Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-11-2011 | 05:41 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
11-11-2011 | 05:47 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Carl,
A lot has to do with shifting costs off property. Our management is focused on reducing our debt which means not buying things, like airplanes. Air France has about 1/3 of our debt load and has their aircraft acquisitions subsidized. They have 76 wide body jets on order.
On the DCI side, SkyWest is the largest Bombardier customer on the planet and they get significant (was about 25%) off the lowest prices paid by competitors for parts and support. Then you got some operators like Republic and Trans States who are willing to make silly deals just to keep the growth going. Trans States (GoJets parent) uses alter ego creations to side step scope and destroy longevity, so it resets pilot costs every so often. Delta can't compete on those terms.
As Delta shrinks it has fewer operations to allocate costs to. Our metrics as measured by seat miles will increase in cost. Hence the law that "you can not shrink to profitability."
I agree with management's work to reduce debt. I understand they can maintain and grow their network without us. The answer I have proposed is that "Delta" pilots perform this flying, even if the operator is not "Delta Air Lines."
You now understand why I equate unity to power at the bargaining table. Management can make this place work without us. We need better, more effective, scope to turn this around.
I like the JV language, but the 36 month compliance window was, and is, too large.
A lot has to do with shifting costs off property. Our management is focused on reducing our debt which means not buying things, like airplanes. Air France has about 1/3 of our debt load and has their aircraft acquisitions subsidized. They have 76 wide body jets on order.
On the DCI side, SkyWest is the largest Bombardier customer on the planet and they get significant (was about 25%) off the lowest prices paid by competitors for parts and support. Then you got some operators like Republic and Trans States who are willing to make silly deals just to keep the growth going. Trans States (GoJets parent) uses alter ego creations to side step scope and destroy longevity, so it resets pilot costs every so often. Delta can't compete on those terms.
As Delta shrinks it has fewer operations to allocate costs to. Our metrics as measured by seat miles will increase in cost. Hence the law that "you can not shrink to profitability."
I agree with management's work to reduce debt. I understand they can maintain and grow their network without us. The answer I have proposed is that "Delta" pilots perform this flying, even if the operator is not "Delta Air Lines."
You now understand why I equate unity to power at the bargaining table. Management can make this place work without us. We need better, more effective, scope to turn this around.
I like the JV language, but the 36 month compliance window was, and is, too large.
SWA picks SWA pilots first and always. DAL picks DAL pilots only as a last resort. That's our reality.
Carl
11-11-2011 | 05:48 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 868
Likes: 18
From: Starboard Side, weekends & holidays.
Caution: Another long rant by Waves. Just be thankful you don’t have to fly with me. LOL Thanks FreightDog, but apparently you didn't read my disclaimer at the bottom. I stated that you didn't say all of those things. Also I'm not whining about how it was when I got hired either. At the time, I thought I had it pretty good too even as an SO. I was much happier than while I was in the military. Possibly a complete misinterpretation here. As I have recently said several times, I was one of many who advocated contract changes to "share the wealth" and reduce the pain for the new guys. So please don't misconstrue what I'm saying here. I would love to delve into what a very wise senior Captain once told me about this issue because it is very relevant and enlightening, but it is also so complex as to not be forum material. What I am trying to say here and not doing it very well is: Unfortunately every contract we negotiate along with every single issue is assigned a fairly rigid value by management. This is the way management must look at every contract negotiation. The values of such issues are like building blocks which determine what the company will accept. Thirty years ago, Captains were not willing to allow some/any of those building blocks (costs) to be used to protect the new guys. They were very strongly opposed to doing so. Believe it or not, in many ways they were correct. You probably stopped reading right there. Ha But then that is back to my earlier comment of which would require a ton of explaining. Lucy! I’m not trying to be elusive, but the explanation is something that is not easily typed. Does it matter now? Not really, but new guys shouldn't expect to just have the red carpet rolled out for them just because they are new. Old guys like me should not be expected to roll over and sacrifice everything for them. We are on a limited time line and our retirements have been compromised to say the least. One of the big problems with our industry is that new guys coming in for good reason don’t seem to understand past history and how the dream job was affected. Their dream job! Quite frankly, some of the Boo Hoo posts I read I just want to puke. Oh, Boo Hoo, I’m a new guy and I’m going to be frozen in category for a year. Does anyone really think that a twenty or thirty year guy like me wants to hear this after our airline upbringing? This post is probably brash, but I’m in a hurry to get it online so I can pack for my trip. The audacity of the company to give me a trip. LOL Here is the good news. I could be wrong about everything. HA HA
This LOA was negotiated outside of Section 6, so your talk of contact negotiations is off topic.
Nobody expects "old guys" like you to roll over. All "young guys" (and by young I mean junior) like me expect is for you "old guys" to realize that being a new guy now is nothing like being a new guy 20 years ago. You're right in one respect. We don't have to sit sideways anymore. Rather than suffer that indignity, we get to sit forwards and watch all those Engineer jobs taxi past us RJ by RJ.....
I, for one, would be happy to sit sideways for years at NWA DC-10 pay. Alas, that's been OBA (Overcome by ALPA).
11-11-2011 | 06:07 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
This is why our demand of the SWAPA contract is so critically important. The exclusive scope language would force our management to move away from their utterly failed strategy that has cost us billions. Our management is too stubbornly proud to ever admit it, so we simply have to do this for their own good. Your brand must never be entrusted to others. That's a recipe for certain failure.
Carl
11-11-2011 | 06:11 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
I'm starting to think we should call the companies bluff and make them cost all of this out.
Have the union go to JG or higher and say, "we agree that commuting should be outlawed for the good of the company. We recommend everyone live within 100 miles of the base you're flying out of. If you (pilot) don't like it:
- retire
- resign
- take the company paid move"
I'll bet the cost of hiring, training, and moving would be eye watering. Then you'll see just how much the company REALLY believes commuting is a choice.
Have the union go to JG or higher and say, "we agree that commuting should be outlawed for the good of the company. We recommend everyone live within 100 miles of the base you're flying out of. If you (pilot) don't like it:
- retire
- resign
- take the company paid move"
I'll bet the cost of hiring, training, and moving would be eye watering. Then you'll see just how much the company REALLY believes commuting is a choice.
Carl
11-11-2011 | 06:11 PM
New Hire
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Short call credit question.
On Monday I was on short call. They assigned me short call on Tue which I acknowledged via ICREW (early afternoon on Mon). Later on Monday I was assigned a 2 day trip. On my way to the airport scheduling called me a changed my trip to a one day trip because there was a low time pilot conflict with another crew. When I returned Mon. night I was on long call. Should I recieve credit for the short call that I was assigned on Tue?
On Monday I was on short call. They assigned me short call on Tue which I acknowledged via ICREW (early afternoon on Mon). Later on Monday I was assigned a 2 day trip. On my way to the airport scheduling called me a changed my trip to a one day trip because there was a low time pilot conflict with another crew. When I returned Mon. night I was on long call. Should I recieve credit for the short call that I was assigned on Tue?
11-11-2011 | 06:12 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
MEM guys? I don't think so. They will MD into ATL. IF they lived in the NE they would have already picked the DTW 320. The 320 and DC9 guys will MD into ATL on the 320, the 330, and the MD88. But, there will be a certain group who would love to fly the bus in NYC. Can you think who I am talking about? BOS commuters, due to the Shuttle flying have home layovers.
The most junior 320 A is slightly more senior then the plug on ATL 73N A and the plug on MEM DC9 A is senior to the ATL M88 A plug. Senior A's there but not necessarily "old", just senior kind of like the 7ER category.
All that to say if flying will now be covered out of ATL for MEM flying then ATL will have a place for them and hardly be noticed. ATL 88 has almost 1,000 total pilots and the 737 comes in around 500-600. Adding 60 give or take or so pilots won't make a huge difference to those two categories and even to the ATL 320 category it's not an incredible jump. So if flying increases and that flying is covered by all 3 ATL NBs then ATL can take all MEM new comers... except adding 200 people to your commute would be pure unadulterated hell. It'd be one thing if it was a reasonable drive but MEM is far from ATL.
See people will go in different directions. I know if I was forced to commute my choices in bidding would have very different priorities then what people would traditionally think.
11-11-2011 | 06:16 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
You're right ACL, I'll still bid reserve but I'd like the option to one day move up % wise in category. Still slightly less then I was 3 years ago, which I know doesn't sound like much but I'm on the bottom rung of a big base.
But as long as I keep slaving away in my maddog I'm happy. So you are very correct. Bummer is ATL 88 trips are starting to become a self fulfilling prophecy. I used to bad mouth it to keep people away, now I bad mouth because it deserves it. Oh well.
11-11-2011 | 06:19 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
You are missing the bigger picture here too though Carl. The commuter flying was cancelled shortly after the merger was consummated, so that is not an issue. But since AT was a wholly owned subsidiary, THEY were a violation of the SWAPA scope clause, hence management's interference in the SLI process. AT could not fly under the SWA code as a separate entity, and management could not afford to do that. That is why GK went all Carl Icahn on them. Many think that this was a bad play though because he made second class citizens out of the AT pilots, and that will transfer to the group as a whole. Maybe.. maybe, they will be blinded by the money, but who knows? I would think that a AT captain that has been forced out of his seat would retain a fair amount of bitterness... I can't imagine that they would not. Your own Red/Green show should give you a better insight into that. My question is that SWAPA had a bunch of leverage to get contract improvements here, and chose not to do so, but rather let management come in and lower the hammer on their soon-to-be co workers. No way you can convince me that this was not a seniority grab based on that observation alone. Now comes all the lovey dovey stuff... and hopefully the AT guys will forget.. Point is though, you think it is management looking out for it's pilots, I see that very differently. Let's suppose that SWA made a run at an AK merger/purchase.. combination.. There will be those that argue that that would be a merger of equals.. I fail to see any difference in the AT merger save the payrates.. all 3 carriers fly 737s... period. I digress. Do you think the AK pilots would stand for being stapled in the same manner as the ATI guys? SWA management would be FORCED to come in with the same heavy handed tactics as they did with AT because of that scope clause. My bet is that if this scenario were to come up, that SWA management would get rid of that scope clause , or they would be forced to structure it in a different way.. as in maybe AK would be the surviving carrier. Thoughts?
Carl
11-11-2011 | 06:19 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
