Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-06-2011, 08:56 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
Is the purpose of lowering expectations so as to ensure The outcome looks better than it was?
Build up another strawman.
09-06-2011, 08:58 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
Good for you, sailingfun, re: your personal minimums. But I'm a little confused about something. To bring our MD-88/90 pilots (who are the ones doing the most comparable type of flying to SWA pilots) up to SWA pilot pay would require approximately a 50% increase.
09-06-2011, 09:02 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
cough cough, up North, cough cough
09-06-2011, 09:15 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by tsquare
What does THAT mean?
09-06-2011, 09:17 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
He means a MSP rep. (Not what he is implying, he is just stating a North Base, but what the reality is)
09-06-2011, 09:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Originally Posted by sailingfun
The opener can and should reflect the contract surveys put out by the pilots. If it does not then you have a valid point. You might however be quite surprised if you were allowed to read those surveys. When alone and thinking pilots tend to put down what they feel is reasonable and achievable.
Are we going to be allowed to see the results of the surveys?
09-06-2011, 09:23 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: Lil Bus A
Posts: 412
FYI: Just received 2 emails asking for support during the nominating process for the Council 1 LEC. Not sure if it appropriate to post here, so I won't.
09-06-2011, 09:28 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: Lil Bus A
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
He means a MSP rep. (Not what he is implying, he is just stating a North Base, but what the reality is)
09-06-2011, 09:48 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Originally Posted by slowplay
Time for some more "voodoo economics".
Doesn't sound like "voodoo economics" to me. Sounds to me like pretty straightforward math.
09-06-2011, 09:50 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by sailingfun
- Give me the names of the DALPA guys who have told you they are willing to take less then SWA. I have not meet one. Everytime I have asked on here I get BS responses. Man I hope you're right.
- I don't believe anyone on the DALPA forums has stated we will sacrifice the bottom 1500 guys. What I have seen posted is a simple fact. If we switched to the SWA contract today and staffed at the level of manning SWA uses we would have a large surplus of pilots....The form 10's for 2010 had Delta at 690 an hour and SWA at 698 within a buck or two. There are two reasons the pilot cost per block hour are so close. SW is more efficient and Delta has 3 and 4 man operations that skew the numbers in favor of SWA. Still even accounting for the 3 and 4 man operations are total pilot costs per block hour are not as different as many suggest and post on here.
When you go into negotiations and ask for SWA you need to be very careful. There could be lost of negative consequences. I for one don't think SWA has much relevance to Delta. I could believe that. That said, the 1500 pilots lost thing, I'd be curious if we could be so efficient so as to... maybe... possibly... make DCI that much expensive thus recapture scope? I really don't know, but if it was indisputable that by no means of measurement is DCI cost effective would they end DCI? Therein yes we could lose 1500 jobs but we could gain just as many if not more?
- I for one am not willing to give up any work rules that would decrease manning. We already gave up 3000 jobs in work rules. We don't need to give up any more. Agreed. I have my beef with DALPA but on things like trip parking and so forth everyone seems to understand what it means for pilot numbers - especially on the high end.
- When you look at SWA compensation you do however have to look at the total package and the final pilot block hour costs. I'm willing to look.
- I want their hourly rate at a minimum however I want our retirement plan and work rules. That will put Delta costs well above SWA total block costs. I think Delta can afford it and my contract survey will reflect that. I like that.
- Some will put they want total restoration and nothing less. Its a great goal but is it achievable in one contract. I don't think so. I'll be honest, I don't want a contract that's a target. I don't want something that is constantly under attack and then lost whether incrementally or completely. Making SWA pay = DAL M88 pay is a great way to make this all cloudy. Another way to do it is change up the methods by which we are paid. You look at SWA numbers and they're higher, but that doesn't paint the full picture. They are paid a lot of credit. Got a honest PM from a SWA pilot on this forum who just wanted to explain what his pay looked like... try $25K on 86 hours in 1 month with no funny business or vacation. But you wouldn't know it looking at their numbers and that's kind of the beauty of SWA's system is you can't compare apples to apples.
- In fact I think that if we opened for that we assure ourselves of only 1 thing. We will work under the current contract for at least the next 5 years. Personally I think that a two step process will put a lot more money in my pocket and produce a higher quality of life. I would rather be working on our second contract in 2016 then still negotiating this one. I could depending on the situation and given what the economy will look like in 2012 be willing to try a two stepper.
I screwed with your post and then added my own thoughts.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
