|
Originally Posted by Splash
(Post 940656)
ATLANTA (Reuters) - Delta Air Lines Inc (DAL.N) could place firm orders for as many as 200 airplanes as it looks to replace aging aircraft, the carrier said on Thursday. Delta said in a message on its internal employee website that it had sent proposal requests last month to several major plane makers. The company said that it had asked for proposals to deliver 100 to 200 firm aircraft, with an option for 200 more, starting in early 2013. Does this timeline for aircraft delivery seem just a little coincidental with anyone else, or am I reading too much into it? THAT'S RIGHT, THE AIRCRAFT DELIVERY COINCIDES WITH CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS----DALPA? What the statement is, is the "large dangling carrot" hanging from the 15# weight fishing line. Once the schmuck's in "union-land" are convinced that aircraft deliveries are dependent on a less than optimal "signed" contract, once again, everyone else at Delta (& pmNWA) will have been "bent over at the waist" without even the courtesy of a "reach around". Enough venting for now. My apologies for posting on the forum when I've had a "venti" worth of caffeine at Starbuck's. Fly safe, GJ |
Originally Posted by Roadkill
(Post 940738)
Thanks for the help, all! I did find my way to the Dalpa library, and downloaded all the TWG notepads, and the PWC--would have never found those without the point-out. Bunch of reading to do now, while I wait for the projected category list to come out.
Anyone got a guess as to when I'd get training if I tell them I'm available 2 Mar for 73N? |
It seems futile to argue about upcoming MD-90 deliveries, or even the company's RFP. The best (and maybe "only") way to settle debates about whether the company will and will not order an airplane is an airframe with Delta paint, in service.
Meanwhile, we're back to 2008, and the company has to tell Wall Street they'll shrink if needed, and tell us they'll grow as much as they can. Once again, our fates are fluctuating with the price of crude, our cracks spread... The only thing worth talking about is contractual rules that need to be modified, such as the "nugget" Jonhso29 referred to. There need to be penalties on the RJ side, for when the mainline fleet shrinks. For example, we need to have Delta pilots operating a number of ERJ's/CRJ's. When the company is out of compliance, airplanes need to be shifted over to us. The point that Bar made is valid: right now, the MD-88 and DC-9 fleets are serving as the airline's accumulator. |
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 940787)
This is a JOKE!! Pure posturing on the company's/management's part, and every time someone posts this my blood pressure jumps 20 points on the systolic/diastolic readings.
Does this timeline for aircraft delivery seem just a little coincidental with anyone else, or am I reading too much into it? THAT'S RIGHT, THE AIRCRAFT DELIVERY COINCIDES WITH CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS----DALPA? What the statement is, is the "large dangling carrot" hanging from the 15# weight fishing line. Once the schmuck's in "union-land" are convinced that aircraft deliveries are dependent on a less than optimal "signed" contract, once again, everyone else at Delta (& pmNWA) will have been "bent over at the waist" without even the courtesy of a "reach around". Enough venting for now. My apologies for posting on the forum when I've had a "venti" worth of caffeine at Starbuck's. Fly safe, GJ |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 940800)
It's not a dangling carrot. We have old planes, and they need to be replaced eventually. We can call their bluff and take higher pay and better scope, and they will still have to replace the planes anyway.
It kind of is a dangling carrot with the emphasis on "Mainline" growth and in another press release even going so far as to say "...to be flown by mainline pilots" or something to that effect. Me doth think the company panders too much. Scoop |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 940800)
It's not a dangling carrot. We have old planes, and they need to be replaced eventually. We can call their bluff and take higher pay and better scope, and they will still have to replace the planes anyway.
I appreciate your optimism, and like you, I am always someone who is looking at the glass as "half full". With this particular issue, the timing seems too coincidental. (No, I don't believe that black helicopters follow me around on my off days.) All I'm saying, and maybe my original post came across as a little too angry, is that if we allow the company to "hold us hostage" on the "new a/c instead of bigger pay raises" stance, we'll be severely disappointed when they again decide to "not replace the 100-seat marktet" at Delta/NWA. One in which they've been touting for the last 20 years that they've wanted to, but each timeline offered in the past has turned into empty promises. The reason that I highlighted part of your post, is that you're right, they do need to replace our aging fleet. NOTHING, says that they need to replace Delta's aging fleet with "mainline metal". Instead of accepting their announcement as the fact of new a/c coming to mainline, why don't we hold them to their word (I know, not in today's business practices) and give us a concession now if those 100-200 a/c with options for 200 more don't come to mainline? They've already said they're coming, so it must be true, right?:rolleyes: They are management, and we aren't compensated appropriately for what our profession deserves. "Let me use the game of SCRABBLE as an analogy". First word is placed. Management constructs a word for equivalent points. The entire time they're (management) looking at the "triple letter"/"double word" scores, and can capitalize on those once they know our "next word"(position in contract negotiations). Again, and maybe I'm talking in circles, but we need to be in a constant "defensive" position about both PAY & SCOPE. Once we settle for one, they can find a loophole to give the other up. Rant over. GJ |
Do we have a min fleet number for mainline? If we don't , maybe we should look into that. I think we do. Also, whoever negotiated and sold us on the idea that it was ok to give management RJs for each new plane, but NOT lose large RJs for every mainline plane lost, should be pummeled. Of course we ratified it, so bad on us, again.
|
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 940814)
Bill,
I appreciate your optimism, and like you, I am always someone who is looking at the glass as "half full". With this particular issue, the timing seems too coincidental. (No, I don't believe that black helicopters follow me around on my off days.) All I'm saying, and maybe my original post came across as a little too angry, is that if we allow the company to "hold us hostage" on the "new a/c instead of bigger pay raises" stance, we'll be severely disappointed when they again decide to "not replace the 100-seat marktet" at Delta/NWA. One in which they've been touting for the last 20 years that they've wanted to, but each timeline offered in the past has turned into empty promises. The reason that I highlighted part of your post, is that you're right, they do need to replace our aging fleet. NOTHING, says that they need to replace Delta's aging fleet with "mainline metal". Instead of accepting their announcement as the fact of new a/c coming to mainline, why don't we hold them to their word (I know, not in today's business practices) and give us a concession now if those 100-200 a/c with options for 200 more don't come to mainline? They've already said they're coming, so it must be true, right?:rolleyes: They are management, and we aren't compensated appropriately for what our profession deserves. "Let me use the game of SCRABBLE as an analogy". First word is placed. Management constructs a word for equivalent points. The entire time they're (management) looking at the "triple letter"/"double word" scores, and can capitalize on those once they know our "next word"(position in contract negotiations). Again, and maybe I'm talking in circles, but we need to be in a constant "defensive" position about both PAY & SCOPE. Once we settle for one, they can find a loophole to give the other up. Rant over. GJ "...It's not a dangling carrot. We have old planes, and they need to be replaced eventually. We can call their bluff and take higher pay and better scope, and they will still have to replace the planes anyway..." He's not saying the company is sincere, I think he's saying we shouldn't "purchase" growth airplanes. I think you're talking past him. We all understand that the timing of the RFP being published is probably not a coincidence, and I would hope we're smart enough not to let any optimism cloud our behavior at the negotiating table. That doesn't mean the company won't need new airplanes. The bottom line is that rumor of new airplanes are entertaining, and serve to fuel individual speculation about the future. This shouldn't have anything to do with the pragmatic work that goes into crafting good contract language, and starting to close some of the loopholes. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 940828)
Go back to Bill's original post:
"...It's not a dangling carrot. We have old planes, and they need to be replaced eventually. We can call their bluff and take higher pay and better scope, and they will still have to replace the planes anyway..." He's not saying the company is sincere, I think he's saying we shouldn't "purchase" growth airplanes. I think you're talking past him. We all understand that the timing of the RFP being published is probably not a coincidence, and I would hope we're smart enough not to let any optimism cloud our behavior at the negotiating table. That doesn't mean the company won't need new airplanes. The bottom line is that rumor of new airplanes are entertaining, and serve to fuel individual speculation about the future. This shouldn't have anything to do with the pragmatic work that goes into crafting good contract language, and starting to close some of the loopholes. Exactly. I have to replace my car when it wears out, but I do not ask someone else to help offset the costs. It is part of owning a car. It is the same for airlines. Replacing jets is part of owning an airline. |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 940817)
Do we have a min fleet number for mainline? If we don't , maybe we should look into that. I think we do. Also, whoever negotiated and sold us on the idea that it was ok to give management RJs for each new plane, but NOT lose large RJs for every mainline plane lost, should be pummeled. Of course we ratified it, so bad on us, again.
I still get SO MAD when I read this. WHY DID WE PUT THIS IN???? ARGH!!!! :mad: :mad: |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:42 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands