------------------
What I've bolded above is what will be removed or rendered toothless in this new LOA.
How many times have we all talked about real penalties for the company or even snap-backs when our PWA is violated? This is an example of language that does just that. This language is there to allow Delta to outsource our jobs by allowing Delta passengers to be flown on non-Delta metal by non-Delta pilots...but ONLY IF Delta utilizes 316 NRT slots every week. If Delta doesn't utilize 316 NRT slots per week, they can no longer maintain the code share. In other words, the code share must immediately end.
Is there any wonder why management has asked for these "negotiations?" This is the kind of punishing language that management just hates. And DALPA is about to remove its teeth without MEMRAT.
Carl
I have tried to be the somewhat neutral, pro-democracy voice with respect to the will of the DAL pilots regarding the DPA on APC. I sent in a card several years ago and did not renew it. There is some truth in what the donuts say and some truth in what the koolaids say, but this particular LOA is
DALPA's test.
We'll see what happens.
09-21-2013 | 12:56 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
FTB,
All due respect, but can you once again clearly explain to me how we sold scope? Scope was improved at the DCI level... Shoulda or woulda, " we can make mgt do this or that"were not options to vote on...Voting no was the only option and dealing with HUGE unknowns..... I have a lot of heart burn about the last contract... But DCI scope was not one of them... IMHO we tightened a lot of the DCI scope up... an rj is an rj.... 50 76 seats does not matter they were here they could have had more!!! Less DCI aircraft with less DCI pilots flying less Delta passengers....
FIIG
All due respect, but can you once again clearly explain to me how we sold scope? Scope was improved at the DCI level... Shoulda or woulda, " we can make mgt do this or that"were not options to vote on...Voting no was the only option and dealing with HUGE unknowns..... I have a lot of heart burn about the last contract... But DCI scope was not one of them... IMHO we tightened a lot of the DCI scope up... an rj is an rj.... 50 76 seats does not matter they were here they could have had more!!! Less DCI aircraft with less DCI pilots flying less Delta passengers....
FIIG
No, because actually, we’ll be mindful of our frequency by market and that’s a key driver, and the 717 deal, particularly, gives us much better gauge and the second thing is, I don’t think customers want to fly 800, 900 miles on a 50-seater. Part of what we’re doing here is putting a better product in the market, better fuel efficiency, fewer airplanes in the air and our customers tell us they much prefer flying on mainline airplanes rather than 34-, 44-, and 50-seat airplanes.
An RJ is not an RJ. If you hold DCI to 50-seats only and the 50-seater is a lesser product in the market, less fuel efficiency and requires more airplanes in the air and on the gates to meet capacity then you'd be in better position to keep flying at mainline.
Allowing more 2-class RJs to be outsourced does not. And that's what we did...
We increased the cap on 50+ seat aircraft from 255 to 325 and allowed more 76-seaters than was previously allowed under the old PWA given mainlines size because we dropped a fleet size requirement for a BH ratio that didn't require flying to be transferred. Just for DCI to shrink the jets EB refereed to as a lesser product, inefficient and takes up space.
What did we get? A pay increase funded by profit reduction and more pilot productivity (i.e. fewer pilots required) and 717s that the company was already going to get.
But DCI shrunk right? And that's all that matters. But note the part where EB says parking 50-seaters is "fewer airplanes in the air" and that's a good thing. Seems to me they really didn't want 343 50-seaters running around in the first place. Shrinkage was what they wanted and we obliged to throw them in the briar patch.
So Fig, that's why I see it as selling scope.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
