Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
01-22-2010, 07:52 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by Burn Notice
And now for something completely different.....did anybody listen to the Delta earnings report this morning?
ATLANTA, Jan. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ --
WHAT:
Delta Air Lines (NYSE: DAL)*will hold a live conference call and webcast to discuss its fourth quarter 2009 financial results at 9 a.m. EST, Jan. 26, 2010.
WHO:
Richard Anderson - chief executive officer
Ed Bastian - president
Hank Halter - chief financial officer
WEB ADDRESS:
The conference call can be accessed via the Internet at http://www.delta.com/about_delta/inv...asts/index.jsp
SPECIAL NOTICE:
A replay will be available at the same site shortly after the webcast is complete until March 1, 2010.
01-22-2010, 07:55 AM
#WEDAT
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: 717a
Posts: 286
My bad. Thought it was today. Are they releasing numbers today?
01-22-2010, 08:00 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: Gear yanking 76ER class worker....."one ping only. Vasili.."
Posts: 74
Quick PCS question:
Can I swap with the pot with a generic request for any pattern with qualifiers?
ie swap rotation xxxx/25jan for rot yyyy/27jan + generic rot/25jan but make the generic a later checkin?
puzzled in PCS and can't find the right place for my sked's number
8
Can I swap with the pot with a generic request for any pattern with qualifiers?
ie swap rotation xxxx/25jan for rot yyyy/27jan + generic rot/25jan but make the generic a later checkin?
puzzled in PCS and can't find the right place for my sked's number
8
01-22-2010, 08:26 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,839
Heyas Guys,
There was a lawsuit about this very thing at NWA. Senior guys who felt the distribution of the DC plan unfairly benefited the junior pilots.
When they got slapped down, they switched their sails to the "age discrimination" tact, and that didn't work out either.
I believe the appeals process on that is still pending.
Nu
There was a lawsuit about this very thing at NWA. Senior guys who felt the distribution of the DC plan unfairly benefited the junior pilots.
When they got slapped down, they switched their sails to the "age discrimination" tact, and that didn't work out either.
I believe the appeals process on that is still pending.
Nu
01-22-2010, 08:42 AM
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,873
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
OK - I get it now. Your strategy is an illegal job action. Excellent.
How'd that work the last time a pilot group (APA) tried it? At least the $44m ALPA settlement will be spread among an organization with 50,000 pilots and deeper pockets, as opposed to the $45m judgement against APA with 10,000 pilots and no pockets.
Good thinking there, bigdaddie. I hope you're never in charge. I won't be able to afford all of the "benefits" your negotiating style is going to send my way.
How'd that work the last time a pilot group (APA) tried it? At least the $44m ALPA settlement will be spread among an organization with 50,000 pilots and deeper pockets, as opposed to the $45m judgement against APA with 10,000 pilots and no pockets.
Good thinking there, bigdaddie. I hope you're never in charge. I won't be able to afford all of the "benefits" your negotiating style is going to send my way.
PG,
This is a very interesting topic which can not be adequately covered on a webboard. I feel that the fact that we are so intimidated by legal action against us, actually hurts our credibility when we start to huff and puff during negotiations. Being so "rational" may actually be a negative in bargaining.
Now do not misinterpret me - I am not saying we should be irrational, but perhaps the threat of irrationality, if taken seriously, could help us. I am aware of a few cases where unions took illegal job actions and the illegality was soon forgotten or dismissed when a settlement was reached. There are other times (air traffic controllers - 1981) that the unions got clobbered. My point is not to drive off a cliff but maybe if our bargaining adversary (management) thought for a second that we "might" actually drive off a cliff (with them in the car and without golden parachutes) they may be more "agreeable" in negotiations. Granted, this is a hard thing to do but do we even try?
I think that we missed many opportunities over the years to do this. The Greenslip issue quickly comes to mind. If memory serves (and if it doesn't I'm sure that I will be quickly corrected) we attempted a "No green-slip" initiative during contract 2000 negotiations. We were slapped down by the courts because it was a change to the status-quo and DALPA acquiesced - all well and good. Fast forward a few years to the "dark-times" of 2003-2005. green-slips go to 1.5 x pay and only over the CAP. Guess what - there was now no status-quo, and we had pilots on furlough. Did we take advantage of this? No-guys green-slipped like crazy and we missed an opportunity to aggressively assert ourselves and ended up doing squat. Would this have been a good opportunity to have been much more aggressive - I think so and if there is a good reason why we didn't I have yet to hear it.
Bottom Line is being too predictable may not benefit us. What if we all "threatened" to quit? I guess thats an illegal job action, but what would management do? We cannot be forced at gunpoint to fly. I guess if we all quit we could be replaced - that would suck, but could we be replaced quick enough to not damage the company? The mere mention of it might rattle management - after all it sounds crazy. Notice that I am not saying that we actually all quit just threaten to quit.
I am not proposing or recommending any specific action but merely suggesting that our predictability and conservative track record is now being successfully used against us and we should consider thinking outside the box if needed in the future.
Scoop
01-22-2010, 08:53 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: Gear yanking 76ER class worker....."one ping only. Vasili.."
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by Scoop
PG,
This is a very interesting topic which can not be adequately covered on a webboard. I feel that the fact that we are so intimidated by legal action against us, actually hurts our credibility when we start to huff and puff during negotiations. Being so "rational" may actually be a negative in bargaining.
Now do not misinterpret me - I am not saying we should be irrational, but perhaps the threat of irrationality, if taken seriously, could help us. I am aware of a few cases where unions took illegal job actions and the illegality was soon forgotten or dismissed when a settlement was reached. There are other times (air traffic controllers - 1981) that the unions got clobbered. My point is not to drive off a cliff but maybe if our bargaining adversary (management) thought for a second that we "might" actually drive off a cliff (with them in the car and without golden parachutes) they may be more "agreeable" in negotiations. Granted, this is a hard thing to do but do we even try?
I think that we missed many opportunities over the years to do this. The Greenslip issue quickly comes to mind. If memory serves (and if it doesn't I'm sure that I will be quickly corrected) we attempted a "No green-slip" initiative during contract 2000 negotiations. We were slapped down by the courts because it was a change to the status-quo and DALPA acquiesced - all well and good. Fast forward a few years to the "dark-times" of 2003-2005. green-slips go to 1.5 x pay and only over the CAP. Guess what - there was now no status-quo, and we had pilots on furlough. Did we take advantage of this? No-guys green-slipped like crazy and we missed an opportunity to aggressively assert ourselves and ended up doing squat. Would this have been a good opportunity to have been much more aggressive - I think so and if there is a good reason why we didn't I have yet to hear it.
Bottom Line is being too predictable may not benefit us. What if we all "threatened" to quit? I guess thats an illegal job action, but what would management do? We cannot be forced at gunpoint to fly. I guess if we all quit we could be replaced - that would suck, but could we be replaced quick enough to not damage the company? The mere mention of it might rattle management - after all it sounds crazy. Notice that I am not saying that we actually all quit just threaten to quit.
I am not proposing or recommending any specific action but merely suggesting that our predictability and conservative track record is now being successfully used against us and we should consider thinking outside the box if needed in the future.
Scoop
This is a very interesting topic which can not be adequately covered on a webboard. I feel that the fact that we are so intimidated by legal action against us, actually hurts our credibility when we start to huff and puff during negotiations. Being so "rational" may actually be a negative in bargaining.
Now do not misinterpret me - I am not saying we should be irrational, but perhaps the threat of irrationality, if taken seriously, could help us. I am aware of a few cases where unions took illegal job actions and the illegality was soon forgotten or dismissed when a settlement was reached. There are other times (air traffic controllers - 1981) that the unions got clobbered. My point is not to drive off a cliff but maybe if our bargaining adversary (management) thought for a second that we "might" actually drive off a cliff (with them in the car and without golden parachutes) they may be more "agreeable" in negotiations. Granted, this is a hard thing to do but do we even try?
I think that we missed many opportunities over the years to do this. The Greenslip issue quickly comes to mind. If memory serves (and if it doesn't I'm sure that I will be quickly corrected) we attempted a "No green-slip" initiative during contract 2000 negotiations. We were slapped down by the courts because it was a change to the status-quo and DALPA acquiesced - all well and good. Fast forward a few years to the "dark-times" of 2003-2005. green-slips go to 1.5 x pay and only over the CAP. Guess what - there was now no status-quo, and we had pilots on furlough. Did we take advantage of this? No-guys green-slipped like crazy and we missed an opportunity to aggressively assert ourselves and ended up doing squat. Would this have been a good opportunity to have been much more aggressive - I think so and if there is a good reason why we didn't I have yet to hear it.
Bottom Line is being too predictable may not benefit us. What if we all "threatened" to quit? I guess thats an illegal job action, but what would management do? We cannot be forced at gunpoint to fly. I guess if we all quit we could be replaced - that would suck, but could we be replaced quick enough to not damage the company? The mere mention of it might rattle management - after all it sounds crazy. Notice that I am not saying that we actually all quit just threaten to quit.
I am not proposing or recommending any specific action but merely suggesting that our predictability and conservative track record is now being successfully used against us and we should consider thinking outside the box if needed in the future.
Scoop
Or like a few summers ago....BOB showed up at NWA...wasn't organized, nothing was said, it just, well...happened. We got back BOB contractually for almost nothing.
It can happen.
8
01-22-2010, 09:39 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: LAX 350 A
Posts: 564
Originally Posted by Scoop
PG,
This is a very interesting topic which can not be adequately covered on a webboard. I feel that the fact that we are so intimidated by legal action against us, actually hurts our credibility when we start to huff and puff during negotiations. Being so "rational" may actually be a negative in bargaining.
Now do not misinterpret me - I am not saying we should be irrational, but perhaps the threat of irrationality, if taken seriously, could help us. I am aware of a few cases where unions took illegal job actions and the illegality was soon forgotten or dismissed when a settlement was reached. There are other times (air traffic controllers - 1981) that the unions got clobbered. My point is not to drive off a cliff but maybe if our bargaining adversary (management) thought for a second that we "might" actually drive off a cliff (with them in the car and without golden parachutes) they may be more "agreeable" in negotiations. Granted, this is a hard thing to do but do we even try?
I think that we missed many opportunities over the years to do this. The Greenslip issue quickly comes to mind. If memory serves (and if it doesn't I'm sure that I will be quickly corrected) we attempted a "No green-slip" initiative during contract 2000 negotiations. We were slapped down by the courts because it was a change to the status-quo and DALPA acquiesced - all well and good. Fast forward a few years to the "dark-times" of 2003-2005. green-slips go to 1.5 x pay and only over the CAP. Guess what - there was now no status-quo, and we had pilots on furlough. Did we take advantage of this? No-guys green-slipped like crazy and we missed an opportunity to aggressively assert ourselves and ended up doing squat. Would this have been a good opportunity to have been much more aggressive - I think so and if there is a good reason why we didn't I have yet to hear it.
Bottom Line is being too predictable may not benefit us. What if we all "threatened" to quit? I guess thats an illegal job action, but what would management do? We cannot be forced at gunpoint to fly. I guess if we all quit we could be replaced - that would suck, but could we be replaced quick enough to not damage the company? The mere mention of it might rattle management - after all it sounds crazy. Notice that I am not saying that we actually all quit just threaten to quit.
I am not proposing or recommending any specific action but merely suggesting that our predictability and conservative track record is now being successfully used against us and we should consider thinking outside the box if needed in the future.
Scoop
This is a very interesting topic which can not be adequately covered on a webboard. I feel that the fact that we are so intimidated by legal action against us, actually hurts our credibility when we start to huff and puff during negotiations. Being so "rational" may actually be a negative in bargaining.
Now do not misinterpret me - I am not saying we should be irrational, but perhaps the threat of irrationality, if taken seriously, could help us. I am aware of a few cases where unions took illegal job actions and the illegality was soon forgotten or dismissed when a settlement was reached. There are other times (air traffic controllers - 1981) that the unions got clobbered. My point is not to drive off a cliff but maybe if our bargaining adversary (management) thought for a second that we "might" actually drive off a cliff (with them in the car and without golden parachutes) they may be more "agreeable" in negotiations. Granted, this is a hard thing to do but do we even try?
I think that we missed many opportunities over the years to do this. The Greenslip issue quickly comes to mind. If memory serves (and if it doesn't I'm sure that I will be quickly corrected) we attempted a "No green-slip" initiative during contract 2000 negotiations. We were slapped down by the courts because it was a change to the status-quo and DALPA acquiesced - all well and good. Fast forward a few years to the "dark-times" of 2003-2005. green-slips go to 1.5 x pay and only over the CAP. Guess what - there was now no status-quo, and we had pilots on furlough. Did we take advantage of this? No-guys green-slipped like crazy and we missed an opportunity to aggressively assert ourselves and ended up doing squat. Would this have been a good opportunity to have been much more aggressive - I think so and if there is a good reason why we didn't I have yet to hear it.
Bottom Line is being too predictable may not benefit us. What if we all "threatened" to quit? I guess thats an illegal job action, but what would management do? We cannot be forced at gunpoint to fly. I guess if we all quit we could be replaced - that would suck, but could we be replaced quick enough to not damage the company? The mere mention of it might rattle management - after all it sounds crazy. Notice that I am not saying that we actually all quit just threaten to quit.
I am not proposing or recommending any specific action but merely suggesting that our predictability and conservative track record is now being successfully used against us and we should consider thinking outside the box if needed in the future.
Scoop
I still stand in my statement that we only get what we demand. If our contract sucks, it's our fault.
BD
01-22-2010, 09:46 AM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by Scoop
I think that we missed many opportunities over the years to do this. The Greenslip issue quickly comes to mind. If memory serves (and if it doesn't I'm sure that I will be quickly corrected) we attempted a "No green-slip" initiative during contract 2000 negotiations. We were slapped down by the courts because it was a change to the status-quo and DALPA acquiesced - all well and good. Fast forward a few years to the "dark-times" of 2003-2005. green-slips go to 1.5 x pay and only over the CAP. Guess what - there was now no status-quo, and we had pilots on furlough. Did we take advantage of this? No-guys green-slipped like crazy and we missed an opportunity to aggressively assert ourselves and ended up doing squat. Would this have been a good opportunity to have been much more aggressive - I think so and if there is a good reason why we didn't I have yet to hear it.
You are right on the money. Status quo only applies during negotiations.
We haven't done it since the C2K negotiations because our MEC has decided to go with the "Recovery Compact" philosophy and cooperate with management.
It may be time to change that stance.
We could organize a no overtime campaign right here on this Forum.
01-22-2010, 09:56 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: LAX 350 A
Posts: 564
Originally Posted by Check Essential
Scoop-
You are right on the money. Status quo only applies during negotiations.
We haven't done it since the C2K negotiations because our MEC has decided to go with the "Recovery Compact" philosophy and cooperate with management.
It may be time to change that stance.
We could organize a no overtime campaign right here on this Forum.
You are right on the money. Status quo only applies during negotiations.
We haven't done it since the C2K negotiations because our MEC has decided to go with the "Recovery Compact" philosophy and cooperate with management.
It may be time to change that stance.
We could organize a no overtime campaign right here on this Forum.
BD
01-22-2010, 10:02 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 13
Nu,
Just to clarify, it was a very small percentage of senior guys.
Go Saints!!!
DB
Just to clarify, it was a very small percentage of senior guys.
Go Saints!!!
DB
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
