|
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1165923)
Although its a pet project here on APC, I don't think there's any chance that Delta will ever "combine DCIs together with DAL". For a multitude of reasons.
Given that reality, the reason they have "7 airlines with overlapping everything" is the Comair strike. That disastrous strike was handled so horribly (on both sides) and so incredibly costly that management vowed "never again". They will never allow a single connection carrier pilot group to get that tight of a stranglehold over a hub. That strike led directly to the slow death of Comair and the slow death of CVG as a hub. That's the real legacy of the RJDC boys and their captive MEC at Comair. It isn't our problem now, but it could end up influencing the sovereignty of DAL domestic feed issues if not kept in check. |
Happy Easter to my APC brethren. Was hoping to be home today, but someone called in sick, so I'll be home tonight.
|
Happy Easter to all!!!!
picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head with warm Jack poured all over it. |
Originally Posted by TANSTAAFL
(Post 1165919)
Nu,
Slowplay's answer is a half answer to a question that was not specific enough. I believe the resolution that addressed this was AI 11-95 from the Nov MEC Mtg (look on the comm committe page under resolutions, can't copy from my iPad). It was to study and report back on accounting practices and costs associated with various DCI flying to determine the true operating costs. It was NOT a study of whether 76 seat flying, aka E-175, could be performed at mainline, with seat, route, GW limits and other restrictions lifted, and duplicate managerial and other costs eliminated, and at what pay rate that could still allow a margin for the company, per Sailing's post. I believe that someone at ALPA has already decided they don't want to pursue this because while perhaps not a negative cost item, might detract from other possible PWA gains, so the question is not being seriously considered. Of course the company doesn't want to go there because with PCL in BK, they can keep whipsawing the DCI costs even lower. So we'll put them off the scent, trot out a few old power points and brush them off and say its not cost effective. I asked my LEC reps if any analysis as above has been done and they said not that they had seen. I also asked if there was any truth to the rumors of letting the company outsource further 76 seaters and was told they cannot discuss negotiation specifics. ****?!? My experience is that reps will usually tell you NO if there is no truth to a rumor, but when they can't discusses means BOHICA :mad: Lots of half truths and junk science getting floated around, and when people ask who is saying what, the only answer is "top men" "who?" "top....men" Nu |
Sailing's post and the thoughts of others overlook the role and responsibility of our union in protecting members' careers. The justifications for outsourcing remain an economic fact at any level (reflecting the union's work to get us above market pay). If it makes sense to outsource 70 seat flying then it makes more sense to outsource 757 flying.
That is why we must separate unity from economics. Nu is right. Our union has made a choice. |
There will always be a 'business case' for paying...everyone...less. Bob Crandal said it a long time ago, "I'd oursource EVERYONE if I thought I could get away with it!
So, where do you draw that line? And on related note, when it comes to Profits, how much is "Enough"? We have now crossed the magical $1Billion line, so...whats next? Should we all take pay cuts, so that next year they can earn $2Billion? Sure, you'll take another 42% pay cut, but think of that whopping profit sharing check! Or...should we get complete restoration, and next year's earnings are...Zero. ie. Delta breaks even, no losses, but no profit either. We get our $1Billion in pay cuts back, and Richard gets...break even. Think that will fly at the Board Meeting? Why, or why not? How much is enough? Do they have to show earnings growth, year over year, every year? Why? Discuss, I'll see if I can find my old Economics books and get back to you... |
Originally Posted by coryk
(Post 1165792)
Where will the pilots come from when the regionals shrink by that much? It's going to be interesting with not only Delta, but United, American, Airways, B6, SWA, VX, etc hiring, in in some cases heavy amounts.
|
Happy Easter all!
|
Originally Posted by TANSTAAFL
(Post 1165919)
Nu,
Slowplay's answer is a half answer to a question that was not specific enough. I believe the resolution that addressed this was AI 11-95 from the Nov MEC Mtg (look on the comm committe page under resolutions, can't copy from my iPad). It was to study and report back on accounting practices and costs associated with various DCI flying to determine the true operating costs. It was NOT a study of whether 76 seat flying, aka E-175, could be performed at mainline, with seat, route, GW limits and other restrictions lifted, and duplicate managerial and other costs eliminated, and at what pay rate that could still allow a margin for the company, per Sailing's post. I believe that someone at ALPA has already decided they don't want to pursue this because while perhaps not a negative cost item, might detract from other possible PWA gains, so the question is not being seriously considered. Of course the company doesn't want to go there because with PCL in BK, they can keep whipsawing the DCI costs even lower. So we'll put them off the scent, trot out a few old power points and brush them off and say its not cost effective. I asked my LEC reps if any analysis as above has been done and they said not that they had seen. I also asked if there was any truth to the rumors of letting the company outsource further 76 seaters and was told they cannot discuss negotiation specifics. ****?!? My experience is that reps will usually tell you NO if there is no truth to a rumor, but when they can't discusses means BOHICA :mad: Well, that's just not true. The problem with this situation is that if the facts point to a conclusion that doesn't match certain people's preconceived expectations, then you are accused of "managing expectations," or in other words "don't confuse me with the facts." Here is just a sample of the problems you might face in this analysis. Here are some sample pay rates all from the second year, with the exception of our probationary rate that is thrown in for reference only: Industry average 76 seat F/O : $35.40 DL probationary pay..............: $58.59 DL 76 seat F/O.....................: $58.59 Industry average 76 seat CA..: $64.60 DL MD-88 F/O......................: $84.50 DL A-320 F/O.......................: $86.46 DL 737 F/O..........................: $89.68 DL 76 Seat CA.....................: $107.71 The average hourly cost for second year pay at regionals is $100.00 per hour for the whole crew. At DL pay it is $166.30. That is pay only. Factor in 14% DC, work rules, disability, and the rest and you can see where easily our pilot costs are almost double the regionals. That is before we get whatever pay raise is your "Personal Minimum" in the ongoing negotiations. Right now the top of scale rates for 76 seat F/O's is about 30% below our probationary pay. This doesn't imply any answer to any question. It is just the statement that this hasn't been studied is just completely false. I gave two year rates, but this disparity exists all throughout the longevity steps. The problems it can generate cascade down in many different ways, but I am already going to be firebombed for "managing expectations" so I will just quit while I am behind. Just imagine a career path for a pilot that comes in at mainline narrowbody first officer and one that comes in at industry standard 76 seat wages. Show me those career paths and how a pilot in each path has equal pay over their first five years. The problems are incredibly complex. By the way, all of this information is available to anyone that would take a couple of hours to do the research. Doing that work might be a better path to making an informed decision. |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1165985)
Well, that's just not true. The problem with this situation is that if the facts point to a conclusion that doesn't match certain people's preconceived expectations, then you are accused of "managing expectations," or in other words "don't confuse me with the facts." Here is just a sample of the problems you might face in this analysis. Here are some sample pay rates all from the second year, with the exception of our probationary rate that is thrown in for reference only:
Industry average 76 seat F/O : $35.40 DL probationary pay..............: $58.59 DL 76 seat F/O.....................: $58.59 Industry average 76 seat CA..: $64.60 DL MD-88 F/O......................: $84.50 DL A-320 F/O.......................: $86.46 DL 737 F/O..........................: $89.68 DL 76 Seat CA.....................: $107.71 The average hourly cost for second year pay at regionals is $100.00 per hour for the whole crew. At DL pay it is $166.30. That is pay only. Factor in 14% DC, work rules, disability, and the rest and you can see where easily our pilot costs are almost double the regionals. That is before we get whatever pay raise is your "Personal Minimum" in the ongoing negotiations. Right now the top of scale rates for 76 seat F/O's is about 30% below our probationary pay. This doesn't imply any answer to any question. It is just the statement that this hasn't been studied is just completely false. I gave two year rates, but this disparity exists all throughout the longevity steps. The problems it can generate cascade down in many different ways, but I am already going to be firebombed for "managing expectations" so I will just quit while I am behind. Just imagine a career path for a pilot that comes in at mainline narrowbody first officer and one that comes in at industry standard 76 seat wages. Show me those career paths and how a pilot in each path has equal pay over their first five years. The problems are incredibly complex. By the way, all of this information is available to anyone that would take a couple of hours to do the research. Doing that work might be a better path to making an informed decision. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:53 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands