Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
02-02-2011, 11:40 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,922
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
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
02-02-2011, 11:43 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
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?
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
02-02-2011, 11:50 AM
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
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.
02-02-2011, 12:01 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
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?
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
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?
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.
02-02-2011, 12:05 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Sink r8
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.
"...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.
02-02-2011, 12:17 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
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!!!!
02-02-2011, 12:30 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
The hard limit is 255 70+ seat jets with the limit on 76 seat jets being not one over the limit of 153 as agreed to in the grievance settlement 09-01 until the mainline fleet total hull number passes 767. We are about 39 hulls away from that.
Johnso, simple CH11. Why it was not changed in the JPWA? No idea.
Johnso, simple CH11. Why it was not changed in the JPWA? No idea.
Last edited by acl65pilot; 02-02-2011 at 03:21 PM.
02-02-2011, 12:36 PM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
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.
02-02-2011, 12:40 PM
Senior by choice
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 425
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
The hard limit is 255 70+ seat jets with the limit on 76 seat jets being not one over the limit of 153 as agreed to in the grievance settlement 09-01 until the mainline fleet total hull number passes 767. We are about 27 hulls away from that.
Johnso, simple CH11. Why it was not changed in the JPWA? No idea.
Johnso, simple CH11. Why it was not changed in the JPWA? No idea.
02-02-2011, 12:44 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Nevermind...........found it in iCrew, and I'm back to the grind.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
