Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
06-10-2009, 02:45 AM
#8101
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by bigdaddie
+1 ACL
SCOPE is not just a mouthwash, it's a pain is our backsides. There is a niche for small aircraft to samll cities. But when they fly just 2 departures of these "regional aircraft" out of cities that once had 5+ mainline departures a day, makes me think we have just downsided ourselves out of certian markets. No Slowplay, I am not bashing the marketing guys. Man I wish that guy would leave me alone.
SCOPE is not just a mouthwash, it's a pain is our backsides. There is a niche for small aircraft to samll cities. But when they fly just 2 departures of these "regional aircraft" out of cities that once had 5+ mainline departures a day, makes me think we have just downsided ourselves out of certian markets. No Slowplay, I am not bashing the marketing guys. Man I wish that guy would leave me alone.
The problem is places like TLH, BHM, HSV etc.
Heck MKE is always full and we are lucky to see 1 88 a day. The other flights (5-6) are 76 seat jets and are always over sold.
TLH for example has 10 RJ's a day. All I have to say on that is really?
Delta 5056* 7:35am
10 Jun 2009 ATL 8:36am
10 Jun 2009 TLH Canadair Regional Jet 0 01:01
Delta 5455* 8:43am
10 Jun 2009 ATL 9:53am
10 Jun 2009 TLH Canadair Regional Jet 0 01:10
Delta 5187* 9:53am
10 Jun 2009 ATL 11:05am
10 Jun 2009 TLH Canadair Regional Jet 0 01:12
Delta 4989* 12:45pm
10 Jun 2009 ATL 1:45pm
10 Jun 2009 TLH Canadair Regional Jet 0 01:00
Delta 4973* 2:53pm
10 Jun 2009 ATL 3:56pm
10 Jun 2009 TLH Canadair Regional Jet 700 0 01:03
Delta 5084* 4:43pm
10 Jun 2009 ATL 5:49pm
10 Jun 2009 TLH Canadair Regional Jet 0 01:06
Delta 5262* 5:45pm
10 Jun 2009 ATL 6:51pm
10 Jun 2009 TLH Canadair Regional Jet 0 01:06
Delta 5816* 6:55pm
10 Jun 2009 ATL 8:04pm
10 Jun 2009 TLH Canadair Regional Jet 900 0 01:09
Delta 5853* 8:30pm
10 Jun 2009 ATL 9:39pm
10 Jun 2009 TLH Canadair Regional Jet 900 0 01:09
Delta 5819* 10:50pm
10 Jun 2009 ATL 11:59pm
10 Jun 2009 TLH Canadair Regional Jet 900 0 01:09
06-10-2009, 05:06 AM
#8102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Didn't RA recently say something about fewer frequencies to some of these cities on bigger airplanes?
Almost as if Mngt. is saying "I can't believe we got all these RJ's, where should we put em?".
I don't trust anything that Mngt. or ALPA says anymore regarding Scope.
I'll be there on the 23rd as well!
Almost as if Mngt. is saying "I can't believe we got all these RJ's, where should we put em?".
I don't trust anything that Mngt. or ALPA says anymore regarding Scope.
I'll be there on the 23rd as well!
06-10-2009, 05:06 AM
#8103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,598
Originally Posted by bigdaddie
SCOPE is not just a mouthwash, it's a pain is our backsides. There is a niche for small aircraft to samll cities. But when they fly just 2 departures of these "regional aircraft" out of cities that once had 5+ mainline departures a day, makes me think we have just downsided ourselves out of certian markets. No Slowplay, I am not bashing the marketing guys. Man I wish that guy would leave me alone.
The flights I've been flying lately on the MD are all full, so supply and demand says let's bump the tickets a bit so that we can make a little coin!
06-10-2009, 05:52 AM
#8104
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by dragon
This is the same problem I see. Our network guys have done a great job on the international front but I think they are neglecting some of the domestic stuff. My market has direct connections to three DAL-S hibs and three DAL-N hubs, they're all RJs and every one of them is oversold!
The flights I've been flying lately on the MD are all full, so supply and demand says let's bump the tickets a bit so that we can make a little coin!
The flights I've been flying lately on the MD are all full, so supply and demand says let's bump the tickets a bit so that we can make a little coin!
Also, we have some longstanding contracts with these DCI carriers. Some of them have an actual floor on the amount of flights, but most are just a percentage of the DCI flying. Either way it is going to be a few years at a min before we see any of these come up for renegotiation. In the mean time, what the issue is, is signing newer contracts with any DCI carrier that is long term. IE a 10+ year deal with RJET for more 175's. That is counterproductive to what we want. The issue is there is no way to stop this in the CBA.
One of the arguements that I have been given by people on Va. Ave is that we have the long term contracts that we cannot get out of, so we need planes for them to fly. Well if they keep signing these deals, their actions are so loud that we cannot hear the words.
06-10-2009, 06:25 AM
#8105
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Republic has at least four operating certificates and one seniority list. Management can play games with the Certificates, but the pilots on that property are at least insulated from whipsaw within their brand. Excellent post. I'd only add that without effective scope we don't have jobs and the rest of the contract doesn't matter when when you are off the property. Scope determines when you upgrade, when you hold that coveted widebody Captain position. It is not just a "junior pilot" issue.
Our scope has provided a reverse incentive to put jets off the property. By promoting whipsaw on the lower end and forcing tremendous competition amongst DCI bidders, we have encouraged outsourcing and put direct pressure on the wages & working conditions for our smaller equipment. Now this huge investment of more than 10 billion dollars in RJ's has its own snow ball effect - when Delta needs to park jets they are going to park the ones that are paid for and that don't have huge costs while sitting in the desert. Those airplanes are more often than not their own oldest RJ's at Comair and our own 767's, 757's, MD88's and soon to be integrated DC9's.
Instead of being pleased that Compass's costs are 30% less than the other DCI bidders, we should be happy when the lowest paid pilots at the crappiest (not Compass, lets say Mesa) get a raise because frankly, we need $140 an hour rates on the E170 if we are going to get Southwest rates on our 737's.
Of outsourcing and offsetting our pay with the lowest paid regionals worked (for us, or our employers), we'd be at our historical pay plus 50% instead of C2K minus 50%. As ACL 65 has well explained, there is too much cost involved in outsourcing... be better deal is probably in-sourcing.
And to all - my apologies. I'll try to leave it alone and let this thread return to its' proper topic, the latest and greatest of the latest, greatest, airline on Earth.
Our scope has provided a reverse incentive to put jets off the property. By promoting whipsaw on the lower end and forcing tremendous competition amongst DCI bidders, we have encouraged outsourcing and put direct pressure on the wages & working conditions for our smaller equipment. Now this huge investment of more than 10 billion dollars in RJ's has its own snow ball effect - when Delta needs to park jets they are going to park the ones that are paid for and that don't have huge costs while sitting in the desert. Those airplanes are more often than not their own oldest RJ's at Comair and our own 767's, 757's, MD88's and soon to be integrated DC9's.
Instead of being pleased that Compass's costs are 30% less than the other DCI bidders, we should be happy when the lowest paid pilots at the crappiest (not Compass, lets say Mesa) get a raise because frankly, we need $140 an hour rates on the E170 if we are going to get Southwest rates on our 737's.
Of outsourcing and offsetting our pay with the lowest paid regionals worked (for us, or our employers), we'd be at our historical pay plus 50% instead of C2K minus 50%. As ACL 65 has well explained, there is too much cost involved in outsourcing... be better deal is probably in-sourcing.
And to all - my apologies. I'll try to leave it alone and let this thread return to its' proper topic, the latest and greatest of the latest, greatest, airline on Earth.
I, unlike some others on this board, am not ready to throw Moak under the bus. I agree with his overall strategic approach. Militant unionism in this country has failed in almost every industry. We make money when the company makes money is the proper strategy, IMHO. But if he and his administration give up more scope relief for ANY REASON, I will support an alternative.
Send me some of those stickers!
06-10-2009, 06:56 AM
#8106
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Lee has a very good approach to almost everything. I just wish we would change course on scope! It is not a barging chip. We have done this in the past and it has gotten us nowhere.
06-10-2009, 07:29 AM
#8107
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left, left, left right left....
Posts: 911
Originally Posted by satchip
Militant unionism in this country has failed in almost every industry. We make money when the company makes money is the proper strategy, IMHO. But if he and his administration give up more scope relief for ANY REASON, I will support an alternative.
Send me some of those stickers!
Send me some of those stickers!
Anyone who thinks the Co. will pass the profits on to employees out of benevolence and altruism is naive.
A MEC who's stance is that they want to help the Co. make money (RJ's help our bottom line!) so they'll get a raise scares the crap out of me.
These comments come from those who are immune, or think they are immune from Scope concessions. If I was a 767A I'd probably be tempted to think that too. Unfortunately there is more to representing your constituents than just ensuring they have a job with no hope of advancement while you have enjoyed yours.
06-10-2009, 08:07 AM
#8108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
For the record, I'll be there on the 23rd. We should wear nametags.
Proxies will only be valid for the business listed on the published agenda – even if there are other resolutions presented, proxies may not be used since they were not submitted with the advanced agenda.
Generic Proxy Form
Being unable to attend the DAL Council 44 Meeting on June 23, 2009,
I designate ___________________________________as my proxy to represent me at the above local council meeting and no other to vote on the specific subjects listed onthe published agenda for this meeting,
1) Scope Brief Resolution
2) Approval of Meeting Minutes
And no other questions before the council in my absence.
Signed _______________________________________Date_______ _____
Print name __________________________________________________ __
ALPA Number ___________________________________
I designate ___________________________________as my proxy to represent me at the above local council meeting and no other to vote on the specific subjects listed onthe published agenda for this meeting,
1) Scope Brief Resolution
2) Approval of Meeting Minutes
And no other questions before the council in my absence.
Signed _______________________________________Date_______ _____
Print name __________________________________________________ __
ALPA Number ___________________________________
Constitution and By-Laws Article III, Section 3G, Proxies:
"Proxies for a Local Council meeting must be in writing, from an Active member in good standing, and for the specific subjects listed on the published agenda. Stated on the proxy must be the name of the person issuing the proxy, the person to whom issued, and the subjects covered by the proxy. No member shall be able to vote more than three (3) proxies. Proxies may be used in any vote by secret ballot in a Local Council meeting except those votes enumerated in Section 3E of this Article." Article III, Section 3E, Voting: At all meetings of a Local Council, all questions coming before such Council shall be decided by a majority vote of the Local Council members in attendance (including valid proxies except as provided in the following sentence), and each Active Local Council member in good standing shall have one (1) vote. Proxies may not be used for secret ballots required in Article III, Section 2E(3) (Interim Status Representatives); Article III, Section 7A(1) (Nomination of Representatives); Article IV, Section 2B (Strike Votes); Article IX, Section 7B (Assessments), and ALPA's contract ratification procedures.
Interpretation of the Executive Council: The Executive Council, at its December 2000 meeting, interpreted Article III, Section 3G as follows: “Proxy forms under Article III, Section 3G of the Constitution and By-Laws must be completed in their entirety and signed by the member giving the proxy, including the name of the proxy holder, when the form is signed.”
Interpretation of the Executive Council: The Executive Council, at its December 2000 meeting, interpreted Article III, Section 3G as follows: “Proxy forms under Article III, Section 3G of the Constitution and By-Laws must be completed in their entirety and signed by the member giving the proxy, including the name of the proxy holder, when the form is signed.”
06-10-2009, 08:15 AM
#8109
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Fly4hire
I disagree. We lose money when the Co. loses money, we only gain money when the Co. makes money through aggressive unionism and bargaining.
Anyone who thinks the Co. will pass the profits on to employees out of benevolence and altruism is naive.
A MEC who's stance is that they want to help the Co. make money (RJ's help our bottom line!) so they'll get a raise scares the crap out of me.
These comments come from those who are immune, or think they are immune from Scope concessions. If I was a 767A I'd probably be tempted to think that too. Unfortunately there is more to representing your constituents than just ensuring they have a job with no hope of advancement while you have enjoyed yours.
Anyone who thinks the Co. will pass the profits on to employees out of benevolence and altruism is naive.
A MEC who's stance is that they want to help the Co. make money (RJ's help our bottom line!) so they'll get a raise scares the crap out of me.
These comments come from those who are immune, or think they are immune from Scope concessions. If I was a 767A I'd probably be tempted to think that too. Unfortunately there is more to representing your constituents than just ensuring they have a job with no hope of advancement while you have enjoyed yours.
What he is referring to is the profit based compensation. (The little bit of extra cash when we make a but load of money.
I want more in my base pay too. We lost money last year, what happened to management compensation and bonuses?
I think that we should have the same deal the executives have. Guaranteed take home pay. I would be willing to take our current take home as a good start and have the company pay the taxes! (Now this is an idea I can get behind!)
06-10-2009, 08:20 AM
#8110
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Goldman Sachs [GS 146.54 -2.77 (-1.86%) ] CEO Lloyd Blankfein said on Wednesday he believed a current upturn in world markets was probably not a full recovery from crisis and said he expected a further long recession.
"I think it's going to be a long proctracted recession," he told an international regulators conference in Tel Aviv.
Addressing a current upturn in markets, he said: "There is no reason to think this is it ... So many things have to be sorted out. Why would this be the recovery?
"The chances are it's not."
"I think it's going to be a long proctracted recession," he told an international regulators conference in Tel Aviv.
Addressing a current upturn in markets, he said: "There is no reason to think this is it ... So many things have to be sorted out. Why would this be the recovery?
"The chances are it's not."
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
