|
Originally Posted by PilotFrog
(Post 1061332)
I think the largest threat to our top end scope is the following. China Eastern, China Southern, and as of today China Airlines. All code share for now, but as this is the fastest growing market I am sure we will want to lock into some kind of JV to get at that revenue.
Also please do not forget that Korean is undercutting our NRT ops and a JV would rationalize that business plan. Do not forget about V Blue as well. |
Originally Posted by tim123
(Post 1060805)
All the pro alpa guys always spout that alpa is is controlled at local levels and if any changes are needed work at the local level to change things.When the meet and confer with dci carriers come up,they always say national has nothing to do with that and that national doesn't have anything control with our contract.What better way to take care of this by removing some local presence and giving more control to national.
Carl |
Just got my MEC Touch & Go regarding NPRM. My summary is that they're saying we shouldn't worry about what changes are made that may not be as favorable to pilots as current FAA rules are since our contract provides protection. e.g.:
Section 12 E. 1. of our contract specifies when we require augmented operations. Any operation over 8 hours requires one additional pilot and any operation over 12 hours requires an additional crew. The FAA can alter requirements for augmentation but if less restrictive than our contract, it does not affect our contractual requirements. Also stated in the Touch & Go edition:As another example, Sections 12 G. 2-3. of our contract mandate the minimum rest requirements for layovers. In some cases, the FAA’s NRPM will provide even more stringent provisions for rest than that those in our contract. In those cases, the provisions of the new rules will prevail. When I've asked the question why aren't MD-88 pilots who are qualified to fly MD-90s getting the higher pay like rest of Delta pilots, or increased pay for the increased revenue we're generating from flying more passengers (modified aircraft) one of the answers I get is, "What are you willing to give up for that?" So I'm trying to get my mind straight with this, so with that said I ask, what are we giving up to for these new FAA rules that benefit us, or for that matter the protection of the contract that we're now enjoying? Yes, I've become cynical; at this point I can envision our being asked to "give up" something to keep the contractual protections we'll begin enjoying with these new FT/DT rules.In short, anyone trying to evaluate the impact of the FAA NPRM on Delta pilots must remember that our contractual protections will not disappear just because the FAA rules change. It is clear that these critics either lack contractual knowledge or have another agenda. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1061319)
We have tried the huge opener at Delta. In the end we got a lower rate then could have been achieved with a more reasonable opener and lost half the 16 aircraft on order.
The problem with a huge opener is what do you do when the company says the following on 1 Apr. Company:Thank you for your opener. We will get back to you with a response in June. DALPA: June? That is not acceptable. Its almost 2 months away. We want to talk sooner. Company: You must have misunderstood us. We meant June of 2014! Goodbye. There are two things in a contract negotiation that have to always be considered. What you want and what is achievable. The two are almost never the same. The majority of pilots are rational enough to understand that concept. The rest will simply always be unhappy and looking for someone or something to blame. Carl |
Originally Posted by Jesse
(Post 1061379)
When I've asked the question why aren't MD-88 pilots who are qualified to fly MD-90s getting the higher pay like rest of Delta pilots, or increased pay for the increased revenue we're generating from flying more passengers (modified aircraft) one of the answers I get is, "What are you willing to give up for that?" So I'm trying to get my mind straight with this, so with that said I ask, what are we giving up to for these new FAA rules that benefit us, or for that matter the protection of the contract that we're now enjoying? Yes, I've become cynical; at this point I can envision our being asked to "give up" something to keep the contractual protections we'll begin enjoying with these new FT/DT rules.
As for the ALPA apologists, could you just please post the talking points and save us and yourselves the trouble of repeatedly reading them? |
Only 13 questions into the survey and ALPA/Lawyer speak has struck
Contract survey question regarding #13...Long term job security. None of those options specifically say Joint Ventures, but is one of them considered JV's? Alter Ego? Thanks |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1060674)
It's no surprise that DAL South pilots would think that the pull plug method was used too much while DAL North pilots would thin that it wasn't used enough. It's human nature.
But, does anyone know if the retirements -- inclusive of the differences N vs. S -- we have had so far have made up for the pull/plug allowances? Just wondering..... Carl |
Jesse who asked you what you are willing to give up, a regular pilot or ALPA?
Tailor the answer to asks. If ALPA, just say you're willing to give up ALPA. If it was a old pilot say you're willing to give up Age 65 and go back to age 60. If the pilot is mid age, say youre willing to give up a pension. If the pilot is junior... I've got to come up with something. I guess the question is why should the 149 seat MD88 and 160 seat MD90 pay less than the A320 and A319 and 737-700 and 737-800? Better yet, why do you have to give up same pay or MD90 pay all of the time? The answer is obvious, whoever asks that knows itd be a huge pay increase cost and they'd rather the money to be spent elsewhere or on other folks. So only 88/90 pilots need to give up something, why is that? http://www.cheshirecatstudios.com/wi...ethrower_5.jpg |
Jesse,
Fwiw the average seating of the 117 M88s post mod and 40 to be MD90s is 151.8. The A319/320 is 138 and 737 is 155.6. But pay on most cases, since most of the time a 88 pilot will fly the 88 for 7.5% less than 737 and 4% off 320. Th solution I want, equal pay between all 3 aircraft. I don't want any airplane pay brought down nor 88 pilots at most making 90 pay. Equal it. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1061397)
Jesse who asked you what you are willing to give up, a regular pilot or ALPA?
Tailor the answer to asks. If ALPA, just say you're willing to give up ALPA. If it was a old pilot say you're willing to give up Age 65 and go back to age 60. If the pilot is mid age, say youre willing to give up a pension. If the pilot is junior... I've got to come up with something. I guess the question is why should the 149 seat MD88 and 160 seat MD90 pay less than the A320 and A319 and 737-700 and 737-800? Better yet, why do you have to give up same pay or MD90 pay all of the time? The answer is obvious, whoever asks that knows itd be a huge pay increase cost and they'd rather the money to be spent elsewhere or on other folks. So only 88/90 pilots need to give up something, why is that? http://www.cheshirecatstudios.com/wi...ethrower_5.jpg Doesn't the small 737 like the A319 have only 124 seats?:rolleyes: |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:48 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands