Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
02-18-2022, 02:43 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by FangsF15
Respectfully, the company fixed one of our problems, not the other way around. It was the right thing to do to address an unforeseen, highly unique, and massive penalty on some of our newest brothers and sisters.
02-18-2022, 03:02 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,237
Originally Posted by WhiskeyDog
While I agree it was the right thing to do, I think this was a company need. I would be inclined to believe that we're already seeing the hiring pool thin, and NH pay was hurting retention / applicants of potential new hires. So if this was a "company need" to keep enough people in the pipeline, than we should have used that leverage to help our, ever worsening (inflation / optimizer), 6 yr old contract. They had a NEED, we NEED a new contract. And the end result, a good new contract, would address our need and also their need, by attracting more applicants. WIN, WIN just takes a little longer?
I’m not sure it was actually a company need at all. But to the extent it was, any ‘help’ this provides to them is incidental.
I do get your point though, I just don’t think it would have provided as much leverage as maybe you do.
02-18-2022, 05:06 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,280
Originally Posted by WhiskeyDog
While I agree it was the right thing to do, I think this was a company need. I would be inclined to believe that we're already seeing the hiring pool thin, and NH pay was hurting retention / applicants of potential new hires. So if this was a "company need" to keep enough people in the pipeline, than we should have used that leverage to help our, ever worsening (inflation / optimizer), 6 yr old contract. They had a NEED, we NEED a new contract. And the end result, a good new contract, would address our need and also their need, by attracting more applicants. WIN, WIN just takes a little longer?
02-18-2022, 05:17 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2016
Position: Not an RJ driver anymore
Posts: 1,033
Originally Posted by sailingfun
The problem is the company has no shortage of qualified applicants.
02-18-2022, 07:03 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: UNA
Posts: 4,423
Originally Posted by WhiskeyDog
While I agree it was the right thing to do, I think this was a company need. I would be inclined to believe that we're already seeing the hiring pool thin, and NH pay was hurting retention / applicants of potential new hires. So if this was a "company need" to keep enough people in the pipeline, than we should have used that leverage to help our, ever worsening (inflation / optimizer), 6 yr old contract. They had a NEED, we NEED a new contract. And the end result, a good new contract, would address our need and also their need, by attracting more applicants. WIN, WIN just takes a little longer?
02-18-2022, 07:34 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,594
Originally Posted by Gone Flying
I don’t think it was a company need. Overhauling first year pay may be but closing this loophole probably does not do much to help them get qualified applicants
As to the timing, I wish we wouldn't do anything while in Section 6.
02-18-2022, 07:38 AM
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,564
Originally Posted by dragon
I have heard from multiple sources that we are not the number 1 choice of pilots looking for a job.
I have a friend leaving another legacy (after 2 years) for here and passed up an interview at UPS. Why? Because here, he can sit short call from his house. People just have choices these days, which is great. Not saying we don't need a better contract, but this is just a subjective viewpoint.
02-18-2022, 07:43 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,594
Originally Posted by crewdawg
I have a friend leaving another legacy (after 2 years) for here and passed up an interview at UPS. Why? Because here, he can sit short call from his house. People just have choices these days, which is great. Not saying we don't need a better contract, but this is just a subjective viewpoint.
I was really pointing out that MGMT knows they have to step up their game, they can't just be arrogant about "This is Delta!"
I'm happy here but wish we weren't married to one major so that we could really explore what the market will bear. The idea that a contract doesn't expire, it only becomes amenable really hurts our bargaining power.
EB and his minions can just sit and wait, with little to no pressure.
02-18-2022, 10:08 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,210
Originally Posted by dragon
Absolutely! I was a NH mentor and lost 2 to other companies. Both made more sense to their QOL.
I was really pointing out that MGMT knows they have to step up their game, they can't just be arrogant about "This is Delta!"
I'm happy here but wish we weren't married to one major so that we could really explore what the market will bear. The idea that a contract doesn't expire, it only becomes amenable really hurts our bargaining power.
EB and his minions can just sit and wait, with little to no pressure.
I was really pointing out that MGMT knows they have to step up their game, they can't just be arrogant about "This is Delta!"
I'm happy here but wish we weren't married to one major so that we could really explore what the market will bear. The idea that a contract doesn't expire, it only becomes amenable really hurts our bargaining power.
EB and his minions can just sit and wait, with little to no pressure.
I actually would like to UAL and AA get a contract sooner than us.
02-18-2022, 10:48 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,280
Originally Posted by Crown
incorrect. There are about 3,300 applications on file, and bear in mind, these applicants are also applying at United, FedEx, etc.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
