Originally Posted by groundstop

I have a deadhead for recurrent training set up from my base to ATL. Instead I want to go from another city. Can I make a company business reservation from the other city on travelnet, and disregard the reservation the company made, or do I have to coordinate this with the company?

One of the recurrent documents seemed to indicate travelnet should be used. I'm not allowed to modify the reservation the company made for me, however.

Originally Posted by iaflyer

In the past, you called the XCM desk to change the reservation, and they made the change for you in about 15 seconds. Apparently, the XCM desk has been closed now that we can book our jumpseats online. (I guess they are ignoring all the other stuff the XCM desk did... but I digress).

I've heard that crew scheduling is now doing the XCM desk's job - so, I'd first try the XCM desk in case I have my info wrong (you can reach it through the 1-800-DAL-CREW menus) and if no one answers, call scheduling.

But yes, it is perfectly fine to change the travel to/from sim training to your home airport.

Originally Posted by Nosmo King

I asked this a couple of weeks ago and got conflicting answers.

Scheduling told me NO, the position was eliminated when online XCM booking was activated. Too bad you can't do your deviated from deadhead ticket online and now skeds has to do it because there is no XCM desk.
.

Originally Posted by reddog25

Actually, UAUA got theirs because of the strike of NWA.

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver

They did. What do you think happened in the summer of 2008 when fuel prices went through the roof? Those ticket prices that they just couldn't possibly raise without killing demand... well, suddenly, they couldn't raise them fast enough. And people kept flying! And then there's all those bag fees they've been able to successfully charge the past couple of years. I guess it all falls into the "where there's a will, there's a way" category...

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

88;
Maybe maybe not. I would be very surprised to see a initial proposal that was not above what many have would like to see.

Raising ticket prices is a tricky game. Even a dollar difference can land you on the second page of a search engine. 25 buck takes you off the screen. We can do it, but it does come at a cost. The cost is tickets sold. If we were not debt burdened, I could see that and sticking to it. It would result in a big reduction in capacity but it probably would be sustainable.
RJs were initially designed to take capacity out and raise the RASM. It did not happen as all carriers did it. Cutting capacity when there is demand will raise the price, but arbitrarily raising the prices when others do not results in a significant drop in ticket sales. We do not see this data as it is closely guarded, and a trade secret. It is fact though. That is why some fare increases only last a day or two. We have data that extrapolates out sales given current volume and when these hit certain levels it shows an unsustainable price hike. It is quickly removed in favor of cash flow.

One thing that will help it raising prices and keeping them there is to retire debt. It allows flexibility that we do not currently have as a corporation.

Like I said about 10 pages ago, our initial proposal will limit the ceiling and the company proposal will set the floor. D-ALPA will cost everything out do an EFA and come up with what they know to be a good ball park. It will be forward looking and look at debt service, revenue trends, etc. It is three dimensional.

I hope we ask for a lot, I suspect we will. Our reps seem to think that way as well. I do not see us a limiting our top end, just framing our point of reference. Kind of like when I put a offer on a piece of land. I low ball the hell out of it, knowing full well what it is worth. I beleive we will ask, and make a valiant argument for a lot. In the end it is about economics.

Using history as a guide this PWA should be the best the pilots of delta have seen. We are entering a good time for the airline, and will be at the table at the correct time. If it is not what I expect we can get, I will vote no. If I feel it is as good or close to what I bet we can get, I will vote yes.

I am all for a shorter duration if the macro economic picture lends itself to a three year deal. It longer looks better, I will take that in to consideration as well. It is called being nimble and adapting to what is going on.

Originally Posted by scambo1

----------
Pineapple;

I see a great deal of logic in your posts, but IMO this one crosses the line from trade unionist to 4th floor wannabe. I believe I understand what you are trying to say, but your divisive and dismissive statements to a front line fellow pilot don't encourage me.

If my strike fund is big enough for me to strike until I am 97 does that encourage you?

It isn't only about what 777 Capts and 744 Capts make. There are likely DC-9 fo's that make less than flight attendants - is that good with you?

There is an element of our compensation that beyond which we may actually be able to add back in the occasional luxury toy. Today, the general DAL pilot doesn't have that discretionary income. Yeah, the economy sucks, but I really don't worry or care what a $10/hour man or a fellow DAL employee thinks about my compensation.

When we were about to enter chap 11, I had a dead battery in the employee parking lot and a DAL mechanic wouldn't give me a jump start because we hadn't yet voted in a a pay cut. Right then and there, I stopped caring what they thought about pilots...forever.

I am not an angry young man, but if you are union officer, please change your goggles or return to the line.

Originally Posted by DAL73n

One of the things that seem have been left out of the discussion is the ability to strike. While I don't want to start up a massive political discussion (which I know will get deleted and banned ) our union (along with many others) endorsed many Democratic Candidates and this president because they were supposed to be labor friendly. One of the reasons we achieved C2K was because we had a strike vote and the ability to at some point be released to self help (a strike). Under this and the previous administration (Bush 2) it seems like there is no way (no matter the impasse with NMB) that anyone (including this supposedly labor friendly admin) will ever release a major airline employee group (or even a minor one like Spirit) to strike. Without that weapon (or threat if you will) it's hard to see how we can achieve significant (C2K or similar) in any contract, ever. Just wanted to hear some thoughts on this. If we can't strike, then we are captive to the benevolence of the company and there is really no incentive for them to finish a contract any where near the amendable date.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

I'd say this, we haven't begun to fight, yet. We're just batting stuff around and guys here aren't myopic so the discussion is attempting to take everything into account. But sure there are some kool-aide drinkers, more below.



If this was purely political then what would it look like if we played this like a demagogue politician would and write a bill so that on Sunday morning appearance on Meet the DePressed you can weild a magic trick.

Now watch the left hand...
DALPA: American Airlines pilot union negotiated a pay raise for their largest jet Captains of 20% greater than our current pay for the same aircraft. We are simply here today asking for our pay to be approximately 5% less than that.

Pilot Hating Reporter: So you're not asking to be the highest paid airline pilots?

Still watching the left hand? Good, keep watching it and dodge any questions about what the right hand is doing.
DALPA: No, not at all. We are asking for a pay raise we believe is to the betterment of our passengers, people who we don't even know but we owe our very existence too, our company and our shareholders, whom we love so very much. We're not greedy at all, we just ask that instead of demanding large amount of money for our pilots that we give the best pilots in the world stronger job security. Job security that will help ensure that when you buy a ticket on a Delta jet, its a Delta pilot, who loves you so very much, at the helm.

Okay, while everyone is watching the left hand someone knows the right hand is up to something...
Future Management: HUH? You knocked up the whole pay for the pilot group by an average of $35 per hour for Captains and $24 for First Officers. AND your work rule requests are out of sight. You want 747 and 777 crews to get an 85 hour minimum pay per month instead of 70, but a max ALV of 75. You want all WS's to be 1.5X pay, eliminate the GS trigger, IAs paying 2x pay even for reserve pilots, credit for short call, ability to drop turns to make trips commutable and every 3rd GS to pay 3X for regular pilots and 2X for reserve pilots!?!??? Are you NUTS!?

DALPA: You see, we love our passengers, our airline and our creditors very much. What we are doing, by asking for 5% less than AMR and trying to ensure for the sake of all involved that when people buy tickets on the best airline in the world, Delta, that they're assured they'll have the best pilots in the world, Delta pilots, flying. We are just simply looking out for them. Because we are lovers, not fighters.

Reporter: I love you guys!

Future Management: @##%@#!@$!@

Airline Pilot Forum Reader: ^^^ I'm about to barf again in my mouth.

FTB: To me it seems is if you get a big big pay raise, C2012+a lot, then you have to give up something (scope, section 23, etc) and then as soon as there is another downturn they come after the pay because its tangible and we lose pay and don't regain workrules. Thats like a normal union.

I believe in work rules with good pay because work rules are harder to figure out and undo and in the absurd example below we can already claim having lower wages, so you can't cut us. We operated in good faith.

And if any one of the them touched should have us screaming bloody murder as if a cut in the rate of school lunch program growth will leave poor kids starving in school cafeteria’s while all the rich kids eat in front of them.