Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1783667)

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1783451)

DAL only flew 46% of the JV ASK's before AZ was added. AF/KL pilots wanted the AZ ASK's to be separated from their portion of the JV. D-ALPA successfully argued that it should come out of the "European side" of the JV, which entitled DAL pilots to even more flying than the original 46% that we were planned to grow above. The AF/KL pilots aren't necessarily happy with us since we limited their flying while trying to grow our own at their expense.

What an incredible batch of pure Bull Shiznit. We are supposed to be flying 50%. 50% is the target. 48.5% was supposed to be the absolute bare minimum bottom line allowable. Original 46%? Really shiz?

Carl

What percentage were we supposed to be flying and what percentage were we actually flying when AZ was added?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hillbilly (Post 1783674)

What percentage were we supposed to be flying and what percentage were we actually flying when AZ was added?

50% Hillbilly. 50% was ALWAYS supposed to be the number. 48.5% was the absolute minimum due to unforeseen circumstances. That includes the addition of a new partner to the JV.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1783673)

We Delta pilots are the victims in this game of labor arbitrage thanks to the purposeful negotiations of our "union." We take the hits in jobs while our JV partners get the increases. When we fly 46%, that means they fly 54%. Don't forget that.

I want to enforce scope here at Delta Shiznit. I didn't want the RAH scope abuse negotiated into our C2012 instead of grieved. I didn't want our minimum departure requirement in NRT negotiated away. I don't want to negotiate away this AF/KLM non-compliance. But we have, and we will. It's what our "union" does.

Carl

Carl, we are actually doing 55% of the flying. The 48.5% is a not a block hour figure. Using a EASK rather then block hours has worked well for us and our percentage of the EASK has increased from 46 to over 47. It has not grown to the 48.5 number the company agreed upon.
I can also assure you that when we go to the arbitrator the company is going to try and mitigate any potential award in several ways. They will state they did not anticipate the economic meltdown in Europe. They will state they did not plan on multiple wars and revolutions forcing route drops and will further add that the aircraft were redeployed to the Pacific and South America so no jobs were lost.
I personally don't think that mitigates the contract but the company will bring all that up. The shortfall is also simply not that great and I have confirmed the posted charts do not reflect a shift in the numbers from the airfrance strike. Personally I would argue from the union perspective that the AF strike was not anticipated in the contract and should not count but the company will argue otherwise.

United healthcare sucks...nuff said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1783682)

Carl, we are actually doing 55% of the flying. The 48.5% is a not a block hour figure.

Who is talking about block hours sailingfun? The percentages have always been in EASK's. Never block hours. Why would you mention block hours? So you could state 55% and try to muddy the waters?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1783682)

Using a EASK rather then block hours has worked well for us and our percentage of the EASK has increased from 46 to over 47. It has not grown to the 48.5 number the company agreed upon.

Wrong again. The company agreed to 50%. 50% was the target. 48.5% was the absolute minimum due to unforeseen circumstances. Why is it that you and the rest of our "union" are so quick to go straight to the bare minimum and completely forget about the negotiated goal of 50%?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1783682)

I can also assure you that when we go to the arbitrator the company is going to try and mitigate any potential award in several ways. They will state they did not anticipate the economic meltdown in Europe. They will state they did not plan on multiple wars and revolutions forcing route drops and will further add that the aircraft were redeployed to the Pacific and South America so no jobs were lost.

You're a line pilot sailingfun. You can't assure anything.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by formerdal (Post 1783689)

United healthcare sucks...nuff said.

Davis Vision is Da Debil!!!

Baja.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1783682)

I can also assure you

How exactly are you in a position to assure anything?

Why are you trying to sell us on your (incorrect, inaccurate, and inane) interpretation of the issues, when it is clearly against our best interests to listen to you?

What is your agenda?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1783722)

Ok, so you think the company will just roll over in arbitration! Again I can and will assure that's not going to happen!

Quote:

Originally Posted by formerdal (Post 1783689)

United healthcare sucks...nuff said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Going2Baja (Post 1783720)

Davis Vision is Da Debil!!!

My opinion as well.

Backdoor your msp 88bs