Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-02-2011, 10:42 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by newKnow
How so? 
03-02-2011, 10:45 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
It is not meant to be sweet, it is fact. They made less than a mainline FO did until about five or so years ago, then we took it in the shorts. We agreed to it and signed it. They work under a contract and are in a union with collective bargaining rights. Fact is that the staff at national (in Herndon and working as support for the 38 airlines that are part of ALPA) is down over 100 people over the last ten years.
Many times you will see one admin working for three airlines. Take for example the one that works for C44. In that office C44, ASA's MEC and ATN's MEC are co-located using the same staff member. She does a ton of work. Not that, this matters but, the notion that these people sit around and do nothing is quite a misnomer. Also, when you look at what they make, understand the reporting requirements and what the number represents. It is not just salary. Again, not to talk your issues away, but to explain it.
Simple fact is that, we took cuts, their union negotiated their deals with National, and National signed them. That does not preclude changes to the CBA when their agreements become amendable. In fact, I have no idea what their agreements state. What I do know is, we as a piloting industry took cuts, which sucked. What happened to them involved cuts but of a different animal.
What I see wrt to National's staffing and real estate, is them cutting a ton of office space in NW DC, and cutting the office staff by almost 25%. I deduce that this means we are doing more with less, because frankly the number of ALPA members has not dropped by 25% over the same period.
Many times you will see one admin working for three airlines. Take for example the one that works for C44. In that office C44, ASA's MEC and ATN's MEC are co-located using the same staff member. She does a ton of work. Not that, this matters but, the notion that these people sit around and do nothing is quite a misnomer. Also, when you look at what they make, understand the reporting requirements and what the number represents. It is not just salary. Again, not to talk your issues away, but to explain it.
Simple fact is that, we took cuts, their union negotiated their deals with National, and National signed them. That does not preclude changes to the CBA when their agreements become amendable. In fact, I have no idea what their agreements state. What I do know is, we as a piloting industry took cuts, which sucked. What happened to them involved cuts but of a different animal.
What I see wrt to National's staffing and real estate, is them cutting a ton of office space in NW DC, and cutting the office staff by almost 25%. I deduce that this means we are doing more with less, because frankly the number of ALPA members has not dropped by 25% over the same period.
03-02-2011, 10:48 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
FTB,
As a 727 lover I question your math.
IF NWA had 31 727s (in 2000) and DAL had 102 727s (in 2000) that strikes me as 133 727s.
But the Fleet Types Eliminated Since 2000 table shows only 102 being eliminated which leaves 31 still flying.
Either your table is wrong or, better yet, .... I want to fly 727A
PS: This would be a great time to post a picture of that beautiful aircraft!
As a 727 lover I question your math.
IF NWA had 31 727s (in 2000) and DAL had 102 727s (in 2000) that strikes me as 133 727s.
But the Fleet Types Eliminated Since 2000 table shows only 102 being eliminated which leaves 31 still flying.
Either your table is wrong or, better yet, .... I want to fly 727A
PS: This would be a great time to post a picture of that beautiful aircraft!
03-02-2011, 10:49 AM
Inventory survival kit ..
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: Seeking no jacket required rotations
Posts: 1,069
Here's one for buzzpat.
The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes
Forbes being a well known pro labor publication
The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes
Forbes being a well known pro labor publication
03-02-2011, 10:57 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by tsquare
In other words, like many corporations in America in the past 10 years, they finally cut some of the fat. I maintain there is still lots to be cut. And while we are at it, why is the union owning property to begin with?
On the property front:
Think about it, it is smarter to own then rent, and it works better in the long run. Not even going to divulge in to that one.
On the cutting of more fat:
Maybe, maybe not. I know the ppl I know at national are extremely busy. They work their tails off.
You talk about these services being cheaper on the open market, but the fact is that you pay retainers to keep blocks of time open for that right. ALPA has these same subject matter experts working every day of every week on some pilot group's issues. That means when all is right in the world of DALPA, they can attack the issues at Atlas, or UAL, or NKS, etc. With 38 groups pooling their finances together to obtain these services, it ends up being cheaper than doing what you want. From a productivity standpoint, it makes more sense too, since these people that have been accused of doing nothing and making loads of money, are constantly working on some groups issues, and not sitting idle collecting a retainer.
I agree on some basic level that better accounting and office structure may lead to better visibility for our members. It is part of the reason I say get involved, see what these people do and how much they actually do. It will change your opinion of how you see ALPA and what they do with your dues dollars.
There are over 30 services that we get as part of our money we send to National. This includes the media services, legal, E F and A, and too many others to list on a web board. Fact is that here at DALPA, we use all of them and frequently. On any given day we have ALPA lawyers, some who work for us full time, and some that are residing in DC working for us full time, defending your fellow pilots. Not one more red cent is spent on that defense, it comes as part of the dues structure. Buying this on an open market would prove a lot more difficult that anyone can imagine. Most law firms worth their salt would not go anywhere near a labor union. Why? It is simple, they would not want to alienate future corporate business. Again, another reason why what we have is a lot better than you can get almost anywhere else.
03-02-2011, 11:01 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Alright it's easier to tell what you saw then to make a good story, right? In 2008 when we were talking about merging fuel prices were on the rise big time and what was it that we were concerned about on the bottom of the DAL list? Was that our DC9s and 742s would be parked, more pilots than thought would go to the new age 65 and we'd be overstaffed and then there would be furloughs. I'm sure going back a few thousand pages of this one thread we'd see those concerns.
Where did we end though? The company decided to go fat with staffing, the CPZ flow down was an impediment to furloughs, there was a little uptick in travel and the size of the DC95 kept it on property and attrition has allowed some new hires to trickle slowly in. Stagnation abounds though in a lot of locations but how much is because DCI is replacing our flying or age 65? But no furloughs.
A net gain in the fleet would be fantastic. So would putting 88 engines on the DC93 and 95, that'd be a blast. Or getting AAI's 717s. Call me stupid but I'm not letting that go.
I'm not saying we're winning, we're not but we're not losing yet. We are living with OUR sins of the past when it comes to scope but sometimes I wonder if so is the company. There are probably the Harvard types that see DCI as a vital whipsaw but I'm sure there are a few that see what DAL did with DCI as so much more costly than the gains in a whipsaw. Even if they wanted to tell DCI to go to hell they're locked into contracts and a lack of a suitable replacement outside of the 9 and yet, with oil prices, no interest in long term commitment to bringing DCI aircraft to mainline if they'd prefer to part with them.
Our hope, imho, is this thing to plug the loss of narrow body flying with inexpensive, large, mainline jets. Not 787s, not 747s, not 777s. I don't really give a blankty blank about how many pilots a WB requires if it means replacing entire fleets of NB's with DCI at the same time? I don't want to fall to an illusionist trick, sure up the NB flying and sure up the JVs, codeshares and what have you on the WB side.
Where did we end though? The company decided to go fat with staffing, the CPZ flow down was an impediment to furloughs, there was a little uptick in travel and the size of the DC95 kept it on property and attrition has allowed some new hires to trickle slowly in. Stagnation abounds though in a lot of locations but how much is because DCI is replacing our flying or age 65? But no furloughs.
A net gain in the fleet would be fantastic. So would putting 88 engines on the DC93 and 95, that'd be a blast. Or getting AAI's 717s. Call me stupid but I'm not letting that go.
I'm not saying we're winning, we're not but we're not losing yet. We are living with OUR sins of the past when it comes to scope but sometimes I wonder if so is the company. There are probably the Harvard types that see DCI as a vital whipsaw but I'm sure there are a few that see what DAL did with DCI as so much more costly than the gains in a whipsaw. Even if they wanted to tell DCI to go to hell they're locked into contracts and a lack of a suitable replacement outside of the 9 and yet, with oil prices, no interest in long term commitment to bringing DCI aircraft to mainline if they'd prefer to part with them.
Our hope, imho, is this thing to plug the loss of narrow body flying with inexpensive, large, mainline jets. Not 787s, not 747s, not 777s. I don't really give a blankty blank about how many pilots a WB requires if it means replacing entire fleets of NB's with DCI at the same time? I don't want to fall to an illusionist trick, sure up the NB flying and sure up the JVs, codeshares and what have you on the WB side.
03-02-2011, 11:02 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom
FTB,
As a 727 lover I question your math.
IF NWA had 31 727s (in 2000) and DAL had 102 727s (in 2000) that strikes me as 133 727s.
But the Fleet Types Eliminated Since 2000 table shows only 102 being eliminated which leaves 31 still flying.
Either your table is wrong or, better yet, .... I want to fly 727A
PS: This would be a great time to post a picture of that beautiful aircraft!
As a 727 lover I question your math.
IF NWA had 31 727s (in 2000) and DAL had 102 727s (in 2000) that strikes me as 133 727s.
But the Fleet Types Eliminated Since 2000 table shows only 102 being eliminated which leaves 31 still flying.
Either your table is wrong or, better yet, .... I want to fly 727A
PS: This would be a great time to post a picture of that beautiful aircraft!
03-02-2011, 11:05 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Originally Posted by tsquare
You really don't understand that?
03-02-2011, 11:16 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 3,032
Originally Posted by Imapilot2
no it hasn't...does that mean we will furlough...not necessarily but the surplus from these ac being parked is very hard to track when you have so many cards in play....massive training from an up and coming entitlement being one of the big cards....not to mention proposed rest rule changes...implementation times for that....oil .... you get the idea.
When you have so many ac and bases, a few hundred extra pilots isn't a lot. We have more than a thousand at any given time out on sick, military, bypass, long term training....
When you have so many ac and bases, a few hundred extra pilots isn't a lot. We have more than a thousand at any given time out on sick, military, bypass, long term training....
03-02-2011, 11:22 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Captain Jack
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by BlueMoon
Thank you for the info, I didn't know how long it takes for an airline that size to digest a change like that
I know what you are getting at though. Many of us hope for it, but IMHO I don't think with the unrest, delays in the 90 certs and the 9's we have already parked it wont be this year. But I hope I am wrong.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
