Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-29-2011 | 03:05 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Likes: 0
This whole thing is so underwhelming isn't it?
It's like a pilot who's run an aircraft off the end of the runway twice telling you how to fly your plane. It makes no sense to say these are the best lawyers in the business when they wrote our section 1, a colossal jewel of what not to do, and then don't even bother to enforce it anyways.
Who in the hell does ALPA have as lawyers?!?!?
If they don't try or win this redefine the definition of air carrier so as to beat back RAH then I sure as hell hope nobody has the gall to tell us to do anything but demand we go to court and have them fired.
BTW, my counter to the American Eagle/AMR thing would be to say AE was never Delta Connection carrier other than to serve as a codeshare in the same vein as Hawaiian. According to the 10K AE is a revenue proration agreement and DCI's are capacity purchase agreements, enough for me to say they have always operated different then RAH.
It's like a pilot who's run an aircraft off the end of the runway twice telling you how to fly your plane. It makes no sense to say these are the best lawyers in the business when they wrote our section 1, a colossal jewel of what not to do, and then don't even bother to enforce it anyways.
Who in the hell does ALPA have as lawyers?!?!?
If they don't try or win this redefine the definition of air carrier so as to beat back RAH then I sure as hell hope nobody has the gall to tell us to do anything but demand we go to court and have them fired.
BTW, my counter to the American Eagle/AMR thing would be to say AE was never Delta Connection carrier other than to serve as a codeshare in the same vein as Hawaiian. According to the 10K AE is a revenue proration agreement and DCI's are capacity purchase agreements, enough for me to say they have always operated different then RAH.
We can have all the best lawyers and negotiators in the world, but if we don't enforce what is negotiated it's all empty hearsay and conjecture, not even decent lip service.
This is what angers me personally, we are rapidly approaching contact negotiations as a soft, somewhat passive representative body. Anyway you look at that will play into managements' hands.
Of course, there is always the chance that working with our management "in good faith" on this issues will somehow assist in rapid, agreeable contract negotiations. However, I've never put much stock with "in good faith" agreements.
05-29-2011 | 03:45 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Likes: 0
I dont understand it either, but suspect the courting of RAH is only a tiny piece of the reason. In the game of hardball, if you really wanted to bring RAH into the ALPA fold, you would force the issue...by pushing against them. I think this due the relatively new ALPA policy manual requirement that both mainline and connection carriers get to make their input prior to any mainline scope changes. RAH isn't ALPA and is not afforded this benefit. Therefore, if ALPA was courting RAH, they would make every effort to marginalize them until they joined...just my opinion.
In contrast, I think the issue isn't being forced for other reasons, none of which have to do with our actual scope language. To see it thru my eyes, you have to believe ALPA is not your watchdog...as an example, the increased gross weight issue of one of our DCI's about 1.5-2 years ago. The pushback from ALPA against enforcing this, or even investigating it, against the individual pilot who broke the story...if the rumors are true, was quite amazing.
Income streams-cut out RAH, you cut out a hunk of feed, incur lawsuits and early contract termination fees. You cause angst in management to fill the gaps, you park airplanes which we basically funded thru the shell game and you breathe new life into Comair...in many ways...heaven forbid
.
Airline management collusion. On the sundrenched beaches somewhere, these guys plot their way forward. They devise elaborate plans which skirt ALPA contract language, use the minimum pilot required for insurance, and pay as little as possible for services in order to maintain control of the various workforces. It is such an elaborate web of shell games, I dont think a cray computer could tell you (if it ever happened) whether you were flying struck work or not. In other words which code is on which ticket and who owns the flying. Management doesnt want to lose control of their network and by not enforcing section 1 we are rewarding them.
ALPA and the stockholm syndrome. In an effort not to kill the golden goose, we are forced to walk a tightrope. The more time spent walking the tightrope, the more our reps begin to see things thru managements eyes. This is why we are told things like "we can't..." "we will lose..." etc. It is human nature. Do you think management does not know it is human nature? When ALPA goes native, we do have the recall process, but that hasn't been invoked too often...in fact, the opposite is more true. Those that WONT go native are asked to leave.
I am not even scratching the surface of what could be going on here, but I'm a slow typist who can ramble and lose my train of thought. Money and control are central to the scope issue. Everything else IMO is fluff.
I am a Delta pilot. I want a successful company. I want a strong bargaining agent. I want a great contract that allows me to put away my second career. I want management to be successful. I think some constructive engagement is essential. I want to retire with dignity. I disagree completely with our stance on section 1.
In contrast, I think the issue isn't being forced for other reasons, none of which have to do with our actual scope language. To see it thru my eyes, you have to believe ALPA is not your watchdog...as an example, the increased gross weight issue of one of our DCI's about 1.5-2 years ago. The pushback from ALPA against enforcing this, or even investigating it, against the individual pilot who broke the story...if the rumors are true, was quite amazing.
Income streams-cut out RAH, you cut out a hunk of feed, incur lawsuits and early contract termination fees. You cause angst in management to fill the gaps, you park airplanes which we basically funded thru the shell game and you breathe new life into Comair...in many ways...heaven forbid
.Airline management collusion. On the sundrenched beaches somewhere, these guys plot their way forward. They devise elaborate plans which skirt ALPA contract language, use the minimum pilot required for insurance, and pay as little as possible for services in order to maintain control of the various workforces. It is such an elaborate web of shell games, I dont think a cray computer could tell you (if it ever happened) whether you were flying struck work or not. In other words which code is on which ticket and who owns the flying. Management doesnt want to lose control of their network and by not enforcing section 1 we are rewarding them.
ALPA and the stockholm syndrome. In an effort not to kill the golden goose, we are forced to walk a tightrope. The more time spent walking the tightrope, the more our reps begin to see things thru managements eyes. This is why we are told things like "we can't..." "we will lose..." etc. It is human nature. Do you think management does not know it is human nature? When ALPA goes native, we do have the recall process, but that hasn't been invoked too often...in fact, the opposite is more true. Those that WONT go native are asked to leave.
I am not even scratching the surface of what could be going on here, but I'm a slow typist who can ramble and lose my train of thought. Money and control are central to the scope issue. Everything else IMO is fluff.
I am a Delta pilot. I want a successful company. I want a strong bargaining agent. I want a great contract that allows me to put away my second career. I want management to be successful. I think some constructive engagement is essential. I want to retire with dignity. I disagree completely with our stance on section 1.
I don't believe in a whole mainline vs. regional debate, I feel as though this is a distraction. It's not a matter of that, it's a matter of trying to appease and support two labor sides of an industry which more often than not oppose them sides in growth.
In my opinion, scope NEVER should have been allowed to be negotiated at the Local level. ALPA should refuse to support any group that is unwilling to follow some basic principles and guidelines.
If a new start-up Airline that flew 757's across the country while requiring newhires to pay for training while compensating less then $5,000/ year for both captains and f/os, would ALPA support this group???
My answer to this is most probably and definitively yes, ALPA would support this pilot group while their miniscule labor costs allow there management to put AMR, DAL, UCAL, and US Air pilots out on the street.
Where's the unity in that?
05-29-2011 | 04:31 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
You guys still don't get it.
We do not have good scope because those who ran (and run) our union do not want good scope.
Why would ALPA fight to conclude Republic Airlines is a single air carrier after having fought so damn hard to prevent ASA, Comair and Delta from being considered a single air carrier? Same goes with Northwest and their regional carriers, as well as MidWest.
The union's course of conduct is absolutely clear. Some flying is considered undesirable and unable to command the pay and working conditions which meet major airline pilot standards. It is hoped by facilitating management's outsourcing of these undesirable jobs we can somehow profit from the work we do not want (as a union) to perform. We use our scope to define flying we perform, and more importantly, we use our scope to define flying we do not perform.
Outsourcing is a touchy subject for union bosses. Much of what we have in our contract and much of what we do is inconsistent with what our Reps say and write for political consumption by the masses.
The "conflict of interest" mostly exists between junior pilots who care about scope and the senior 767 Captains that run our association who mostly don't care about scope (or worse, see scope in purely economic terms ... selling unity for short term gain). Bottom line is, we did this to ourselves. Folks like me wrote as much as we could, got resolutions passed and made no secret of our concerns, but for the last decade the Delta (and NWA) pilots have continued to ratify these agreements then complain about the results.
ALPA's position on Republic is entirely consistent with ALPA policy and that decision is being made by the very same people who insisted that ASA & Comair were not "Delta" despite having MUCH higher levels of operational integration than Frontier and the other Republic subsidiaries.
Deadhead asks, "where is the unity in that?" It is an excellent question. I've asked my Reps to use that question as a litmus test for every decision they make. If they would apply that simple, clear, rule to the administration of a union we could avoid a lot of pain and career harm to ALPA members.
We do not have good scope because those who ran (and run) our union do not want good scope.
Why would ALPA fight to conclude Republic Airlines is a single air carrier after having fought so damn hard to prevent ASA, Comair and Delta from being considered a single air carrier? Same goes with Northwest and their regional carriers, as well as MidWest.
The union's course of conduct is absolutely clear. Some flying is considered undesirable and unable to command the pay and working conditions which meet major airline pilot standards. It is hoped by facilitating management's outsourcing of these undesirable jobs we can somehow profit from the work we do not want (as a union) to perform. We use our scope to define flying we perform, and more importantly, we use our scope to define flying we do not perform.
Outsourcing is a touchy subject for union bosses. Much of what we have in our contract and much of what we do is inconsistent with what our Reps say and write for political consumption by the masses.
The "conflict of interest" mostly exists between junior pilots who care about scope and the senior 767 Captains that run our association who mostly don't care about scope (or worse, see scope in purely economic terms ... selling unity for short term gain). Bottom line is, we did this to ourselves. Folks like me wrote as much as we could, got resolutions passed and made no secret of our concerns, but for the last decade the Delta (and NWA) pilots have continued to ratify these agreements then complain about the results.
ALPA's position on Republic is entirely consistent with ALPA policy and that decision is being made by the very same people who insisted that ASA & Comair were not "Delta" despite having MUCH higher levels of operational integration than Frontier and the other Republic subsidiaries.
Deadhead asks, "where is the unity in that?" It is an excellent question. I've asked my Reps to use that question as a litmus test for every decision they make. If they would apply that simple, clear, rule to the administration of a union we could avoid a lot of pain and career harm to ALPA members.
05-29-2011 | 05:16 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Likes: 0
You guys still don't get it.
We do not have good scope because those who ran (and run) our union do not want good scope.
Why would ALPA fight to conclude Republic Airlines is a single air carrier after having fought so damn hard to prevent ASA, Comair and Delta from being considered a single air carrier? Same goes with Northwest and their regional carriers, as well as MidWest.
The union's course of conduct is absolutely clear. Some flying is considered undesirable and unable to command the pay and working conditions which meet major airline pilot standards. It is hoped by facilitating management's outsourcing of these undesirable jobs we can somehow profit from the work we do not want (as a union) to perform. We use our scope to define flying we perform, and more importantly, we use our scope to define flying we do not perform.
Outsourcing is a touchy subject for union bosses. Much of what we have in our contract and much of what we do is inconsistent with what our Reps say and write for political consumption by the masses.
The "conflict of interest" mostly exists between junior pilots who care about scope and the senior 767 Captains that run our association who mostly don't care about scope (or worse, see scope in purely economic terms ... selling unity for short term gain). Bottom line is, we did this to ourselves. Folks like me wrote as much as we could, got resolutions passed and made no secret of our concerns, but for the last decade the Delta (and NWA) pilots have continued to ratify these agreements then complain about the results.
ALPA's position on Republic is entirely consistent with ALPA policy and that decision is being made by the very same people who insisted that ASA & Comair were not "Delta" despite having MUCH higher levels of operational integration than Frontier and the other Republic subsidiaries.
Deadhead asks, "where is the unity in that?" It is an excellent question. I've asked my Reps to use that question as a litmus test for every decision they make. If they would apply that simple, clear, rule to the administration of a union we could avoid a lot of pain and career harm to ALPA members.
We do not have good scope because those who ran (and run) our union do not want good scope.
Why would ALPA fight to conclude Republic Airlines is a single air carrier after having fought so damn hard to prevent ASA, Comair and Delta from being considered a single air carrier? Same goes with Northwest and their regional carriers, as well as MidWest.
The union's course of conduct is absolutely clear. Some flying is considered undesirable and unable to command the pay and working conditions which meet major airline pilot standards. It is hoped by facilitating management's outsourcing of these undesirable jobs we can somehow profit from the work we do not want (as a union) to perform. We use our scope to define flying we perform, and more importantly, we use our scope to define flying we do not perform.
Outsourcing is a touchy subject for union bosses. Much of what we have in our contract and much of what we do is inconsistent with what our Reps say and write for political consumption by the masses.
The "conflict of interest" mostly exists between junior pilots who care about scope and the senior 767 Captains that run our association who mostly don't care about scope (or worse, see scope in purely economic terms ... selling unity for short term gain). Bottom line is, we did this to ourselves. Folks like me wrote as much as we could, got resolutions passed and made no secret of our concerns, but for the last decade the Delta (and NWA) pilots have continued to ratify these agreements then complain about the results.
ALPA's position on Republic is entirely consistent with ALPA policy and that decision is being made by the very same people who insisted that ASA & Comair were not "Delta" despite having MUCH higher levels of operational integration than Frontier and the other Republic subsidiaries.
Deadhead asks, "where is the unity in that?" It is an excellent question. I've asked my Reps to use that question as a litmus test for every decision they make. If they would apply that simple, clear, rule to the administration of a union we could avoid a lot of pain and career harm to ALPA members.
When a pilot is looking at moving up to heavier, bigger, better-paying equipment, why must they all of a sudden look back and think that the plane they used to fly was all of a sudden beneath them. Therein lies the problem, that mentality is what has made certain pilots think that 76 seats is somehow beneath them. If left unchecked it is extremely feasible and likely to see the next generation 100-seat aircraft being operated by regional feed.
If ALPA wants to preach and lecture about the importance of Unity amongst all pilots, then they need to establish One Standard from each and every pilot group while demanding those groups fight for that standard on each and every single contract negotiation. Until we can see this type of pushback from ALPA at the National level, the pilot groups will continue to circle the drain on one another until the last group willing to take the lowest pay/standards is left standing.
05-29-2011 | 05:42 AM
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
I've been thinking about this "ALPA Unity" thing for the past 25+ years, ever since ALPA agreed to allow American Airlines B Scale to come onto an ALPA property. ALPA is disfunctional. The talk out of both sides of their mouth and now they represent opposing groups, Majors vs. Regionals.
So what's the solution?
I don't have time to write (or rewrite) the book on this, so I will try to keep this as short as possible. In a word, ALPA needs a National Contract, with fixed pay rates for every type of equipment. OR, go to Longevity pay, ie. the more years of airline experience any ALPA Pilot has, the more he makes. That alone will take the incentive away from Management to outsource the 100 seat (or less) flying to the Regionals.
If we want to fundamentally change ALPA, then going to a National Contract, where all ALPA Pilots are paid the same, based on Longevity Pay, with the same level of benefits across all ALPA pilot groups, would be a fundamental change.
Discuss, I've got to let the dogs out...
So what's the solution?
I don't have time to write (or rewrite) the book on this, so I will try to keep this as short as possible. In a word, ALPA needs a National Contract, with fixed pay rates for every type of equipment. OR, go to Longevity pay, ie. the more years of airline experience any ALPA Pilot has, the more he makes. That alone will take the incentive away from Management to outsource the 100 seat (or less) flying to the Regionals.
If we want to fundamentally change ALPA, then going to a National Contract, where all ALPA Pilots are paid the same, based on Longevity Pay, with the same level of benefits across all ALPA pilot groups, would be a fundamental change.
Discuss, I've got to let the dogs out...
Last edited by Timbo; 05-29-2011 at 06:59 AM. Reason: spelling, etc.
05-29-2011 | 05:45 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
If ALPA wants to preach and lecture about the importance of Unity amongst all pilots, then they need to establish One Standard from each and every pilot group while demanding those groups fight for that standard on each and every single contract negotiation. Until we can see this type of pushback from ALPA at the National level, the pilot groups will continue to circle the drain on one another until the last group willing to take the lowest pay/standards is left standing.
Unfortunately they do not teach by example.
A more results oriented approach would be to require:
(1) Outsourced flying will be performed by ALPA members
(2) Contracts for outsourced flying will be allowed to expire
(3) All Delta flying will be performed by Delta pilots (regardless of corporate structure)
05-29-2011 | 06:23 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Likes: 0
So what's the solution?
I don't have time to write (or rewrite) the book on this, so I will try to keep this as possible. In a word, ALPA needs a National Contract, with fixed pay rates for every type of equipment. OR, go to Longevity pay, ie. the more years of airline experience any ALPA Pilot has, the more he makes. That alone will take the incentive away from Management to outsource the 100 seat (or less) flying to the Regionals.
If we want to fundamentally change ALPA, then going to a National Contract, where alll ALPA Pilots are paid the same, based on Longevity Pay, with the same level of benefits across all ALPA pilot groups, would be a fundamental change.
Discuss, I've got to let the dogs out...
I don't have time to write (or rewrite) the book on this, so I will try to keep this as possible. In a word, ALPA needs a National Contract, with fixed pay rates for every type of equipment. OR, go to Longevity pay, ie. the more years of airline experience any ALPA Pilot has, the more he makes. That alone will take the incentive away from Management to outsource the 100 seat (or less) flying to the Regionals.
If we want to fundamentally change ALPA, then going to a National Contract, where alll ALPA Pilots are paid the same, based on Longevity Pay, with the same level of benefits across all ALPA pilot groups, would be a fundamental change.
Discuss, I've got to let the dogs out...
By each pilot group continuing to insist on airline specific seniority, we will never get a national contract.
05-29-2011 | 06:35 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 326
I've been thinking about this "ALPA Unity" thing for the past 25+ years, ever since ALPA agreed to allow American Airlines B Scale to come onto an ALPA property. ALPA is disfunctional. The talk out of both sides of their mouths and now they represent opposing groups, Majors vs. Regionals.
So what's the solution?
I don't have time to write (or rewrite) the book on this, so I will try to keep this as possible. In a word, ALPA needs a National Contract, with fixed pay rates for every type of equipment. OR, go to Longevity pay, ie. the more years of airline experience any ALPA Pilot has, the more he makes. That alone will take the incentive away from Management to outsource the 100 seat (or less) flying to the Regionals.
If we want to fundamentally change ALPA, then going to a National Contract, where alll ALPA Pilots are paid the same, based on Longevity Pay, with the same level of benefits across all ALPA pilot groups, would be a fundamental change.
Discuss, I've got to let the dogs out...
So what's the solution?
I don't have time to write (or rewrite) the book on this, so I will try to keep this as possible. In a word, ALPA needs a National Contract, with fixed pay rates for every type of equipment. OR, go to Longevity pay, ie. the more years of airline experience any ALPA Pilot has, the more he makes. That alone will take the incentive away from Management to outsource the 100 seat (or less) flying to the Regionals.
If we want to fundamentally change ALPA, then going to a National Contract, where alll ALPA Pilots are paid the same, based on Longevity Pay, with the same level of benefits across all ALPA pilot groups, would be a fundamental change.
Discuss, I've got to let the dogs out...
I agree, Timbo, but there's one major flaw in your system. What happens to those airlines that simply can't afford to pay that? They will go bankrupt, and then what happens to their pilots? Without a safety net for pilots in this situation (i.e. some type of "portable seniority"), these pilot groups will ALWAYS undercut their fellow pilot groups in a bid to survive. And that starts the whole downward spiral for everyone.
By each pilot group continuing to insist on airline specific seniority, we will never get a national contract.
By each pilot group continuing to insist on airline specific seniority, we will never get a national contract.
If the airline can't afford to pay, the airline does not need to exist. I personally think longevity pay should be taken away. I don't think it's right that pilots make different amounts of money flying the exact same plane at the exact same airline. I make close to $100/hour while a new hire makes around $55/hour to do the exact same job. Our maximum pay on the aircraft should be the pay for everyone. Then switching airlines would not be so hard financially on us. As it is now, the bigger aircraft pay more money. Let pilots use their seniority to bid to bigger aircraft thus making more money. Let me be clear. In my system, the pay is based on our current maximum pay scales. I don't want anyone to take a pay cut. I want the bottom guys brought up. It would take a real union to make this happen. We don't have that.
05-29-2011 | 06:48 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
From: LAX 350 A
Here is a video from Lee's latest road show. I'm glad he's kept up his platform at national.
05-29-2011 | 06:52 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Likes: 0
And let me guess, you just happen to be junior...
Seriously, I find it disappointing that the only people who seem to argue strongly for a position, are those who would benefit directly from it, all the while claiming a morally superior position and rationalizing it is the best for the pilot group as a whole. Some examples:
1. Old guys arguing that retirement dollars are the most important.
2. Junior guys arguing that scope is the most important.
3. Junior guys arguing we need to level payrates (see above).
4. Senior pilots in smaller equipment arguing for seniority based (rather than equipment based) pay.
5. All pilots in a smaller aircraft (MD88 and/or 767) asking for pay "banding" that would bring their pay up more than their peers (73N and 330/777 respectively).
6. Regional guys arguing for a merger just so they can get a DAL seniority number without an interview.
7. Bald guys arguing to keep the hat.
And the list goes on and on...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
