Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-06-2012 | 04:51 PM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
04-06-2012 | 04:53 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Likes: 0
They could say "we demand as one of our highest priorities a significant reduction in the Alaska code share abuse and significantly fewer outsourced aircraft at DCI."
That is vague and conceptual and leaves a lot of room at the bargaining table. It merely points to the direction we intend on going. Just like for pay. We didn't say exactly what percentage we were after, but we did say we wanted significant increases in pay. Ditto for many other sections. But when it comes to scope we deviate from that and invent murky constructs like "production balances" which could mean worse scope and more large RJ's depending on how its defined at the moment.
That is vague and conceptual and leaves a lot of room at the bargaining table. It merely points to the direction we intend on going. Just like for pay. We didn't say exactly what percentage we were after, but we did say we wanted significant increases in pay. Ditto for many other sections. But when it comes to scope we deviate from that and invent murky constructs like "production balances" which could mean worse scope and more large RJ's depending on how its defined at the moment.
Section 1:
Scope provisions of the PWA provide the framework for Delta pilot careers. These provisions provide critical job security protections and enhance career progression. To strengthen that framework, the Delta pilots propose the following improvements:
Scope provisions of the PWA provide the framework for Delta pilot careers. These provisions provide critical job security protections and enhance career progression. To strengthen that framework, the Delta pilots propose the following improvements:
- Establish appropriate production balance protections in all future JVs
- Improve protections for domestic and international codeshare
- Improve balance of flying between Delta and DCI
- Change the definition of “permitted aircraft type” to include propeller and geared turbo-fan aircraft
- Add new language to restrict the use of permitted and non-permitted aircraft within holding companies
04-06-2012 | 04:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Likes: 0
04-06-2012 | 04:56 PM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
I get what you're saying, as most others probably do. To make your point a little clearer, may I take it one step farther?
** Hypothetically ** We allow the company to outsource one 77 seat aircraft, but every other RJ must immediately be parked on signing (or brought to mainline). We relaxed our seat limit (by 1, for one airframe), but significantly tightened up narrowbody scope overall. In that case, I think most guys would consider it a win.
The heartburn that everyone feels here, myself included, is by simply making the hypothetical trade above, we have continued to concede that scope is negotiable. What most guys desperately want to hear is that:
1. We are sick of this outsourcing experiment
2. We are tied to the long-term viability of Delta and have a very real interest in the brand (arguably more than any mgmt team ever will)
3. Delta pilots will fly Delta passengers
My major concern is that once this stagnation period ends around 2017, that guys will be riding high on retirement advancement and being concerned about scope will fall out of fashion. Of course that will only work until the music stops again, and we're all stuck in whatever seat we end up in (kinda like now). My point is NOW is the time to reverse the scope damage that's been done. We are negotiating with a profitable company, and there really won't be a better time to get this done.
I agree with you that everything is negotiable, but unless it involves some serious tightening of scope, I'm not interested. Call me a 1 issue voter if you want, but this is too important to put off until later.
** Hypothetically ** We allow the company to outsource one 77 seat aircraft, but every other RJ must immediately be parked on signing (or brought to mainline). We relaxed our seat limit (by 1, for one airframe), but significantly tightened up narrowbody scope overall. In that case, I think most guys would consider it a win.
The heartburn that everyone feels here, myself included, is by simply making the hypothetical trade above, we have continued to concede that scope is negotiable. What most guys desperately want to hear is that:
1. We are sick of this outsourcing experiment
2. We are tied to the long-term viability of Delta and have a very real interest in the brand (arguably more than any mgmt team ever will)
3. Delta pilots will fly Delta passengers
My major concern is that once this stagnation period ends around 2017, that guys will be riding high on retirement advancement and being concerned about scope will fall out of fashion. Of course that will only work until the music stops again, and we're all stuck in whatever seat we end up in (kinda like now). My point is NOW is the time to reverse the scope damage that's been done. We are negotiating with a profitable company, and there really won't be a better time to get this done.
I agree with you that everything is negotiable, but unless it involves some serious tightening of scope, I'm not interested. Call me a 1 issue voter if you want, but this is too important to put off until later.
04-06-2012 | 04:57 PM
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
There are two statements in the opener that directly address your concerns. The first is "improve protections for domestic and international code share" and the second "improve the balance of flying between Delta and DCI." From the opener:
Section 1:
Scope provisions of the PWA provide the framework for Delta pilot careers. These provisions provide critical job security protections and enhance career progression. To strengthen that framework, the Delta pilots propose the following improvements:
Scope provisions of the PWA provide the framework for Delta pilot careers. These provisions provide critical job security protections and enhance career progression. To strengthen that framework, the Delta pilots propose the following improvements:
- Establish appropriate production balance protections in all future JVs
- Improve protections for domestic and international codeshare
- Improve balance of flying between Delta and DCI
- Change the definition of “permitted aircraft type” to include propeller and geared turbo-fan aircraft
- Add new language to restrict the use of permitted and non-permitted aircraft within holding companies
Please tell me you can see why there is significant nervousness among the ranks in regard to the extreme vagueness of the language present in what you quoted.
04-06-2012 | 04:58 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
I get what you're saying, as most others probably do. To make your point a little clearer, may I take it one step farther?
** Hypothetically ** We allow the company to outsource one 77 seat aircraft, but every other RJ must immediately be parked on signing (or brought to mainline). We relaxed our seat limit (by 1, for one airframe), but significantly tightened up narrowbody scope overall. In that case, I think most guys would consider it a win.
The heartburn that everyone feels here, myself included, is by simply making the hypothetical trade above, we have continued to concede that scope is negotiable. What most guys desperately want to hear is that:
1. We are sick of this outsourcing experiment
2. We are tied to the long-term viability of Delta and have a very real interest in the brand (arguably more than any mgmt team ever will)
3. Delta pilots will fly Delta passengers
My major concern is that once this stagnation period ends around 2017, that guys will be riding high on retirement advancement and being concerned about scope will fall out of fashion. Of course that will only work until the music stops again, and we're all stuck in whatever seat we end up in (kinda like now). My point is NOW is the time to reverse the scope damage that's been done. We are negotiating with a profitable company, and there really won't be a better time to get this done.
I agree with you that everything is negotiable, but unless it involves some serious tightening of scope, I'm not interested. Call me a 1 issue voter if you want, but this is too important to put off until later.
** Hypothetically ** We allow the company to outsource one 77 seat aircraft, but every other RJ must immediately be parked on signing (or brought to mainline). We relaxed our seat limit (by 1, for one airframe), but significantly tightened up narrowbody scope overall. In that case, I think most guys would consider it a win.
The heartburn that everyone feels here, myself included, is by simply making the hypothetical trade above, we have continued to concede that scope is negotiable. What most guys desperately want to hear is that:
1. We are sick of this outsourcing experiment
2. We are tied to the long-term viability of Delta and have a very real interest in the brand (arguably more than any mgmt team ever will)
3. Delta pilots will fly Delta passengers
My major concern is that once this stagnation period ends around 2017, that guys will be riding high on retirement advancement and being concerned about scope will fall out of fashion. Of course that will only work until the music stops again, and we're all stuck in whatever seat we end up in (kinda like now). My point is NOW is the time to reverse the scope damage that's been done. We are negotiating with a profitable company, and there really won't be a better time to get this done.
I agree with you that everything is negotiable, but unless it involves some serious tightening of scope, I'm not interested. Call me a 1 issue voter if you want, but this is too important to put off until later.
That is a very classic negotiating tactic. Its like the famous hot girl in a bar joke where you ask her if she's a prostitute, she says no, so you offer her one million dollars and she says ok and then you say "now that we've established what you are, let's talk price". That's all ANY form of more large outsourced RJ's is. No matter how attractive the terms are when its in the philosophical stage, its just to establish that out flying is for sale and setting the tone that we're cool with it.
Scope is absolutely a litmus test, for everything. Pay, vacation, work rules, retirement, everything. Its what everything else is built on and the more we sell or give away, the weaker our remaining position ultimately becomes.
04-06-2012 | 04:59 PM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
04-06-2012 | 05:03 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
There are two statements in the opener that directly address your concerns. The first is "improve protections for domestic and international code share" and the second "improve the balance of flying between Delta and DCI." From the opener:
Section 1:
Scope provisions of the PWA provide the framework for Delta pilot careers. These provisions provide critical job security protections and enhance career progression. To strengthen that framework, the Delta pilots propose the following improvements:
Scope provisions of the PWA provide the framework for Delta pilot careers. These provisions provide critical job security protections and enhance career progression. To strengthen that framework, the Delta pilots propose the following improvements:
- Establish appropriate production balance protections in all future JVs
- Improve protections for domestic and international codeshare
- Improve balance of flying between Delta and DCI
- Change the definition of “permitted aircraft type” to include propeller and geared turbo-fan aircraft
- Add new language to restrict the use of permitted and non-permitted aircraft within holding companies
Fewer large RJ's is fewer large RJ's though. How many fewer? That depends and gives a lot of flexibility, but at least its fewer. But we absolutely refuse to "go there" and the real question is why?
04-06-2012 | 05:10 PM
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
Maybe. But that would depend on what "production balance" even means, how its interpreted and what the language ends up being. For example, for every 20 fifty seaters that are parked, the company can outsource 19 CRJ900/905's and/or EMB170/175's. Technically, that could be defined as an improvement in the production balance, right?
Fewer large RJ's is fewer large RJ's though. How many fewer? That depends and gives a lot of flexibility, but at least its fewer. But we absolutely refuse to "go there" and the real question is why?
Fewer large RJ's is fewer large RJ's though. How many fewer? That depends and gives a lot of flexibility, but at least its fewer. But we absolutely refuse to "go there" and the real question is why?
04-06-2012 | 05:19 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
That's a pretty weak example IMO. You can't spin 20 50 seaters parked for 19 76 seaters delivered as a balance. Those airplanes have 26 more seats per airframe. That's not a balance at all. If anyone believed that, I want them to look at my ocean front property in Arizona that's for sale.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
