Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
12-03-2011 | 09:00 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
Reasons not to bid the ER in NYC:
1.) 3 airports to cover which are 100 miles apart.
2.) Bedbugs.
3.) ATC congestion.
4.) Mean people.
5.) Expensive food.
6.) Evil Flight Attendants.
7.) Godzilla bid into the category.
Thanks 80.
12-03-2011 | 09:06 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
My concern is that we see this sort of contractual side step of ratification happening via MOU's and grievance settlements. The most shocking example being that of the American Eagle waiver of Section 1 by their Grievance Committee Chair.
IMHO ANY change to Section 1 should be at least an MEC vote. Strangely, and inexplicably, our MEC defends the status quo. It is like they want to continue to trade in our job protection provisions, but don't want the responsibility ... a "super committee of one." When he dirt hits the fan, the Reps can blame the "one" and replace him without much political fall out.
Perhaps a resolution at the lower levels would at least get this talked about on the MEC level.
12-03-2011 | 09:21 AM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
George, you and I are in complete agreement, but there is nothing we can do about it right now. I'm a little surprised we are not furloughing a few hundred pilots for 24 months as a result of this single MOU.
My concern is that we see this sort of contractual side step of ratification happening via MOU's and grievance settlements. The most shocking example being that of the American Eagle waiver of Section 1 by their Grievance Committee Chair.
IMHO ANY change to Section 1 should be at least an MEC vote. Strangely, and inexplicably, our MEC defends the status quo. It is like they want to continue to trade in our job protection provisions, but don't want the responsibility ... a "super committee of one." When he dirt hits the fan, the Reps can blame the "one" and replace him without much political fall out.
Perhaps a resolution at the lower levels would at least get this talked about on the MEC level.
My concern is that we see this sort of contractual side step of ratification happening via MOU's and grievance settlements. The most shocking example being that of the American Eagle waiver of Section 1 by their Grievance Committee Chair.
IMHO ANY change to Section 1 should be at least an MEC vote. Strangely, and inexplicably, our MEC defends the status quo. It is like they want to continue to trade in our job protection provisions, but don't want the responsibility ... a "super committee of one." When he dirt hits the fan, the Reps can blame the "one" and replace him without much political fall out.
Perhaps a resolution at the lower levels would at least get this talked about on the MEC level.
I know you hate talking about this Bar, but there IS something we can do about it. 4,000 pilots plus and growing have already decided.
Carl
12-03-2011 | 10:26 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
You're world will change forever for the better that first time they make real eye contact with you and smile and you realize you're everything to them... do that math on how long that takes though and hang in there til then.
To make this relevant, I've made one landing in a real MD-88 in 50 days but I am primed and ready for any catastrophe, RTO, OEI, GPWS or windshear event or even a simple go-around thanks to recurrent.
What's nice is they put the ATL guys in the 90 sim for recurrent, that sim is niiiiice. But I must say the crew resources emailers are fascinating to read.
12-03-2011 | 10:53 AM
Banned
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
Originally Posted by Delta1067
What are PERPS?
Early retirement program.
That's one way to put it. Another way would be for DALPA to allow pilots to retire, then come back and fly the line while being off the seniority list. With 1000 guys on furlough no less.....
Great program, hope to see that again.
What are PERPS?
Early retirement program.
That's one way to put it. Another way would be for DALPA to allow pilots to retire, then come back and fly the line while being off the seniority list. With 1000 guys on furlough no less.....
Great program, hope to see that again.
12-03-2011 | 11:12 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
From: DL 7ER F/O
I viewed the PERP as the companies get out of jail free card that we stupidly gave them, whereas bankruptcy these days is not the failure of a business plan, it IS the plan. Just like people who ran up vast amounts on credit cards, and then filed for bankruptcy, knowing full well all along that would be their scapegoat.
Naw, I don't buy it!!
Naw, I don't buy it!!
12-03-2011 | 11:41 AM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
12-03-2011 | 11:46 AM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
Saling;
I did more than call the office. I talked to the person responsible for crafting this language face to face, and then via e-mail at length.
If we were at 0, 0 then 49.5 we would have bigger problems to deal with. Under the terms spelled out in MOU 14, once reaching 49.50 it is considered 50-50 and at that point a new measurement period starts. There is no look back for this scenario. They basically have three years to get there since we started at 47.2 with the addition of AZ. Some purport we could go to 0, 0 then be in compliance and that may true, but unrealistic. The bigger game is we get half of the EASK's available going forward.
What George mentions about there being no bottom end compliance right now is as far as I can tell, and as far as I have been told by those who crafted the language, is true, but not likely. We are in the initial three year measurement period with AZ. We are not even in compliance with the new balance. Once that happens what you state is true.
I may disagree with a new measurement period being down via MOU, but this language and how it is implemented is very complex. It involves the DAL marketing agreements with the other JV carriers and then them with us. What this team did was keep a even percentage of EASK's for our pilots. Yes, the corrective window will not happen for a few years, but the long term gains are significant. We have only seen a down side to the capacity since it was drafted, if there is ever an up side, we will profit handsomely. With the profit and loss of the Bundle 1 flying being shared equally, it gives incentives beyond the language in LOA 16 and MOU 14 to keep the flying as close to equal as possible. Each side gets a few city pairs they can opt out of each year, but as a whole the profit loss is shared, and therefore, the execs want the risk and exposure shared equally.
I did more than call the office. I talked to the person responsible for crafting this language face to face, and then via e-mail at length.
If we were at 0, 0 then 49.5 we would have bigger problems to deal with. Under the terms spelled out in MOU 14, once reaching 49.50 it is considered 50-50 and at that point a new measurement period starts. There is no look back for this scenario. They basically have three years to get there since we started at 47.2 with the addition of AZ. Some purport we could go to 0, 0 then be in compliance and that may true, but unrealistic. The bigger game is we get half of the EASK's available going forward.
What George mentions about there being no bottom end compliance right now is as far as I can tell, and as far as I have been told by those who crafted the language, is true, but not likely. We are in the initial three year measurement period with AZ. We are not even in compliance with the new balance. Once that happens what you state is true.
I may disagree with a new measurement period being down via MOU, but this language and how it is implemented is very complex. It involves the DAL marketing agreements with the other JV carriers and then them with us. What this team did was keep a even percentage of EASK's for our pilots. Yes, the corrective window will not happen for a few years, but the long term gains are significant. We have only seen a down side to the capacity since it was drafted, if there is ever an up side, we will profit handsomely. With the profit and loss of the Bundle 1 flying being shared equally, it gives incentives beyond the language in LOA 16 and MOU 14 to keep the flying as close to equal as possible. Each side gets a few city pairs they can opt out of each year, but as a whole the profit loss is shared, and therefore, the execs want the risk and exposure shared equally.
12-03-2011 | 11:51 AM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
12-03-2011 | 11:51 AM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
ALPA lawyers...that's who. You know, the best lawyers money can buy. But like you said the other day: "if ALPA can't do it, what makes you think DPA could?"
You are seriously correct.
I'm glad it gives you pause. But we've got DALPA people posting here telling us that these JV's are really good for Delta pilots.
Carl
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
