Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
06-01-2011 | 05:46 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Following on the heels of our RAH surrender, its a disturbing trend we have going here when the ALPA guys are so ready to capitulate on scope issues and claim there's nothing we can legally do about outsourcing and subcontracting.
The notion that we can't force management to bargain about scope and job security because its a "permissive" topic and we can never strike over those issues is just plain dangerous.
Here's the Supreme Court on that issue:
The type of "contracting out" involved in this case -- the replacement of employees in the existing bargaining unit with those of an independent contractor to do the same work under similar conditions of employment -- is a statutory subject of collective bargaining under § 8(d) of the Act.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that, on the facts of this case, the "contracting out" of the work previously performed by members of an existing bargaining unit is a subject about which the National Labor Relations Act requires employers and the representatives of their employees to bargain collectively.
FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 379 U. S. 203 :: Volume 379 :: 1964 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
The notion that we can't force management to bargain about scope and job security because its a "permissive" topic and we can never strike over those issues is just plain dangerous.
Here's the Supreme Court on that issue:
The type of "contracting out" involved in this case -- the replacement of employees in the existing bargaining unit with those of an independent contractor to do the same work under similar conditions of employment -- is a statutory subject of collective bargaining under § 8(d) of the Act.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that, on the facts of this case, the "contracting out" of the work previously performed by members of an existing bargaining unit is a subject about which the National Labor Relations Act requires employers and the representatives of their employees to bargain collectively.
FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 379 U. S. 203 :: Volume 379 :: 1964 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
Personally I think the 76 seat ship has sailed. I doubt if we (mainline DL) will ever be able to 'recapture' that flying. There is a limit per our contract to how many 76 seat RJ's can exist. So let's focus on defending that limit, and let's turn our attention to the NEXT threat, the much fabled 100 seater.
If we hold the line on 76 seats for DCC's, then obviously any 100 seater would have to be flown by mainline pilots. As much as many of you hate to admit it, DALPA was right when they said the 36 and 50 seat RJ's would eventually dissapear, over congestion and higher fuel prices helped. So where's the next logical step? 100 seater replaces 76. OK, Who flys it?
If the RJ guys want mainline jobs, they should be supporting mainline scope. If instead they want to spend the rest of their careers flying 76 seaters at DCC pay/benefits, then by all means, sue DALPA over our scope clause, if/when the 100 seater comes along.
And for you mainline guys, here's a no-kidding question that is sure to come up over the 100 seater, if/when it ever shows up. How much of a pay raise would it take for you to give away the 100 seater to the DCC's? If RA offered you a 30% pay raise tomorrow, and put some limit on the total number of 100 seaters allowed, would you let it go to the DCC's?
That is exactly the tactic used to get to where we are today, first it was the 50 seaters, then 76, next step, 100.
So, what's your selling point? 30% raise? 50%? 100%? Here's mine, I want a 100% raise for a couple years, (to get my last kid through college) and my $1.4 Million DB money returned to my 401K, and then I'll retire 10 years early, you can have my 777 left seat.
BTW, in all the previous contracts, all of which allowed more relaxation of our scope, I voted no... Now it's your turn.
If we hold the line on 76 seats for DCC's, then obviously any 100 seater would have to be flown by mainline pilots. As much as many of you hate to admit it, DALPA was right when they said the 36 and 50 seat RJ's would eventually dissapear, over congestion and higher fuel prices helped. So where's the next logical step? 100 seater replaces 76. OK, Who flys it?
If the RJ guys want mainline jobs, they should be supporting mainline scope. If instead they want to spend the rest of their careers flying 76 seaters at DCC pay/benefits, then by all means, sue DALPA over our scope clause, if/when the 100 seater comes along.
And for you mainline guys, here's a no-kidding question that is sure to come up over the 100 seater, if/when it ever shows up. How much of a pay raise would it take for you to give away the 100 seater to the DCC's? If RA offered you a 30% pay raise tomorrow, and put some limit on the total number of 100 seaters allowed, would you let it go to the DCC's?
That is exactly the tactic used to get to where we are today, first it was the 50 seaters, then 76, next step, 100.
So, what's your selling point? 30% raise? 50%? 100%? Here's mine, I want a 100% raise for a couple years, (to get my last kid through college) and my $1.4 Million DB money returned to my 401K, and then I'll retire 10 years early, you can have my 777 left seat.
BTW, in all the previous contracts, all of which allowed more relaxation of our scope, I voted no... Now it's your turn.
Now who is our peers? I'd say Continental and Southwest are, both have better scope. We deserve their scope +1. I mean -1. As in -1 seat.
06-01-2011 | 05:54 AM
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Yeahbutt...69% of Delta Pilots keep voting Yes to more scope give-aways...until that changes, I expect more of the same. So I'll ask the same question as above, in reverse;
How much of a pay cut are you willing to give to the Company, to have all the 76 seat flying 'returned' to mainline??
That is the argument the company will use, so what's the answer, and what's our 'leverage' to get that flying back? Holding our breath and stamping our feet isn't going to work. Meanwhile, while we are focused on getting the lowest paying jobs back the company is signing more and more wide body JV's and International Code shares, replacing our Wide Body International flying. So, which jobs should we be fighting for?
How much of a pay cut are you willing to give to the Company, to have all the 76 seat flying 'returned' to mainline??
That is the argument the company will use, so what's the answer, and what's our 'leverage' to get that flying back? Holding our breath and stamping our feet isn't going to work. Meanwhile, while we are focused on getting the lowest paying jobs back the company is signing more and more wide body JV's and International Code shares, replacing our Wide Body International flying. So, which jobs should we be fighting for?
06-01-2011 | 06:06 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 868
Likes: 18
From: Starboard Side, weekends & holidays.
06-01-2011 | 06:10 AM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Personally I think the 76 seat ship has sailed. I doubt if we (mainline DL) will ever be able to 'recapture' that flying. There is a limit per our contract to how many 76 seat RJ's can exist. So let's focus on defending that limit, and let's turn our attention to the NEXT threat, the much fabled 100 seater.
If we hold the line on 76 seats for DCC's, then obviously any 100 seater would have to be flown by mainline pilots. As much as many of you hate to admit it, DALPA was right when they said the 36 and 50 seat RJ's would eventually dissapear, over congestion and higher fuel prices helped. So where's the next logical step? 100 seater replaces 76. OK, Who flys it?
If the RJ guys want mainline jobs, they should be supporting mainline scope. If instead they want to spend the rest of their careers flying 76 seaters at DCC pay/benefits, then by all means, sue DALPA over our scope clause, if/when the 100 seater comes along.
And for you mainline guys, here's a no-kidding question that is sure to come up over the 100 seater, if/when it ever shows up. How much of a pay raise would it take for you to give away the 100 seater to the DCC's? If RA offered you a 30% pay raise tomorrow, and put some limit on the total number of 100 seaters allowed, would you let it go to the DCC's?
That is exactly the tactic used to get to where we are today, first it was the 50 seaters, then 76, next step, 100.
So, what's your selling point? 30% raise? 50%? 100%? Here's mine, I want a 100% raise for a couple years, (to get my last kid through college) and my $1.4 Million DB money returned to my 401K, and then I'll retire 10 years early, you can have my 777 left seat.
BTW, in all the previous contracts, all of which allowed more relaxation of our scope, I voted no... Now it's your turn.
So, what's your selling point? 30% raise? 50%? 100%? Here's mine, I want a 100% raise for a couple years, (to get my last kid through college) and my $1.4 Million DB money returned to my 401K, and then I'll retire 10 years early, you can have my 777 left seat.
BTW, in all the previous contracts, all of which allowed more relaxation of our scope, I voted no... Now it's your turn.
06-01-2011 | 06:29 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 864
Likes: 50
From: B767
Personally I think the 76 seat ship has sailed. I doubt if we (mainline DL) will ever be able to 'recapture' that flying. There is a limit per our contract to how many 76 seat RJ's can exist. So let's focus on defending that limit, and let's turn our attention to the NEXT threat, the much fabled 100 seater.
If we hold the line on 76 seats for DCC's, then obviously any 100 seater would have to be flown by mainline pilots. As much as many of you hate to admit it, DALPA was right when they said the 36 and 50 seat RJ's would eventually dissapear, over congestion and higher fuel prices helped. So where's the next logical step? 100 seater replaces 76. OK, Who flys it?
If the RJ guys want mainline jobs, they should be supporting mainline scope. If instead they want to spend the rest of their careers flying 76 seaters at DCC pay/benefits, then by all means, sue DALPA over our scope clause, if/when the 100 seater comes along.
If we hold the line on 76 seats for DCC's, then obviously any 100 seater would have to be flown by mainline pilots. As much as many of you hate to admit it, DALPA was right when they said the 36 and 50 seat RJ's would eventually dissapear, over congestion and higher fuel prices helped. So where's the next logical step? 100 seater replaces 76. OK, Who flys it?
If the RJ guys want mainline jobs, they should be supporting mainline scope. If instead they want to spend the rest of their careers flying 76 seaters at DCC pay/benefits, then by all means, sue DALPA over our scope clause, if/when the 100 seater comes along.
I don't think you will find a whole lot of regional guys that want to see this trend continue. Unfortunately, in most ways you guys control the careers of those that come behind you. The modern day B-scale and only you all can end it.
You hear mainline guys talk about RJ guys taking their jobs, well, mainline pilots weakening scope has taken the career potential from many RJ guys.
06-01-2011 | 06:33 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,890
Likes: 0
From: 737A
Give me $10,000,000 and a condo at the Wynn and I'll vote yes.
06-01-2011 | 07:07 AM
:-)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 1
I think the next scope battle will be the bait and switch. They'll return the jets for relief in the turboprop area, and it will be a huge mistake. The next gen turboprops will compete directly with jets.
06-01-2011 | 07:12 AM
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
Last edited by johnso29; 06-01-2011 at 07:27 AM.
06-01-2011 | 07:13 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Yes he can. Haven't you ever seen one of his presentations (they are quite good, even if I disagree with his conclusions).
His presentation is that Delta Air Lines is performing well and that Delta Air Lines Pilots are near the top of their peer group in pay & working conditions (all true & he does deserve much credit for all of these successes). Then he dives into the idea that small jets can not be operated at mainline profitably. This concludes with when Delta makes money we make money. We can do better negotiating with a profitable company.
He touts the APA as foolish and an example of doing everything wrong.
When sitting through his presentation it was obvious that he relied on bankruptcy economic analysis to determine "small jets can not be operated profitably at mainline." In subsequent presentations he removed the obvious references to facts no longer in existence (like differences in ground handling costs) but the conclusion remained the same.
A pilot posted the presentation summary under the title "Outsourcing is Good." The insiders jumped on his head. But, the audience member got it right. Moak's economics based argument is that outsourcing helps the company make money, which benefits Delta pilots.
This of course triggered my response, where's Moak getting his numbers? Folks learned without Moak's approval no one could run an economic analysis and Moak was not giving the command to do that work. There are varying after action reports, but at the time of the vote everyone was unanimous that we divested Compass without running the numbers.
His presentation is that Delta Air Lines is performing well and that Delta Air Lines Pilots are near the top of their peer group in pay & working conditions (all true & he does deserve much credit for all of these successes). Then he dives into the idea that small jets can not be operated at mainline profitably. This concludes with when Delta makes money we make money. We can do better negotiating with a profitable company.
He touts the APA as foolish and an example of doing everything wrong.
When sitting through his presentation it was obvious that he relied on bankruptcy economic analysis to determine "small jets can not be operated profitably at mainline." In subsequent presentations he removed the obvious references to facts no longer in existence (like differences in ground handling costs) but the conclusion remained the same.
A pilot posted the presentation summary under the title "Outsourcing is Good." The insiders jumped on his head. But, the audience member got it right. Moak's economics based argument is that outsourcing helps the company make money, which benefits Delta pilots.
This of course triggered my response, where's Moak getting his numbers? Folks learned without Moak's approval no one could run an economic analysis and Moak was not giving the command to do that work. There are varying after action reports, but at the time of the vote everyone was unanimous that we divested Compass without running the numbers.
But the problem was there was nothing the pilots could do to stop LM's National campaign that involved placating to the ALPA National hierarchy, pro-outsourcing management types and RJ lifers running their respective unions?
So we weren't thrown under the bus but the bus was picked up and we were told to lay down under it.
Carl, don't say duh yet, this is a rehash exercise.
06-01-2011 | 07:15 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Giving up 100 seat jets would probably result in furloughs of around 20-25% of the list. Maybe more. So no, there is no realistic scenario that will get me to vote for anymore seats, lbs, or whatever of scope give backs. 77+ seat flying is ours, and we are well and truly screwing ourselves if we give it away.
Give me $10,000,000 and a condo at the Wynn and I'll vote yes.
Give me $10,000,000 and a condo at the Wynn and I'll vote yes.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
