|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FIIGMO http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/im...s/viewpost.gif The boat has sailed on that A/C [76 seaters] and it would be tough to get it back.
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1140483)
Not really. All we would have to "pay" are the lease payments...that we are already paying for 100% today. In many cases we are literally the cosigners and in quite a few cases ma DL actually owns the planes or leases them directly.
We need to move past this myth that we can't get a certain seat range back. We can and all it requires is pilot solidarity. It won't break the company either but if someone really wants to latch on to that false argument, then a B scale fixes that concern. B scales suck but are a million times better than outsourcing, which is a B scale anyway so there is zero moral high ground in claiming one is "preserving the profession" by outsourcing something at B scale rates instead of doing it ourselves. Guys, Like BB I would be willing to strike over Scope - not that we would actually be allowed to strike. As far as getting back the small jets - I think the 70 seaters and below will never be flown at DAL. The 76 seaters are very interesting. As the 50 seaters gradually become razor blades all DCI carriers will stagnate and look more and more like Comair. This could play out in a couple of ways: 1 As all DCI Pilot groups get senior, they will first stagnate, and then eventually shrink as they are underbid by the next fly by night Johnny come lately start up. Unfortunately the extreme cost pressures and the ability to pit carriers against each other will allow this. Not a pretty picture for the career DCI Pilots. 2. Another possibility is that somehow the DCI Pilots find a way to prevent this - doubtful but possible. This would result in the largest aircraft 70 or 76 seats, being flown by Pilots maxed out on longevity, 12, 18, 20 years or whatever. As DAL enters a continuous hiring mode these aircraft, if flown by maniline would be flown by the most junior pilots. Well how would first year FO pay and say, 3 or 4 year CAPT pay on the 76 seaters at DAL compare with maxed out Captain pay and proportional FO pay at DCI?? That is a very important question that is however only one cost factor. Other factors are - FA's, Maint, ACS etc. Some of these costs will be greater at DAL, others would be the same, but there could also be cost savings - outsourcing profits etc. Combine the above with the affects of future Pilot shortages * and who knows what will happen to the 76 seaters. * While we have been hearing about Pilot shortages for decades, and I doubt DAL will ever be lacking for applicants the quality of applicants will probably decrease, but we will no doubt always have a lot of guys and gals interested in DAL. The right seat of the connection carriers on the hand is a different issue - I think it will be very, very hard to fill this position in the near future for numerous reasons - all pointing to a shortage of qualified FO applicants. So what is the bottom line? Who knows, too many variables, but we should try to bring the 76 seaters back to DAL. Scoop |
Originally Posted by dalad
(Post 1140531)
Let's look at the international destinations gone from JFK in the last 3 years. MAN, EZE, CPT, AMM, CAI, KBP, BUD ARN, SNN, TXL, POS, LYS, Bucharest, any more?
The company is obviously disinterested in honoring the 50/50% share of EASKs and is maxing out the carte blanche handed to them 'till March 41, 2014. As a result WB flying is down and we will be displacing off the big jets in the upcoming March displacement bid. Is that their view of constructive engagement? Cheers George |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1140511)
That is a very interesting and good post Bar.
As to your last paragraph, what if the DPA went back and got Compass to vote them in under the same MEC? Practically, Compass is represented by ALPA, who would be fighting for its very existence if Delta pulled out. The last thing ALPA would do is cooperate with the DPA on a "unity." effort. ALPA has some remarkably effective tools in its tool box. IMHO ALPA has a strong track record of success legislatively, in safety, and in helping us keep our jobs on an individual (and properly kept very private) basis. We've done very well in mid contract negotiations. I do not want to loose those tools, or even the administrators that put them to good use. IMHO the part we need to fix (which is a very important component) is our union's view on outsourcing and unity. The rest works remarkably well. |
Originally Posted by dalad
(Post 1140531)
Let's look at the international destinations gone from JFK in the last 3 years. MAN, EZE, CPT, AMM, CAI, KBP, BUD ARN, SNN, TXL, POS, LYS, Bucharest, any more?
So we got that going for us...... |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1140466)
Not true ... The E175 / 900 is management's 100 seat jet and they have as many of them as we allow. It's trip costs are half of the MD88's. If we are going to upgauge markets like LGA, we need a jet that splits the 100% capacity gap between the CRJ900 and the MD88.
Lets correct your statement: "Delta's MEC does not want a 100 seat jet on the property, for fear it will dilute the pay on larger airplanes by allowing management a better, smaller, choice to the MD88 sized jets. D-ALPA's partnership with management to outsource jobs and cross collateralize our pay requires outsourcing." The made up conflict with Compass which made it necessary for the Delta MEC to boot them obviously was not created by management. The Delta MEC voted to divest those pilots. Of course this followed years of action which allowed more and more outsourcing, further diluting the negotiating power of ALPA pilots who flew those airplanes and lowering the floor on pilot pay and working conditions. Which was preceded by a made up seniority grab justification to keep ASA and Comair's small jet flying off the property. The record is absolutely clear on the matter in the form of votes. I am tired of being lied to about this issue. Management gets a pass since they don't have an obligation to their employees. ALPA doesn't get a pass. ALPA works for us, using our dues, and has a fiduciary duty to us. Worst of all this scheme has rotted ALPA's core. ALPA can't be unified as long as half of its flying is done by someone outside the control of our Bargaining Agent ... so we water down unity to a form of mindless allegiance and cede our reason for existence; we cede our structural difference with the DPA. The DPA should not be on the property. The DPA should not win. The DPA will not be good for Delta pilots, but if we are going to model Contract 2012 on the last decade's outsourcing scheme, then you've handed them the keys to the place. If the DPA ends up representing the Delta pilots it will be because ALPA was unable to effectively represent all Delta pilots, it's as simple as that. With the latest announcements and course set by the company, I am hoping for a matching course correction from ALPA, let's see if that materializes. Cheers George |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1140579)
strong track record of success legislatively, in safety, and in helping us keep our jobs on an individual (and properly kept very private) basis. We've done very well in mid contract negotiations. I do not want to loose those tools, or even the administrators that put them to good use. IMHO the part we need to fix (which is a very important component) is our union's view on outsourcing and unity. The rest works remarkably well.
If DALPA lobbies for slot swaps in Washington on behalf of Delta Then Delta decides to outsource in excess of 90% of the flying. And then GoJets, not represented at ALPA is the recipient of the flying. In the end, the entire raison d'être of a single union representing all pilots has been circumvented. It's just bad trade unionism period, it didn't even bolster ALPA. There are guys in DALPA that get it. They fiercely represent pilots and for their effectiveness are woefully underpaid and under appreciated. Unfortunately there is a similar sized contingent in our current administration that has little understanding or insight into the foundation of ALPA and how and why it came about, that's why there is the disconnect... If that element has their way, the door for DPA will be unlocked and propped wide open. Cheers George |
Originally Posted by contrails
(Post 1140570)
Yes, actually. EDI.
|
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1140593)
Bingo!
If DALPA lobbies for slot swaps in Washington on behalf of Delta Then Delta decides to outsource in excess of 90% of the flying. And then GoJets, not represented at ALPA is the recipient of the flying. In the end, the entire raison d'être of a single union representing all pilots has been circumvented. It's just bad trade unionism period, it didn't even bolster ALPA. There are guys in DALPA that get it. They fiercely represent pilots and for their effectiveness are woefully underpaid and under appreciated. Unfortunately there is a similar sized contingent in our current administration that has little understanding or insight into the foundation of ALPA and how and why it came about, that's why there is the disconnect... If that element has their way, the door for DPA will be unlocked and propped wide open. Cheers George If ALPA gives them 255 RJs, management takes 255 RJs. If ALPA gives them a loophole in scope that allows RAH to breach the spirit of our section 1, management takes full advantage. If ALPA forgets to specify that we need to approve new codeshares and demand a production balance, management signs as many codeshares as they possibly can and gives away half our flying. When are they going to realize that these guys are NOT OUR FRIENDS? We are an expense, and good business minimizes expenses. This is what it feels like to be minimized, and I certainly hope everyone remembers this when we get our first chance to vote. And that's vote on a TA or vote on a new union, whichever comes first. Right now the ball is in ALPA's court. Their actions alone will determine which vote we cast first. Frankly, I think DPA is doing just the right thing - sitting fairly quietly on the sideline, waiting to see whether those we pay to negotiate for us do their best. If not, they can step in, hopefully quickly, to fill the void left by a union that has lost touch with its members. |
Originally Posted by PilotFrog
(Post 1140410)
2012 pay table
12 YR CAPT FO ER 188.96 129.06 73-9 182.14 124.40 I wouldn't say it has to come up a whole lot. |
Originally Posted by Express pilot
(Post 1140373)
Then make the 88, 320, 737 700 and 800 all the same rate. SWA plus 5% min.
7ER and 737-900, 330,764,777,747 all the same. Most of your displacements would be from 737 7 and 8 and 320 to the 88 so less pilots affected by pay on displacements. fixed it for ya. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:48 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands