|
|
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1489567)
Thought he was referring to HIS wife.:D
|
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1489584)
It comes down to a simple trade. Is it worth it to Delta to cede some control over their capacity (85%) in order to keep the code shares? How much more would they give for 15 pax a day in a system that is now over 150,000,000 per year?
Your straw man you set up to slay is "15 pax a day", as if that's all this is about on the downside, or COULD EVER BE--that's our choice, 15 pax. Come on, that's not the downside of this at all! It's the contract language POTENTIAL for 1500 pax a day of code shares if the door is inappropriately opened and protections to stop it are removed. You seriously can't be this unable to look towards potential adversity from the PILOTs perspective... I know you certainly can see the downside of the company's potential decisions, you present them to us non-stop. You do this "set up a bogus strawman and argue against it" style of argument quite often alfa... I like your intellectual slant, but you NEVER PRESENT BOTH POTENTIAL SIDES! You are 20% of the reason I don't trust my union-- you rarely argue the non-company side and play devil's advocate, or start by taking the "pro-pilot cautious company disbelief until proven otherwise and still ensure protection against unanticipated intentional full exploitation of the wording by the company" position-- MY BARGAINING AGENT's obvious and fiduciary position! Every time I read your posts, and I've come to understand you are affiliated with my union somehow, I feel like I'm reading some company-propagandist whose intent is to talk me into whatever they are selling. Seriously every time I read you, I think "Well, that guy sounds quite smart... I sure wish he were working FOR me, instead of for the company, I wonder how they managed to buy him off, maybe they got his kids hostage?" Gosh how I wish you'd apply your mind and intellect to presenting the data from a "pilot's first if there is conflict" perspective, instead of a "company first, and pilot's will probably benefit from that" perspective. Just my opinion, but you do spend a lot of time here presenting the ALPA case, so I thought you might like to hear a data point from a receptive listener on how your postings come through. No insult intended, truly, I read everything you post... I just never feel you have MY back in mind. Hope I'm wrong and just don't understand enough. |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1489584)
For us is it worth it to allow the code shares to continue in order to have some backstop protections in the Pacific, protections we do not have today? This is not Section 6. We don't have to do any of this. So we are just voluntarily giving up something in our contract that has tangible value for us in exchange for "protections" that allow the company to cut 15% of the hours we currently fly in the Pacific. What kind of a deal is that? Its pure insanity. Only DALPA could spin this as some sort of good deal. That's not protection. That's total surrender. I am fully aware that the situation in NRT is changing and the company no longer wants to fly 316 slots. They will lose money if they do. But so what? That is our contract. Those are our jobs. They also lose money by paying reserves a monthly guarantee. Let's get rid of that while were at it. tsquare's stock will go up. They lose money by paying us per diem. They lose money by allowing us to have vacations. They lose money by paying us when we're sick. etc. etc. etc. If the company is hurting, then why isn't all that stuff on the table? I don't care if we have a section in our contract that requires them to keep a 747 in standby orbit over FTB's house 24 hours a day fully loaded with breadsticks and cognac and staffed with Oregon cheerleaders. By God, they will keep that airplane up there and if they want to get rid of that contractual requirement then they are going to have to pay me something in return. Promising to only cut 15% of our jobs is not something in return. Its an insult to my intelligence. Our PWA is NOT open right now. To quote a famous CEO, "A contract is a contract". Put me on the negotiating committee. I'd take an immediate 5% raise and a 100% of current block hours guarantee in exchange for those slots. Nothing less. Otherwise, bye-bye codesharing at Narita. |
Originally Posted by Roadkill
(Post 1489604)
This analysis you've posted is pretty interesting and seems to cover the options of this decision... but you massively mislead our downside by not extrapolating a legal contract clause into the future, "What if the company decided to take advantage of this wording, could they?".
Your straw man you set up to slay is "15 pax a day", as if that's all this is about on the downside, or COULD EVER BE--that's our choice, 15 pax. Come on, that's not the downside of this at all! It's the contract language POTENTIAL for 1500 pax a day of code shares if the door is inappropriately opened and protections to stop it are removed. You seriously can't be this unable to look towards potential adversity from the PILOTs perspective... I know you certainly can see the downside of the company's potential decisions, you present them to us non-stop. You do this "set up a bogus strawman and argue against it" style of argument quite often alfa... I like your intellectual slant, but you NEVER PRESENT BOTH POTENTIAL SIDES! You are 20% of the reason I don't trust my union-- you rarely argue the non-company side and play devil's advocate, or start by taking the "pro-pilot cautious company disbelief until proven otherwise and still ensure protection against unanticipated intentional full exploitation of the wording by the company" position-- MY BARGAINING AGENT's obvious and fiduciary position! Every time I read your posts, and I've come to understand you are affiliated with my union somehow, I feel like I'm reading some company-propagandist whose intent is to talk me into whatever they are selling. Seriously every time I read you, I think "Well, that guy sounds quite smart... I sure wish he were working FOR me, instead of for the company, I wonder how they managed to buy him off, maybe they got his kids hostage?" Gosh how I wish you'd apply your mind and intellect to presenting the data from a "pilot's first if there is conflict" perspective, instead of a "company first, and pilot's will probably benefit from that" perspective. Just my opinion, but you do spend a lot of time here presenting the ALPA case, so I thought you might like to hear a data point from a receptive listener on how your postings come through. No insult intended, truly, I read everything you post... I just never feel you have MY back in mind. Hope I'm wrong and just don't understand enough. |
Originally Posted by brakechatter
(Post 1489339)
So let's think it out:
Delta wants to reduce our presence in Japan, specifically at NRT. Haneda is the business plan du jour, but we can't get in there. Meanwhile UAL and AA are partnering with Japanese carriers for access. I think all the dots are connecting Delta wanting to simply replace Delta pilots in NRT with Skymark pilots in NRT. If not, Delta would simply reduce its presence in NRT below the 316 slots per week based on the economics. Delta would then gladly walk away from code share out of NRT because NRT is dying. But that's not what management is asking for. Management wants relief from having to cancel the code share...NOT relief from 316 slots per week.
Originally Posted by brakechatter
(Post 1489339)
Skymark seems to be our choice, and a cursory search over the internet shows me that Skymark is completely open to expats operating their equipment. Perhaps some out of box thinking that the expats be Delta pilots could be in order, but that might be thinking outside the box a bit too much :rolleyes:, so Americans who are not Delta pilots will be operating the equipment allowed by us giving up a no codeshare clause and allowing the reduction of the slots currently in our section 1.
Originally Posted by brakechatter
(Post 1489339)
In the meantime, it would appear that we are accepting minimum block hours somewhere in the neighborhood of 85% of what we have now--if the rumors are to be believed--for the Pacific operation. Nobody is further from "in the know" than me. I am assuming that this 85% includes China, HNL to PAC RIM, NRT to the beaches--as in the entire Pacific? For this the company gets unlimited code share? Expanded code share? Very slightly expanded code share? IDK, but it's important. I don't spend enough time here to have caught that part of the rumor. Does this include the approximately 328 Chinese airlines, Korean, Vietnam, and any other PAC operation with which we have linked?
Originally Posted by brakechatter
(Post 1489339)
We have just remerged as an S&P powerhouse, which I suppose is important. The Delta pilots were a big part of that ability, IMO. That is leverage. The company is NOT going to pull us down to 0 block hours just because they can, so we can toss that out as emotional drivel as well, my friend.(yes I know that wasn't you, but you could have set the record straight there as well)
Originally Posted by brakechatter
(Post 1489339)
Then a look at the history of NWA and their love of the code share is in order. I don't think that it is out of line to take a look at the other side of the world in order to see where this thing might be headed is out of line either. All of those posh Euro destinations that you no longer fly to could very well be a precursor to what is going to happen in the PAC RIM a few more steps down the road. While a JV is certainly not a code share, I would say that at the current time, there is no question that we are not on the receiving end of that whole Europe thing. Could that aviation plague be trying to spread to our Pacific operation as well?
Originally Posted by brakechatter
(Post 1489339)
What leverage do we have? Delta is a world class, S&P 500 airline, who constructively engages their pilots, who apparently are putting a viable threat to reemerge with another collective bargaining agent if the recent activities of the MEC communication carpet bombing are to be believed. As such, Delta needs a world class PACIFIC operation. I don't believe ending their code share and sticking it to us "just because they can" is viable long term, so I would say there is some leverage there. I don't have enough information to decide if 85% is extracting all of our leverage, but my hunch says it is not, especially when the aircraft going to the destinations formerly served by Delta are now going to be driven by pilots who could have formerly been in the service of Delta Air Lines.
Originally Posted by brakechatter
(Post 1489339)
T'woud appear that Delta wants to code share more in the PAC, and needs relief from the paltry share allowed now. That's leverage. T'woud appear that Delta needs larger access to Haneda via this code share. That's leverage. T'woud appear that Delta needs to rid itself of this minimum frequency burden that is soooooo outdated in order to focus capital on the real prize of the moment, China. That's leverage.
I say, since the PAC RIM is expat central of the world, put Delta butts in the code share seats and let them have what they want. Of course, that is just ridiculous :rolleyes:. I doubt that we will get to vote on this, and yes it appears that this solidifies the protection of some current jobs--which will likely be there anyway since the S&Ps brand new entrant won't like throwing out the furlough word, or the unknown of a wildcat union on the property--if the recent full court press of communication from the multitude of leadership individuals is any indicator. Can I assume that any agreement will also include the usual caveat of circumstances over which the company cannot control.......? Fukushima is worrisome, and that is the only reason to give pause to protecting some of the block hours, for me. But if the caveat exists, and I'm sure it is probably in there somewhere, there doesn't appear to be enough meat on this bone. My opinion Carl |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1489579)
T,
You are a 767 captain who is looking to retire in the next 10 years. It's great that you can look forward to being part of the investment class. But, you should consider that there are a lot of pilots on our list who are looking at making half of what you make during that time and aren't afforded the opportunity to look at the world through investor colored glasses. For them, the best investment they can make is to insure they upgrade to captain as soon as possible and make sure the company or the union does nothing to slow them to that goal. Just something to consider.... It seems that everything the union passes extends our stagnation even longer. To have completed 12 years of service (some while on furlough) and mathematically be looking at almost 20 years of service til upgrade, it will be frustrating if DALPA signs something that wipes out a years worth of retirements. Up the Irons!!! |
Originally Posted by brakechatter
(Post 1489396)
Back to the topic. If the rumors are true, the company is telling us that possibly 15% of our current block hours are going away. If this is their negotiating end point, I wonder where their starting point was. Even more, they will be possibly be flown by a Japanese company that wants to put foreign pilots in the control seats. I have a basic ethical problem with Delta code sharing on flights that were formerly flown by Delta pilots, who are now flown by expats that are not Delta pilots. Of course, that is just speculation, but not out of the realm of reasonable possibility given press releases and other obtainable information.
But what does our union do? The best of all worlds for management - allow them to keep NRT code share while reducing NRT capacity (flown by Delta pilots). But it's the worst of all worlds for the Delta pilot. Carl |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1489436)
Here's the ironic part, ex-Comair guys flying for Skymark.
http://www.davehamel.com/wp-content/...01/Winning.png Carl |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1489560)
They are in a no win position in a sense then: If they say no, and the company then DOES pull down significant flying, there will be a ruckus from the dough boys about how DALPA didn't protect us.
Second, it's not a matter of us saying no or not. The company is saying 15% needs to be pulled out of NRT (and supposedly placed in HND). The company says they need to do it. Why would you then also allow them to continue with code sharing?
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1489560)
If they DO sign an agreement as rumored, you get the emotional response you allude to.
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1489560)
So how should they proceed? Will you support them if we tell the company to pack sand and they subsequently pull it down or do you want the protection they negotiated?
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1489560)
I quit thinking suspicious thoughts about this stuff a long time ago. We have to start thinking like investors and businessmen instead of union thugs. Look at today's news for example. There is a Bloomberg article about DAL and VA aligning flights and terminals from JFK to LHR. What did DAL stock do? (crossed $24/share earlier in the day) Wall Street is paying attention to DAL. We are fighting a 2000s style union "war", and we have an alternative group that wants to send us back to the 1940s. JMHO, YMMV, but I do know that DAL stock is treating me pretty well these days... Business is dynamic, not static. Grow or die. Being a member of the investment class is what awaits us when we retire whether or not you want to believe it, so getting a leg up on that concept now will make the transition much much easier, and far more lucrative.
/rant Carl |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1489577)
By default I support DALPA.
My perspective is the company is going to do what they want. DALPA will always find a way to accommodate that. Whether or not I agree with it is apparently irrelevant. Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:42 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands