Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)
-   -   Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Carl Spackler 06-30-2014 06:54 PM


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.

As is always the case with you sailingfun, you posted numbers. Anyone can do that. No links, no context. You're wrong SO often that I certainly can't take numbers you post at face value.

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

NuGuy 06-30-2014 06:56 PM


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.

Whoa there cowboy. I'm not in agreement with you there. Some things are NOT negotiable, at least if I'm going to like the face I shave every morning.

I'm simply saying if you are going to propose it, man up and call it what it is: selling jobs.

Nu

Carl Spackler 06-30-2014 06:59 PM


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.

Absolute 100% baloney. You can't back up a single word of this with real data.

You DALPA folks seem to post from the exact same talking points. Talking points aren't facts.

Carl

Carl Spackler 06-30-2014 07:05 PM


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.

I don't recall Purp ever saying that even once. In fact, I don't remember anyone saying that except one person. You. You kept putting those words in the mouths of those you wish to silence. Look forward to you proving me wrong on that since you say Purple Drank "spewed" that a lot.

Carl

Carl Spackler 06-30-2014 07:13 PM


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.

You're batting 1000 here sailingfud. I don't recall Purp OR ANYONE HERE saying they want to be at war with management...except one person. You. You keep putting those words in the mouths of those you wish to silence.


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.

The hitting streak continues. We are NOT at the top of the industry. SWAPA has an actual scope section as opposed to the nearly non-scope we have. SWAPA, FDX, UPS and our JV foreign partners have better pay scales. The list goes on. We might lead the industry in a few small areas, but we lag in most.

Carl

Carl Spackler 06-30-2014 07:17 PM


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?

This is why posting data for you is a waste of time. You just throw up a straw man, change the subject and talk of "appearances."


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!

Wow. Yet another straw man and changing of subjects.

You're somthin else fud.

Carl

Carl Spackler 06-30-2014 07:27 PM


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.

But I'm afraid it will fly this time. We're seeing the EXACT same template as 2012. Donatelli is acting exactly like O'Malley. We'll be surveyed again, and the results never released. The negotiators will bring in small pay raises funded with concessions in other areas. Some reps will be furious, others happy to help Mother Delta. MEC will go on a huge fear/sales campaign and it will pass by 60%

Sure everyone's paying attention, but this "union" is a partner with management. That's their prime directive.

Carl

Free Mason 06-30-2014 07:30 PM

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.

n9810f 06-30-2014 07:47 PM


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?

Bombardier announced order for 24 CR9's today from unidentified.

alfaromeo 06-30-2014 08:08 PM


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 am not sure there is any other way to say this. I don't know any of the data about this other than a personal guess. I went through training early this year and I just was estimating how many bodies were moving through the school house. Other than that, I know what you know.

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