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 vprMatrix (Post 932705)

The unadjusted pilot block hours per month (inc FE) for 2001 "45" and 2007 "49.6" That about a 10% increase on average per pilot.

I'm not saying that your statement is wrong, but I do think that you are giving far too much weight to your argument and not nearly enough too outsourcing of jobs.

I pointed out that a large number of jobs were outsourced on a one for one basis. That does not however apply across the board. We need to return the 170/175 to the mainline but we also need to improve the work rules. I have always been a line pilot and tried to fill up. You can see the effects of the contract changes by simply looking at your block hours. From 1989 to 2000 I averaged about 600 hard block hours a year. Since 04 I have been flying 850 plus Thats a huge change. The average pilot now flies 25% more block hours.
When we had the great reserve system as a example the average reserve flew 30 block hours a month. If you believe the forum posts here the average reserve is now flying 69 hours a month. (its actually about 54 last I heard but still a huge increase). All these changes cost jobs. We need to try and win back some of those jobs and improve the quality of life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vprMatrix (Post 932713)

IMO this is the biggest whole in the PWA. I understand why it was "needed" at the time of the merger however it was a complete failure on the part of DALPA to not include a sunset clause.

Speaking with different reps I get the idea that they didn't feel the need to have tighter language because of events yet to happen promised by management.

Regardless of promises made I think it was an epic failure to not put a few more limits on this flying and at least a 10 year sunset for Delta to make their "move" in.

On this we agree 100 percent. I posted on here that the Alaska code share that came over with the merger was a huge mistake in the joint contract. That is another reason I voted no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vprMatrix (Post 932705)

I'm with you 100% on adding back jobs and improving QOL!

Is CUN exempt from the liquid and gel restrictions like MEX, or is it all of Mexico for crew? Thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 932609)

Why can't you stop at making this very important point...

...without getting stuck in this ridiculous and divisive crap?

Honestly, you're not going to convince the DAL group that your contract was better. Maybe it goes to the heart of the SLI discussion, and maybe some of the beliefs on either side qualify as "faith-based". Maybe it's because you voted overwhelmingly for the JCBA that we don't believe you, or maybe it's simply because all pilots want to believe they are better that we never will believe you. Regardless of the reasons we won't buy into this, the truth is we don't care what the QOL was a Northwest. And I don't see how anyone should care.

Who is being divisive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 932609)

That's because there is no benefit in looking backwards. All we have is the Delta contract, and we need to figure which parts need to be modified, and which parts need to be torn out, spit on, and burned to the ground. This is the only way in which it's interesting to talk about specific points in the fNWA contracts that could be useful, but then again, it's not any more interesting than the good points of the FedEx contract, or the Continental contract, or any contract, because we only need be focused on making the best Delta contract possible.

If the fNWA was that much better, good for you. I hope you enjoyed while you had it. Unfortunately, that's not the contract you live under. So why not talk about a better contract for all Delta pilots, including you of course, and leave it at that?

Your comment is like saying that it doesn't matter that c2k was so much better or that at one time we didn't outsource as much flying. Quit talking about scope because what we have now is what we have now and forget about the past. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NERD (Post 932733)

Is CUN exempt from the liquid and gel restrictions like MEX, or is it all of Mexico for crew? Thanks

As far as I know, it's all of Mexico.:mad:

Thanks...That was quick

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 932736)

As far as I know, it's all of Mexico.:mad:

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy (Post 932535)

JABDIP:

I'm sorry your W2 has declined. I want every DAL pilot's W2 to go up ... way up. But I will not accept pilots being less productive, flying less, or paying people to stay home. Our company simply can not do that and expect to compete.

I'd rather we stay lean and mean.

Due to the nature of our seasonal pullbacks, there must be a certain inefficiency because of the up and down cycle of flights. That being said, at certain times of the year, there will be guys sitting around doing nothing. Why should that bother you? That sounds a bit like those SWA weenies crying over on the SWA/AT SLI thread because the AT guys will get a payraise to do the EXACT same job they are doing now.

What is more offensive is that when you look at short call coverage during the summer months, you might see 2 or 3 guys/day.. (when, I might add we are throttle to the stop on flying...) and in the winter when we have 10 or 12 guys/day available, they put 5 on SC. How does that make any sense? Oh yeah... just in case. :rolleyes: If anything, it's abusive, because of the ridiculous requirement that available>required in order to drop/move X days. Now there are 13/day required to cover less flights, whereas in the summer that number is significantly less with MORE flights... Lean and mean is all well and good in theory, but in practice, there MUST be some fat to absorb (IROP) times like the company just went thru. Personally, I couldn't care less if there are guys sitting around doing nothing for periods of time. It's the cost of doing the business we do. SWA is about to learn all about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JABDIP (Post 932725)

[/COLOR]
Sink,
Bar was the Gentleman that brought up the issue of fNWA pilots forgetting about the improvements we received with the DAL contract. Just one question for you: How would you like to fly the same hours for the next year and make less money than you made the last year and fly 40 more days this year to make less money for the same amount of time?????? In a post many moons ago I stated it something like this: I averaged $1350 per day of flying under fNWA rules and $990 per day of flying under DAL rules. Which do you want to do????

Your points in red above support my statement of having blinders on. You have 5000 pilots that have been under a different contract and can compare it to the current contract today that we are under, that could be an incredible resource as to how to improve the existing contract, but we need to just forget about that, no one should care. To that I will say my measuring stick is working 23 years under NWA contracts. That's what I have to base my judgements of the current DAL contract on. You have your basis of __ years of former DAL contracts to use as your measuring stick. 99% of the time our comments are taken as us trying to say we or ours was better, that is not the case here. I just want to see things get better in our current contract. As to the contracts of ohter airlines, we lived the fNWA contract so we knew it. Reading the others is not living it and not so easy to compare contract to contract. Live it for a few years then you can make a judgement.

YOur comment in blue is an excellnt point but then you turn around and say you should not care what was in the fNWA contract, sort of contradicting.

In bringing up these issues I hope to spur some interest in your comment in green. I do want to make the current contract better. Does it not spur any interest about your contract in that I worked less days, for the same amount of monthly hours, at an hourly rate less than I am making now, but had a larger W-2 for the year. Simple poll question: Would you like to work more or less days for the same amount of yearly income with no penalty to the company??? O-more days O- less days Which one do you check.:)

OK, fair enough. You're correct that I should be interested in any item that would potentially improve the contract, no matter the origin. I shouldn't put any special emphasis on the NW contract, but I shouldn't exclude it either. Agreed?

You're also correct that you've seen both contracts. Chances are, we've both also lived under one or more other contracts at other airlines, and chances are, we both are aware of current contracts at other airlines, legacy or not, ALPA or not. The flip side of the fact that you lived under a NW contract that I don't know is that I lived under DAL contracts you don't know. So the flip side of the argument that a NW pilot better understands the path forward because he's seen two contracts is that we've all seen two contracts, and maybe my expertise with the Delta contracts that slowly collapsed to produce this POS might give me an insight (that you don't have) as to the few wrong turns we need to "undo" to make this good again. So maybe, from my viewpoint, I think I have more expertise and more insight into the problem. This may seem like pure heresy to you, since you feel that you know so much more, but we all know how constructive debates about heretics tend to be. So instead of arguing about who has the more pertinent expertise, can we not agree that such arguments do nothing but **** off the other group? Can we not agree that we are all subject matter experts? In that sense, can you see why I view a lot of these discussions as unproductive distractions?

So yes, it would be pretty stupid not to look into a factors that made it more rewarding at NW, or at any airline. I'm admittedly skeptical, but I'm not stuborn... so what was it that made you get more for less at NW?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NERD (Post 932733)

Is CUN exempt from the liquid and gel restrictions like MEX, or is it all of Mexico for crew? Thanks

Just did two CUN's this month and kept my bag same as always (large lotion & shampoo.) They let crew go through w/out any questions but I did see them throw away regular pax lotions etc. Your call, but I wouldn't worry about it.

Baja.