Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
As I described use the AF agreement as a template and take a percentage of the revenue generated on the DAL side of the house. It does not effect the deal and becomes a "cost" like everything else. this IS NOT a way to perform less flying, but to be "risk partners" or "revenue dependent partners" in the JV. Think of it as motivation for you to perform your job to bring the revenue in to the DAL side of the house for your 20K plus per year check.
I'm not a 100% sure what you are proposing, but if it's the AF deal as a template, I agree. If the company can do something without our agreement, they will, and we'll fight for the revenue via Section 6. If the company can't, and they need our help, it's a bad idea to ask for cash instead, when we need to ask for contractual improvements, more flying, etc. We're not very good at costing, and we're not very good at splitting. Protect my job, protect growth, and make my job better: that's what I want from any agreement.
Add to it, this is off the revenue not the profit. Revenue is cash flow as you know. They can price the tickets how they see fit to percentage based profit.
What I am looking at is a way for us to tap in the revenue stream of a deal that is going to be done one way or another. I am not suggestion taking payments in lieu of protections. They are hand in hand. It is just another form of compensation. This one ties us the pilots to the revenue stream. Do well, people fly more and revenue goes up, do poorly and it as well as your check for that revenue goes down.
An AirTran buddy of mine put this up on facebook, this is a comedian talking to Conan Obrien about life and flying on airliners, its funny and pro-airline:
YouTube - Everythings Amazing & Nobodys Happy
YouTube - Everythings Amazing & Nobodys Happy
It was explained yesterday as that DL has the much more modern SAP computer interface as opposed to what NW ran. PARS/AOP was unable to get patched into SAP, even though it was the superior program to Deltamatic.
Deltamatic thus has to be the choice. It is now getting modernized ASAP.
Not everything is as simple as it seems.
I'm more... repulsed. I'm not an MEC-hater, but I don't want my compensation to come from funds they receive. I want it to come from equipment I fly. Any "compensation" we get in JV's need to come back to us in other forms, i.e. jobs elsewhere. If they want relief somewhere, they pay it elsewhere.
If all we ant are cash payouts from granting relief, we could simply have one multi-millionaire "Delta Pilot", and outsource everything else.
If all we ant are cash payouts from granting relief, we could simply have one multi-millionaire "Delta Pilot", and outsource everything else.
The fact is that the company will want more globalization, and some of that could be good for us as pilots. It is the job of our MEC to determine what will benefit us and what will not. When they decide to negotiate with the company to enter into a JV, it then becomes their job to extract as much value for our pilots as is reasonably possible. In the past this has come in the form of promises of more flying and a better balance sheet so that we can get better value in future contracts. The results have varied depending on who you talk to and are quite honestly hard (for the average line pilot) to quantify.
If the next time around we can score job/scope protections as well as a cut of the revenue it could mean thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars for each pilot. Each one of these JV's are worth billions to the company and DALPA has some considerable leverage when negotiating to allow one. Would the company jeopardize a multi-billion dollar deal because they don't want to pay the pilots 1 or 2% of that. I don't know, but I would like to see us tip-toe up to that line. You get nothing if you ask for nothing. I don't think anyone is trying to sell scope, just get the maximum value out of what our MEC has decided will be our course of action.
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,263
Likes: 105
From: DAL 330
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,263
Likes: 105
From: DAL 330
[quote=acl65pilot;795395]The ER may be moving West West. We will see what is on the final revision of the AE.....
Double digit revenue spike this year. Lets hope oil does not play a spoiler like it did in years past.[/quote]
If not oil something else will pop up - it always does:
9-11
War
SARS
Oil
Housing bubble
but Im thinking something new for this year, possibly something among the following:
Killer sunspots
Global warming
9.0 Earthquake centered on ATL
Anything to do with Muslim extremeists and shoes
Gamma rays
H2/N5 virus
Airplane parts from China with excessive levels of lead
Oh well, we will know soon enough.
Scoop
Double digit revenue spike this year. Lets hope oil does not play a spoiler like it did in years past.[/quote]
If not oil something else will pop up - it always does:
9-11
War
SARS
Oil
Housing bubble
but Im thinking something new for this year, possibly something among the following:
Killer sunspots
Global warming
9.0 Earthquake centered on ATL
Anything to do with Muslim extremeists and shoes
Gamma rays
H2/N5 virus
Airplane parts from China with excessive levels of lead
Oh well, we will know soon enough.
Scoop
Last edited by Scoop; 04-13-2010 at 05:30 PM.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
This is why ALL parts of the contract (or LOA or whatever) are important and need to be understood by the membership. I personally love the idea of gaining a percentage of the revenue, but I would vote no if it came without strong scope protections.
The fact is that the company will want more globalization, and some of that could be good for us as pilots. It is the job of our MEC to determine what will benefit us and what will not. When they decide to negotiate with the company to enter into a JV, it then becomes their job to extract as much value for our pilots as is reasonably possible. In the past this has come in the form of promises of more flying and a better balance sheet so that we can get better value in future contracts. The results have varied depending on who you talk to and are quite honestly hard (for the average line pilot) to quantify.
If the next time around we can score job/scope protections as well as a cut of the revenue it could mean thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars for each pilot. Each one of these JV's are worth billions to the company and DALPA has some considerable leverage when negotiating to allow one. Would the company jeopardize a multi-billion dollar deal because they don't want to pay the pilots 1 or 2% of that. I don't know, but I would like to see us tip-toe up to that line. You get nothing if you ask for nothing. I don't think anyone is trying to sell scope, just get the maximum value out of what our MEC has decided will be our course of action.
The fact is that the company will want more globalization, and some of that could be good for us as pilots. It is the job of our MEC to determine what will benefit us and what will not. When they decide to negotiate with the company to enter into a JV, it then becomes their job to extract as much value for our pilots as is reasonably possible. In the past this has come in the form of promises of more flying and a better balance sheet so that we can get better value in future contracts. The results have varied depending on who you talk to and are quite honestly hard (for the average line pilot) to quantify.
If the next time around we can score job/scope protections as well as a cut of the revenue it could mean thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars for each pilot. Each one of these JV's are worth billions to the company and DALPA has some considerable leverage when negotiating to allow one. Would the company jeopardize a multi-billion dollar deal because they don't want to pay the pilots 1 or 2% of that. I don't know, but I would like to see us tip-toe up to that line. You get nothing if you ask for nothing. I don't think anyone is trying to sell scope, just get the maximum value out of what our MEC has decided will be our course of action.
Cash is convertible to plenty of things outside the contract, but we can't buy indivuidual contract imporvements with our checks. And cash is taxeable. And subject to union dues.
I want all our value to be used to protect my job, protect the growth, and make my job better. The IRS doesn't get a cut when my life is better, or my job is better. They may get a cut if I upgrade because I negotiated good job protections, but it'll only be because I've already enjoyed some privilege afforded by a good agreement.
There is enough to do in cleaning up our contract. Want a JV in China? Good. I want contractual limits on sharing growth, I want floors on block hours, and then I want things like...
A Reserve System where I'm actually not an unscheduled lineholder.
Better DC contributions.
Better 23K rights.
etc.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post





