That's a really pessimistic stretch you're making there... How could locking the current ratio possibly be seen as "improving the balance of flying between Delta and DCI"? Yes, I hope you are wrong as well.

I was underwhelmed by the first read through, but they are addressing most of my concerns with "improve" statements, so I'll wait for the TA to make my judgement.

I was pleased to see the attempt to redefine flight time based on the door being closed.

 

The concept of ratios and balances with DCI was tried, and failed, in Contract 2000. So was this "holding company" language. When Delta management needed every ounce of performance from the DCI network to try to save the Company the passengers (and the pilots) allowed those provisions of Contract 2000 to be jettisoned almost immediately to save the ship. When our job protection provisions fail, we should not simply wait until the next Section 6 and renegotiate them back in again.

Our Section 1 proposal, along with numerous anecdotal accounts, tells me ALPA (specifically the Delta MEC) intends to remain in this outsourcing partnership with management.

 

I've been reviewing our 2011 10-K filing for some facts.

http://investing.businessweek.com/re...&formType=10-K

Fuel was 36% of our operating expense at $11.8B.

All employee salaries made up 22% of expenses, costing $6.8B

Total operating expense was $31.4B.

We have 10,850 active pilots, out of 78,400 total employees. Pilots make up 14% of the workforce.

Now I'm going to make an assumption, because I can't break out pilot cost in the filing.

Average pilot pay & benefits:$130,000 x 10,850 pilots = $1.4B.

$1.4B / $31.4B = 4.5%...Pilots are less than 5% of the company's operating expense.

According to the filing, fuel costs increased from $8.9B in 2010 to $11.8B in 2011.

$11.8B / $8.9B = a 33% increase year over year.

I guess my point in all this is that the company successfully covered increased costs in its greatest operating expense, fuel, 1/3rd of its cost overall. It covered a 33% increase.

Pilots make up less than 1/20th of its operating expense. It could easily cover a 33% increase in 1/20th of its current expense.

 

Absolutely disgusted by the lack of lower end scope recapture. Sure, let them fly some 50 seaters to feed, but those 170's need to be crewed by delta pilots. When the beach is eroding you add sand back to the bank. Alpa's just assuming there will never be a storm. Once those airbus's and 737's are washed away this career is DONE. It is obvious alpa wants status quo with scope and never intended to fight back. Way too much pressure from our "union with conflicted interest". Moak represents a LOT more regionals now than he does majors. His crowd to please is NOT us!!

Alpa is 38 airlines and only 2 are majors. When are these smart pilots finally going to do the math on this? We're gonna leave alpa. It's mathematical certainty. You think SWA, ups, usair, amr are going to come back? Right now CAPA represents more mainline pilots than alpa does!! If delta pilots go to capa, capa will represent more airline pilots total than alpa! You think united will sit there holding the bag at alpa once were gone? Sit back, look at the whole view. As acl used to say...read the tea leaves. It's quite simple really.

So back to scope...if we make no headway now what happens when a judge forces us to give away the 737's and airbus's in 10-15 years. What are we going to do then?

We leave alpa, united will follow. CAPA becomes huge, representing almost all mainline pilots. Alpa will represent regional carriers and there's nothing wrong with that. CAPA will be alpa v2.0 without all the bloat. Ok rant over...

Former alpa rep and alpa board of director member.

Ask away....I have tons of stories....

 

Fly2002,

How do we know the DPA will not enter into the same partnership with management to use outsourcing to supplement our pay rates?

Do you really believe our outsourcing is due to pressure from National?

 

I'm struggling with the "improve the balance of flying language, because that can be read all sorts of ways. As others mentionned, the economics of the 50-seat RJ are doing all the improvements we need, when looking at the cap on large RJ's. In yesterday's webcast, Bastian talked about his 350 50-seat RJ problem, and said something to the effect that we will have to have discussions with our DC partners and airframe manufacturers, and be "creative". That better mean crewing airplanes with Delta pilots only. The regional industry is probably on the verge of a fatal double-blow, with both RJ eceonomics, and pilot staffing issues combining in the near future.

Why would we want to save them, when we can fold them back in, where they belong?

Also fascinating that we will ask to codify the minimum crew complement at TWO pilots. I think this is looking far into the future, where the airframe manufacturers and avionics OEM's will try to "solve" (co-)pilot shortages with extra autopilots, a remote, and a german shepherd.

Lots of discussion about whether 750-hours or 1,500 hours makes sense for a newhire F/O... I can think of a time when we won't have either. It already happened once, in the seventies, when people were hired while working on their instrument ticket.

 

We don't. It's a matter of believing that the same pilot group, with different leadership, would not opt for the easy trade. Then again, one of the premises of the DPA is that ALPA doesn't represent the pilots, but they would.

If you represent pilots that consistently give direction to their reps to get more payrates first, and pilots consistently vote for contracts that do exactly that, you're going to end up with Scope erosion.

To recover, you need grassroot dissatisfaction with scope erosion, i.e. for pilots to properly prioritize. We're getting closer, but we're still just a bunch of payrate whoares.

The problem with ALPA isn't that it's failing to represent us faithfully (with some glaring exceptions, such as Age 65), but that it's faithfully representing a group that's been traditionally short-sighted.

I'm only mildly optimistic that "improving the ratio of DALCI" is a walking that line between the payrate whoares, in us, and those who understand a payrate doesn't matter if you don't have the job. If we could reduce the proportion of DCI flying, excluding the endangered/oscolescent/dying 50-seat flying, that would signify Scope re-capture. I don't expect that to happen all in one contract. Add stronger large-gauge/JV language, turboprop language, and stricter language on subsidiaries, and I could agree to such a T/A.

At any rate, there is a thread for DPA/ALPA stuff.

 

Speaking of whoares, here's something I like:

• Require ALV reduction during furlough periods
• Limit green slip flying until all furloughed pilots offered recall

 

Couldn't have said it better. Two additional points:

1. This was NOT the opener given to management folks. This was the highly sanitized "conceptual" version. The example of us demanding sprinklers in our hotel rooms is the level of specifics that management got in all sections. If management only got a "conceptual" opener, that part should have read: "improve hotel rooms."

2. Understand that this Section 1 position is now the High Water Mark. Negotiating in good faith will almost certainly require us to come off this crazy high water mark opening position of ours. Regarding Section1, it's very clear that it was written for us by ALPA national and the regional MEC's. They are unharmed and protected with language regarding preferential hiring.

Carl

 

Whereas: The current Section 1 opener is akin to a wife asking her husband if the blue drapes or the white drapes look better while the house is on fire.

Let it be Moved: Bullet point #1 on Scope Opener be re-written:

""Provide job security, longevity, quality of life and upgrade potential for Delta pilots by requiring all flights bearing Delta code be operated by Delta Air Lines crews"

Do I have a second?