Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-08-2014, 04:15 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
Nobody is disputing that delta is profitable (partly on our previous concessions). What they are disputing is the corporation is out of compliance with our contract -which is in our control...what you are seeing is the same old song and dance...is our collective bargaining agent going to give the company a pass on violation of our contract in return for crumbs. And, to what extent is virgin Atlantic our wide body replacement (RFP).
I am not overly concerned about Virgin. We have good people working on the agreement. Our UK flying can not be reduced under our current contract. It's not likely that Delta or Virgin can increase the flying into LHR since slots are very hard to come by. Virgin does not have any growth plans in their fleet. Any additional US flying will require dropping other markets. They supposedly have already dropped the dogs from the system.
We should be far more concerned about the Pacific. Nothing good is happening there. I hope things turn around but right now there is to much capacity chasing to few passengers. It's doubtful the Far East airlines will make any reductions.
11-08-2014, 04:16 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
11-08-2014, 04:47 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Just over one departure a day for us is around 3%.
11-08-2014, 04:57 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
11-08-2014, 04:57 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
Our current PWA says Delta pilots fly 50% of EASKs on the Transatlantic JV. We aren't doing that.
It also gives the company a 3% band of wiggle room to comply. We still don't meet that.
Fact is, the company hasn't met the 3 year PWA 1.P.4 look-back on March 30, 2014 and won't meet the PWA 1.P.4 lookback on March 30, 2015.
At that point the non-compliance is grievable, whereas right now the non-compliance isn't.
We aren't were our legally binding contract says we are supposed to be.
The company also isn't making an effort to meet the PWA contractual obligations it signed off on.
You bring up looking at the past. Specifically our flying level of 2004 and 2008 but that's about as relevant as our pay rates from the then current PWA...
The current PWA is the measuring stick.
Whether flying an non-ILS or measuring EASK it's the current legal requirement that matters.
We either meet the current requirement or we don't.
Which is it?
The sad thing is I'm pretty sure you understand more of the nuances than most, yet you keep bringing in non-relevant points that obfuscate and marginalize the issue at hand.
Perhaps you have decided it's just not a big deal, so you choose to misdirect others...
Cheers
George
P.S. Based on your argument of "looking at the past" it probably wouldn't be a big deal to short your pay a couple of percent from the current PWA rates because, you know, it's still more than the rate of the last contract? Or is your rate less than in 2004 and you would rather have that rate? The current PWA is the measuring stick.
11-08-2014, 05:10 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
2.8% = 6-7 daily roundtrips.
Q: did the subject matter expert knowingly mis-represent the percentage flying to the MEC or is sailingfun correct and all it is is 1 daily flight?
Cheers
George
11-08-2014, 05:16 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Hmmm- I counted it up a couple months ago, and it was way less than 50 departures to europe a day. I seem to recall it being around 40.
11-08-2014, 05:23 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 73
Posts: 225
Dumb question. I have a 4 hour layover in LAX, can I take my son into Flight Ops? Is family allowed and will the door guard allow it?
Thx
Thx
11-08-2014, 05:25 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,418
Can we now talk about something important??
Auburn is getting KILLED by Texas A+M!
35-17 in the 3rd Q.
Just before half the score was 28-17, and Auburn tried to kick a field goal which would have closed it to 28-20...but it was blocked...picked up by TA+M and run 65 yards for a touchdown!
OUCH!
Bama-LSU coming up later...any bets?
Auburn is getting KILLED by Texas A+M!
35-17 in the 3rd Q.
Just before half the score was 28-17, and Auburn tried to kick a field goal which would have closed it to 28-20...but it was blocked...picked up by TA+M and run 65 yards for a touchdown!
OUCH!
Bama-LSU coming up later...any bets?
11-08-2014, 05:25 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
Let's look at the current facts (approach plate or PWA, you pick ;-)
Our current PWA says Delta pilots fly 50% of EASKs on the Transatlantic JV. We aren't doing that.
It also gives the company a 3% band of wiggle room to comply. We still don't meet that.
Fact is, the company hasn't met the 3 year PWA 1.P.4 look-back on March 30, 2014 and won't meet the PWA 1.P.4 lookback on March 30, 2015.
At that point the non-compliance is grievable, whereas right now the non-compliance isn't.
We aren't were our legally binding contract says we are supposed to be.
The company also isn't making an effort to meet the PWA contractual obligations it signed off on.
You bring up looking at the past. Specifically our flying level of 2004 and 2008 but that's about as relevant as our pay rates from the then current PWA...
The current PWA is the measuring stick.
Whether flying an non-ILS or measuring EASK it's the current legal requirement that matters.
We either meet the current requirement or we don't.
Which is it?
The sad thing is I'm pretty sure you understand more of the nuances than most, yet you keep bringing in non-relevant points that obfuscate and marginalize the issue at hand.
Perhaps you have decided it's just not a big deal, so you choose to misdirect others...
Cheers
George
P.S. Based on your argument of "looking at the past" it probably wouldn't be a big deal to short your pay a couple of percent from the current PWA rates because, you know, it's still more than the rate of the last contract? Or is your rate less than in 2004 and you would rather have that rate? The current PWA is the measuring stick.
Our current PWA says Delta pilots fly 50% of EASKs on the Transatlantic JV. We aren't doing that.
It also gives the company a 3% band of wiggle room to comply. We still don't meet that.
Fact is, the company hasn't met the 3 year PWA 1.P.4 look-back on March 30, 2014 and won't meet the PWA 1.P.4 lookback on March 30, 2015.
At that point the non-compliance is grievable, whereas right now the non-compliance isn't.
We aren't were our legally binding contract says we are supposed to be.
The company also isn't making an effort to meet the PWA contractual obligations it signed off on.
You bring up looking at the past. Specifically our flying level of 2004 and 2008 but that's about as relevant as our pay rates from the then current PWA...
The current PWA is the measuring stick.
Whether flying an non-ILS or measuring EASK it's the current legal requirement that matters.
We either meet the current requirement or we don't.
Which is it?
The sad thing is I'm pretty sure you understand more of the nuances than most, yet you keep bringing in non-relevant points that obfuscate and marginalize the issue at hand.
Perhaps you have decided it's just not a big deal, so you choose to misdirect others...
Cheers
George
P.S. Based on your argument of "looking at the past" it probably wouldn't be a big deal to short your pay a couple of percent from the current PWA rates because, you know, it's still more than the rate of the last contract? Or is your rate less than in 2004 and you would rather have that rate? The current PWA is the measuring stick.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
