|
Originally Posted by MoonShot
(Post 677452)
I certainly understand that its very difficult to make gains in a poor economic environment, but eventually you have to make a stand. I haven't been at DAL long, but you guys sure went through a lot. HUGE paycuts, lost pension, reduced manning and a lot of stagnation through RJ growth (the list goes on)... The only offest was a huge early retirement several years ago (who would almost all be gone now anyways).
Anyways, I understand that we are labor and not management, but it is absolutely sickening everytime I see the hits that labor has taken over the last eight years vs. the steady rise in executive compensation. I'm a realist about contract gains, but I'm not about to accept a poor contract in 2012 because (______insert crisis) is going on. The executives wouldn't and we shouldn't either. It seems that management can always find a way to barely eek out a profit, or show a loss, etc... Our recent contract barely accounts for inflation (and while better than nothing, we had some leverage at the time due to the merger). I can't accept the status quo going forward. -Moonshot (getting more jadded by the day :D ). |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 677466)
DCI is shrinking but it is not as the result of our Section 1. I understand, who cares, it is shrinking. What we need to do to "increase the depth of the pilings" is shore up what we have in Section 1 as it pertains to SJS. There is nothing currently in there that would prevent another DCI explosion when a cost effective 70- seat jet is developed. .... I thank you for the constructive debate. The most DCI can add in the 70+ seat range is 25 jets. I thank you also for the constructive debate. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 677453)
DCI is shrinking, and rapidly. .
|
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 677473)
There is something in there that prevents a DCI explosion. The 255 cap of 70-76 seat jets. It's a hard cap, and has nothing to do with mainline growth.
The most DCI can add in the 70+ seat range is 25 jets. I thank you also for the constructive debate. The company is looking at taking seats out of the 70 seat jets and adding FC. That tells me something I have long thought, the company cannot get an ROI on turning in that 70 seat jet for a 76 seat jet. One thing that I forgot, was that a commitment from the company not to renew the DCI contracts would be huge for this group! |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 677333)
Man... I wish the ones that keep eating my mangoes would do that.. I'd introduce then to a barrell of 00 buckshot... overkill I know. There is nothing nice about raccoons, except the tail makes a nice hat adornment. :D
|
Originally Posted by Dash8widget
(Post 677474)
Have the ASM's flown by DCI been increasing or decreasing? I ask in all seriousness since I don't have the numbers in front of me. It was stated on this thread a few days ago that DCI ASM's have been increasing. If this is the case, then DCI has been GROWING regardless of the number of 50 seaters parked and pilots furloughed.
That is why we need to make sure that we do not allow any more growth. A great way to start this is to get a firm commitment to not renew contracts. (subject to the legality of doing so) |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 677403)
OK.. help me with the math here. We took a 46% paycut in BK. A 30% pay increase doubles the payrates again... how?? KY public school system here, but that dog don't hunt. And you did say payrates... see your above quote. As far as the RLA... I don't know.. And maybe it's frustration, but we don't have to wait 3 years to have an impasse declared.
Ok, here is math simplified just a bit. C2k 757/767 rate was around 265 at its peak. We took a 32 percent pay cut. New rate 180 an hour. Then a 14 percent cut. New rate 155 an hour. Your demand is for 345 an hour. C2k plus 30%. Current 767/767 rate after several raises is 168 an hour. Double that is 336 dollars an hour. As you mentioned I don't know how they do math in TN but the hunting dogs must be really poor. This dog hunts and hunts hard. As far as how long we wait for a impasse we can't just have one declared. We have to petition the NMB to declare the impasse. Historically contracts have run 2 years over the amendable date at Delta. Many contracts have gone as long as 6 years over. Take a look at ASA as a example. The NMB will not release us to strike if they feel our position is unreasonable. Asking for C2K plus 30% would be viewed as exactly that. We will be put on ice just like the American pilots have been. 2017 might be conservative! Your contract ideas are not unusual and our held by many pilots. In the end however they wont put the most money in your pocket and get you the best quality of life. I would hope our opener would be well thought out and provide meanful gains in both pay and work rules while sticking with the economic realities in the industry. If it is we can perhaps get a contract a within a year of the amendable date. If we go the just so no route with a radical opener from a radical MEC then you can kiss a contract goodbye for a long long time and in the end we will end up with basically the same final product just years delayed. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 677480)
That is the ugly truth. They need more seats to spread their costs out. DCI is getting very expensive.
That is why we need to make sure that we do not allow any more growth. A great way to start this is to get a firm commitment to not renew contracts. (subject to the legality of doing so) |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 677480)
That is the ugly truth. They need more seats to spread their costs out. DCI is getting very expensive.
That is why we need to make sure that we do not allow any more growth. A great way to start this is to get a firm commitment to not renew contracts. (subject to the legality of doing so) I agree. The tide is going out on the RJs, and now is the time to shore up the seawall. For as sure as the sun will rise, the tide will come back in, and you can bet management will want more RJs at some point. Nu |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 677406)
Sailing,
I think the actual need was for 8200 pilots in 2001, and that included over 60 3-man 727's that were retired by 2004. There was also a substantial difference in block hours. Our schedule for 9/2001 was for 202,000 hours. June 2009 wasn't close to that for the south. The change to PBS saved the company 7-8% in manning. The change to the "cap" also eliminated some jobs, but that number is dependent on how much the ALV is above 75 (or 78 when there were no furloughs) and how much guys actually fly. Your confusing system block hours with pilot block hours. They are different numbers. The system block hours are way down however with the shift of a large number of airframes to international which resulted in a large increase in utilization rates combined with the need for 3 or even 4 pilots per aircraft the decrease in actual pilot block hours has not been that great. As far as work rules you pointed out just a few. Let me add a few more. Vacation loss Pilot instructor job loss Training scheduling Homestudy training New reserve system resulting in much higher reserve utilization No Cap for trip swaps No Cap for pickups from swap board. Paid for every hour flown. No carry over above the cap to next month. Elimination of spillback All training and vacation pay no credit Relaxed reroute rules Recovery flying Those are just off the top of my head. Every one of them cost us jobs. We are 20 to 25% more efficient then the past. Again the math is not hard. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:43 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands