Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-04-2011, 09:41 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
11-04-2011, 09:46 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
FWIW, a year ago, I had info that DAL was looking at Atlas or Polar. I did not post it because I could not back it up, but that rumor was out there too.
11-04-2011, 10:09 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Except the planes are the bulk of the DCI expense. Since they are kept off delta's books (to show a net reduction in debt), pilot cost is not going to bring the flying back home.
11-04-2011, 10:11 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,930
I disagree. We are not "due" anything. Any gains we may, and had better achieve, will be fought for.
Look at it from the companies point of view - "Sure the Pilots ***** a lot, but they all still give 100% and do a superb job." They will not "invest" in us unless it gains them something. Sometimes we are own worse enemies. And I was no exception, coming from the military I was a total Kool-aid drinking company man......right up to the point when I was furloughed as DCI flourished. I will not make that mistake again - we are costs to be minimized in managements eyes. They took over 40% of our pay, terminated our pensions and what was our response?
DALPA better be prepared to play hardball and frankly the tone they have been setting does not have me optimistic. Now with that said, I do acknowledge that we are not yet in section 6 and I am not privy to the DALPA strategy.
But to the original point, we are not "due" anything. Either we negotiate for big gains or not. What we achieve will be determined by us.
Scoop
11-04-2011, 10:17 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,012
Scope should be about PILOTS not airplanes. ALPA should represent PILOTS and not distinguish, which airline operates them or finances them.
Compass pilots could, and should, have Delta seniority numbers if flying Delta passengers. I don't care who owns the airplanes. If Compass picks up a deal flying for United, then that flight should be flown by a United pilot, etc ... .
11-04-2011, 11:01 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Yeah, but what do we do about it now? I have two immediate concerns:
(1) We're currently down ~ just under 100 Wide Body Captain positions and 200 First Officer positions from where we should be under the original Jv language, and
(2) The enforcement window has been made so large that the JV is unenforceable. The Company will bridge non compliance into the next negotiation and simply reset the number lower as they see fit.
(3) The trends on European flying look ugly last month. I don't doubt Delta management is making sound economic decisions rather than having us run non rev specials to European vacation destinations just to keep you and me employed.
This is the same pattern that took out half our domestic flying in the previous decade. Management always got the scope concession it needed to keep the RJ orders coming. The Comair example is a good example inasmuch as the core problems with our scope are being repeated. Just now we are making room for 76 wide body deliveries instead of 76 seat RJ's.
I don't see a fix. I am hopeful our MEC has a really good explanation and has enforcement provisions that I am thus far unaware of. If current trends continue the end of our airline is about a decade away. Economic catastrophe could quicken that. Our capitulation and race to the bottom could extend it. Either way, a scope sale never turns out well, even if the reason is self preservation. The guys involved in this have a vested interest as Delta pilots too. I'll wait to hear what they have to say. Must be an angle I'm not seeing ... .
(1) We're currently down ~ just under 100 Wide Body Captain positions and 200 First Officer positions from where we should be under the original Jv language, and
(2) The enforcement window has been made so large that the JV is unenforceable. The Company will bridge non compliance into the next negotiation and simply reset the number lower as they see fit.
(3) The trends on European flying look ugly last month. I don't doubt Delta management is making sound economic decisions rather than having us run non rev specials to European vacation destinations just to keep you and me employed.
This is the same pattern that took out half our domestic flying in the previous decade. Management always got the scope concession it needed to keep the RJ orders coming. The Comair example is a good example inasmuch as the core problems with our scope are being repeated. Just now we are making room for 76 wide body deliveries instead of 76 seat RJ's.
I don't see a fix. I am hopeful our MEC has a really good explanation and has enforcement provisions that I am thus far unaware of. If current trends continue the end of our airline is about a decade away. Economic catastrophe could quicken that. Our capitulation and race to the bottom could extend it. Either way, a scope sale never turns out well, even if the reason is self preservation. The guys involved in this have a vested interest as Delta pilots too. I'll wait to hear what they have to say. Must be an angle I'm not seeing ... .
Bar I agree. I have been doing a ton of research on the AF JV and here is what I found.
We initially started out at 51.7% of the EASK's. The compliance band was 1.5% points in either side. When Alitalia was added, we went to 50-50. Not that big of a deal, and even with adding Alitalia we were in compliance. From what I can gather, we did not go out of compliance until March/April this year.
This is the language change.
We went from this language:
PWA 1P.4
4. The amount of flying subject to the AF JV flown by each partner will be determined from
a summer season baseline period commencing in the summer season immediately
preceding the full implementation date. All growth ASMs flown above the baseline
figure by the partners will be aggregated and shared between the partners on a 50/50
basis, subject to Section 1 P. 5.
5. Compliance will be measured for each summer season period, commencing at the end of
the first summer season following full implementation. If the Company’s share of the AF
JV growth ASMs above the baseline is at least 47% for the applicable summer season
period, the Company will be deemed in compliance with the growth ASM measurement
If the Company is not in compliance with the growth ASM measurement for any summer
season measurement period, the Company may cure any such breach by (within 90 days
after the date of written notification from the MEC Chairman to the Company of such
breach) increasing the number of Delta growth ASMs or decreasing the number of AF
growth ASMs at the beginning of the next summer season
to:
MOU 14
The baseline EASK allocations in the AF/KL/AZ JV agreement are 50% for DL and 50%
for AF/KL/AZ of the total EASK capacity. Section 1 P. 4. is updated to reflect such
adjustment. Effective with the three year measurement period ending on March 31, 2011
(including applicable AZ flying during the 12 month measurement period of April 1,
2010 to March 31, 2011 only), the Company shall maintain no less than 48.50% of the
EASK capacity share in this measurement period (Company’s baseline EASK allocation
minus 1.50%). A new three year rolling measurement period will begin April 1, 2011
and the actual capacity share percentages for all previous years will be disregarded for
capacity share measurement purposes. In the case of the rolling three year measurement
periods ending March 31, 2014, and thereafter, the Company shall be required to
maintain no less than 48.50% (Company’s baseline EASK allocation minus 1.50%) of the
total EASK capacity subject to the provisions of Section 1 P. 6.
In the first 12 month measurement period following March 31, 2010 (i.e., from each
April 1 to March 31 of the following calendar year), during which the Company’s EASK
capacity share is greater than or equal to 49.75%, a new three year rolling measurement
period will begin and the capacity share percentages for all previous years will be
disregarded for capacity share measurement purposes.
We went from a 12 month window to a rolling three year window. There was also a 90 day compliance period after the 12 month look back. Now, when they hit compliance within the band, a new three year period starts. There is no look back. As I read this, they need to only be in compliance for the average over three years.
This was done by MOU number 14 in June of 2010.
Last edited by acl65pilot; 11-04-2011 at 01:03 PM.
11-04-2011, 11:04 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
We went from a 12 month window to a three year window. There was also a 90 day compliance period after the 12 month look back. Now, when they hit compliance within the band, a new three year period starts. There is no look back. As I read this, they need to only be in compliance for one reporting period every three years.
This was done by MOU number 14 in June of 2010.
Is there a way to have the data published anyways? Especially going into Section 6?
11-04-2011, 11:06 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
That's why we have to change the way our union sees scope.
Scope should be about PILOTS not airplanes. ALPA should represent PILOTS and not distinguish, which airline operates them or finances them.
Compass pilots could, and should, have Delta seniority numbers if flying Delta passengers. I don't care who owns the airplanes. If Compass picks up a deal flying for United, then that flight should be flown by a United pilot, etc ... .
Scope should be about PILOTS not airplanes. ALPA should represent PILOTS and not distinguish, which airline operates them or finances them.
Compass pilots could, and should, have Delta seniority numbers if flying Delta passengers. I don't care who owns the airplanes. If Compass picks up a deal flying for United, then that flight should be flown by a United pilot, etc ... .
11-04-2011, 11:08 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Gloopy,
I disagree. We are not "due" anything. Any gains we may, and had better achieve, will be fought for.
Look at it from the companies point of view - "Sure the Pilots ***** a lot, but they all still give 100% and do a superb job." They will not "invest" in us unless it gains them something. Sometimes we are own worse enemies. And I was no exception, coming from the military I was a total Kool-aid drinking company man......right up to the point when I was furloughed as DCI flourished. I will not make that mistake again - we are costs to be minimized in managements eyes. They took over 40% of our pay, terminated our pensions and what was our response?
DALPA better be prepared to play hardball and frankly the tone they have been setting does not have me optimistic. Now with that said, I do acknowledge that we are not yet in section 6 and I am not privy to the DALPA strategy.
But to the original point, we are not "due" anything. Either we negotiate for big gains or not. What we achieve will be determined by us.
Scoop
I disagree. We are not "due" anything. Any gains we may, and had better achieve, will be fought for.
Look at it from the companies point of view - "Sure the Pilots ***** a lot, but they all still give 100% and do a superb job." They will not "invest" in us unless it gains them something. Sometimes we are own worse enemies. And I was no exception, coming from the military I was a total Kool-aid drinking company man......right up to the point when I was furloughed as DCI flourished. I will not make that mistake again - we are costs to be minimized in managements eyes. They took over 40% of our pay, terminated our pensions and what was our response?
DALPA better be prepared to play hardball and frankly the tone they have been setting does not have me optimistic. Now with that said, I do acknowledge that we are not yet in section 6 and I am not privy to the DALPA strategy.
But to the original point, we are not "due" anything. Either we negotiate for big gains or not. What we achieve will be determined by us.
Scoop
11-04-2011, 11:18 AM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
