![]() |
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1674625)
Delta's overall increase in pilot costs show the MEC numbers were right on if not a bit low. Carl asked for the numbers and I posted them. There overall growth predictions are turning out to be low also.
Management has very clearly stated that our C2012 was not only cost neutral, but it allowed them to FUND initiatives that benefit OTHER employees at Delta. We see the results of that now with the announcement that all other employees are back to their pre-bankruptcy wages...except pilots. Carl |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1675317)
This^^^^^ and the idea that everything is negotiable. If you can't grasp that one either, then the discussion is a waste of time.
I'm simply saying if you are going to propose it, man up and call it what it is: selling jobs. Nu |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1674627)
Absolutely correct. C2012 added $268 million dollars in costs on Day 1. It added $1 billion over 3 years. Some folks think that when management states the contract was cost neutral it implies that C2012 cost the same as our previous contract. That's an incorrect assumption. It's similar to when the 737-900ER purchase was announced and labeled as "capacity neutral." 50 seaters out, and 737-900ERs in. Capacity neutral, yet mainline growth.
A contract which is cost neutral to Delta does not mean the contract is not more expensive than the last. You DALPA folks seem to post from the exact same talking points. Talking points aren't facts. Carl |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1674739)
You keep posting that, at least you have given up on the massive job loss stuff you kept spewing.
Carl |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1674739)
Here is what I don't understand. It's clear you want to be at war with management yet you seem to worship SWAPA who were the pioneers of the concept of working with management.
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1674739)
DALPA tries for a new model somewhat based on SWAPA and produces a result that puts us at the top of the industry not long after being in chapter 11.
Carl |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1674742)
I do get all that. How many 76 seaters do we have today and how many does management appear to want?
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1674742)
By the way I fought hard to not allow the 76 seater at the mainline however a noted DPA supporter who was the MEC chairman at the time allowed the gross weight increase. Maybe we should call them DPA jets!
You're somthin else fud. Carl |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1674952)
You post is spot on except he promised the top 500 would retire early. Part of a long list of threats and empty promises to get us to sell a cost neutral PWA.
This time everyone is paying attention and that nonsense won't fly. Sure everyone's paying attention, but this "union" is a partner with management. That's their prime directive. Carl |
Carl;
The 268 million number was what was briefed at the road shows. So was the 1 billion in increased costs over the three year duration. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1674655)
You might want to look at the language of the previous contract and check your analysis... again.
Before C2012, yes the 76 seater count could have increased once mainline aircraft got above 767. BUT... and this is the key part... they would have had to park a 70 seater for each 76 seater added. C2012 allowed them to add more 76 seaters without parking 70 seaters. Yes, the overall total possible 76 seaters previously was technically more, but they would have had to park most of the 70 seaters to get to that level. Capish? |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1675327)
Alpha
How many initial training cycles do you estimate for each retirement? If one 777A retires is there one A330A will to take their place? And that A330A vacancy any ER captain will to take the slot? And that ER captain slot any MD88A willing to move up? And and and... Again I estimate 8 to 10 initial training events for each retirement. We will have several years where more than 800 pilots will retire. There is no way to minimize the impact of pay banding. IMO I have done quite a bit of contract costing and I was just trying to show the analytical method about how you would come up with job savings from some pay banding proposal. Figure out the current training load and then try to estimate how much that load would be reduced and then do the math. Other than that I will let you guys fight it out. Apparently in a "bottom up" organization every pilot is supposed to have a say unless you don't toe the "bottom up" line. Some pigs are just more equal than others. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:15 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands