|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1142396)
I was listening to the local sports guys yesterday and they were talking about negotiations and how as a player you don't want to be in them. Their example was a MLB player is going into contract negotiations after batting .305, 140 home runs and 520 runs batter in. He is pretty proud of himself but if he was in the negotiating room he'd be shocked to hear his team say "but your struck out 80 times. You batted .210 from May 21st to June 5th. 150 of your 520 runs batted in came in a losing effort." And so on.
Point being, I think we're going to get trashed with some funny numbers in the coming year. Not necessarily false, just not indicative of reality. "You're costs were up because of overtime." We can only fly overtime if you offer us overtime, eh?. Easy Button Wtf BOOOOOM - YouTube Well played, sir. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1142449)
How will it improve productivity? Are you planning B scale work rules for the New hires? I sure hope not. Normally hiring actually reduces overall productivity since you end up with a lot of pilots in the school house. During past major hiring binges we had to overstaff around 10 percent for training volume. That is why when the hiring stops we are always overstaffed.
Actual pay costs will go down as you bring pilots in at the bottom of scale. That is however a somewhat temporary gain. Yes, all those hires will eventually be 12's one day, but as they mature up the scale there will be a steady, forever stream of 12's leaving and 1's coming in on the bottom to start over. And that's if we stagnate forever. Imagine if we actually grew. You know, like all those other carriers that DL is providing the "Capacity Dicipline" for. If we could push the AF/KLM balance back to 50% (and actually keep it there, as well as including ALL their cargo into the mix as it should be) and reduce the Alaska code share abuse by even just 10 or 20% we could actually be in growth mode, which further lowers costs by creating and leveraging the juniority of costs across the entire operation at the same time revenue volume and opportunities are increasing. And if we can stop the outsourcing of 255 DC-9-10 replacement jets we could have thousands of new hire pilots over the rest of this decade. It would suck to have to do that on a B scale of any sort (and I don't think that is warranted at all) but worst case a B scale and a longer airframe freeze for those new hires would mitigate a lot of those costs not to mention eliminating multipile layers of redundant management and guaranteed profits paid to other companies, some of which compete directly with us and are growing (and enjoying lower unit costs because of it) while we stagnate (and eat higher costs). |
Originally Posted by Elvis90
(Post 1142432)
Flew with a Line Check Airman last night...we were blitzing. He stated that in a recent meeting the discission was that interviews would occur late this year for 2013 hires, about 500, then 500 annually.
We were discussing the future contract as well, but their expectations weren't as high as mine. They anticipated negotiations to be completed by September, to give the company some time for its long-term plan. Management doesn't want a long drawn-out fight. Oh, and get ready for tablet PC's in the cockpit. The LCA's preference was the iPad - I asked if they were funded, and he said yes. Fuel savings from the loss of weight from the kits means that we'd quickly see a return on investment. Regarding the MD-88/90 flight instruments modification, it's getting a re-look for approval because the memory in the MD-90 is far less than the database in the MD-88, which limits operations, so it is actually a decent business case for the flexibility it provides. And everybody loves Richard...they don't want to lose him and get another Leo Mullins. |
I'm just happy that mgmt doesn't want a long, drawn-out fight. 40%, 70+ seaters, & code share discipline and I won't fight a bit.
|
I'm just happy that mgmt doesn't want a long, drawn-out fight. 40%, 70+ seaters, & code share discipline and I won't fight a bit. |
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
(Post 1142584)
I'm just happy that mgmt doesn't want a long, drawn-out fight. 40%, 70+ seaters, & code share discipline and I won't fight a bit.
|
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 1142597)
The last CA I flew with, who had DPA crew tags prominently displayed on his bags, said we are lucky if we get 5% up front, and 4% over the life of the contract. Hearing him say that made me vurp. I would share his other thoughts, but I think he might be on this forum so I will keep my mouth shut. However, his expectations and mine were vastly different.
|
Originally Posted by Elvis90
(Post 1142432)
Flew with a Line Check Airman last night...we were blitzing. He stated that in a recent meeting the discission was that interviews would occur late this year for 2013 hires, about 500, then 500 annually.
We were discussing the future contract as well, but their expectations weren't as high as mine. They anticipated negotiations to be completed by September, to give the company some time for its long-term plan. Management doesn't want a long drawn-out fight. Oh, and get ready for tablet PC's in the cockpit. The LCA's preference was the iPad - I asked if they were funded, and he said yes. Fuel savings from the loss of weight from the kits means that we'd quickly see a return on investment. Regarding the MD-88/90 flight instruments modification, it's getting a re-look for approval because the memory in the MD-90 is far less than the database in the MD-88, which limits operations, so it is actually a decent business case for the flexibility it provides. And everybody loves Richard...they don't want to lose him and get another Leo Mullins. |
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 1142597)
The last CA I flew with, who had DPA crew tags prominently displayed on his bags, said we are lucky if we get 5% up front, and 4% over the life of the contract. Hearing him say that made me vurp. I would share his other thoughts, but I think he might be on this forum so I will keep my mouth shut. However, his expectations and mine were vastly different.
Often it is said by some. "transparency". Well not a good thing to show the other side everything. But ok. More is good. "get rid of FPL" Ok abuses to crop up. (I would expect that at some point with DPA) so how does that get us restoration? What is the plan for that? how will DPA get us a better contract than ALPA.? "we have to start somewhere and DPA is the better choice" Ok maybe, maybe not. But bottom line it does not make a difference NOW we are already here. Openers DALPA do or die! So it always comes back IMO that DPA is good to get DALPA moving and change some behaviors, but no one has been able to tell me how DPA is going to be any different at getting what we all want..... Just sayin........ Also askin....... What would DPA's opener be? Maybe I spent too much time at state college or somethun (it is like going to high school twice) but i am always willing to listen, that is why I signed the card!:rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 1142597)
The last CA I flew with, who had DPA crew tags prominently displayed on his bags, said we are lucky if we get 5% up front, and 4% over the life of the contract. Hearing him say that made me vurp. I would share his other thoughts, but I think he might be on this forum so I will keep my mouth shut. However, his expectations and mine were vastly different.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:48 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands