Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-27-2012 | 02:40 PM
On Reserve
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 137
Likes: 6
From: DAL FO
04-27-2012 | 02:49 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
I think we on APC are fairly junior in general, and between junior, and DPA leveraging Scope for their push, we all say we never will sell any Scope.
The main question in my mind isn't isn't whether we'll make any Scope sales in the transactions, but whether we'll also make some purchases with our leverage, how, where, and for how much.
If we're buying the right to reduce obsolete 50-seaters, and trade for 76-seaters, and that's all we accomplish, we're pretty stupid. I sure hope that's not what TO is suggesting.
04-27-2012 | 03:10 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,105
Likes: 100
Not sure what to think about it. Maybe it's tin foil hat-ish of me but what I read between the lines could very easily be interpreted as more large RJ's as long as the total ratio swings more in our favor. But that's happening anyway with 50's being parked as well as Saabs, etc. we could allow 9 76 seaters for every 10 50 seaters parked and that would fulfill that "production balance" talking point 100%.
Then there was the veiled threat of you really need to vote for what we bring you cause if you don't it'll be many years before you get any raise. While that's probably true, it in no way justified a single additional large RJ unless we fly it but I worry we may be about to throw management into the briar patch with this production balance interpretation. Most if not all if what we gain would likely be gained anyway (50 seater block hours in perpetual decline with more 90's and maybe 71's coming regardless) while the losses of more long term large RJ DC -9-10 replacement jets will be disproportionately larger than any possible gain.
I really hope we aren't about to fall for that.
Then there was the veiled threat of you really need to vote for what we bring you cause if you don't it'll be many years before you get any raise. While that's probably true, it in no way justified a single additional large RJ unless we fly it but I worry we may be about to throw management into the briar patch with this production balance interpretation. Most if not all if what we gain would likely be gained anyway (50 seater block hours in perpetual decline with more 90's and maybe 71's coming regardless) while the losses of more long term large RJ DC -9-10 replacement jets will be disproportionately larger than any possible gain.
I really hope we aren't about to fall for that.
You are spot on. With ANY union communication, it's what they don't say versus what they do.
What we should start doing is get the APC "Latest and Greatest" crowd divvied up into teams, so as to get ready to examine, pull apart and put back together any TA.
Consider it kind of a "Dissenting Opinion" that points out the bad, as well as the good.
There are eight ways to Sunday they can game a "balance of flying", and a merger is just one of them. Brocc laid out just one example.
If they want more 76 seaters, all they need to do is buy them.
Watch how any TA will be couched in a "take this or wait a long time aura". In other words, "hurry up and sign this, offer expires at midnight!!!"
Watch how any job gains (say from 717s) will be CAREFULLY offset by loss of jobs, replacement flying or other aircraft retirements. That part won't be mentioned.
If I see one more 76 seater in any TA, I will insta-click "NO" on my vote. It's a non starter.
Nu
04-27-2012 | 03:15 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
It's been hashed out here, prob a month ago (so that's hundreds of pages?). Anyway - it's so different from a DC9 or MD88 cockpit, people either think the feds wouldn't agree for single category, or would put so many stipulations on the program it wouldn't be cost efficient.
Apparently it's like a MD11 cockpit on a DC9 body.
Apparently it's like a MD11 cockpit on a DC9 body.
04-27-2012 | 03:17 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
One would think that DALPA surely knows any more allowances for scope will result in their being replaced by DPA?
I can wait for $$$, I refuse to vote yes on anything that brings more large RJ's to the table, regardless of what is happening with the total RJ count.
I can wait for $$$, I refuse to vote yes on anything that brings more large RJ's to the table, regardless of what is happening with the total RJ count.
04-27-2012 | 03:23 PM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
04-27-2012 | 03:31 PM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
Next? Next is this T. It is definitely not a dead horse that is getting beaten here. I and many I speak with have our criticisms of ALPA. They are warranted as well. We want to see meaningful change and better execution on their part.
That does not mean we are donut supporters. We back ALPA 100% now and are trusting them to follow our collective wishes. Now before you and all the acolytes start harping on what is collective to this group, let me say this. I have not heard of one person, none, that would be ok with 11%.
I have not heard of one that is any favor of selling more scope.
I also have had no one say they are happy with our current duty period credit.
Finally, have not met anyone that is happy with our current DC % particularly when other recently BK'd airlines are pulling in close 20% DC on top of a 2.4% a/b fund.
Lastly, Doug Parker just did us another giant favor. We should pass the hat around and send him a nice gift. Maybe an all expenses trip to Colombia.
When he bid on us in BK, he effectively caused a revaluation of our claims at a much higher rate. He just also reset the bottom on the pay spectrum with his APA deal. No more company pointing to AMR and the LCC circus and demanding a comp to them.
What does this all mean? DALPA better execute well here. If they do not, I am not sure that DPA will necessarily sweep right in. They could. But right behind them will be APA with a pitch with the full backing of CAPA, who now with the inevitable addition of LCC pilots, just became even more of a heavy weight on the Hill.
DALPA and ALPA are walking the tight rope right now. One error and it could be curtains. Whether it is a misreading of the pilot group prior to endorsing a substanderd TA, or a financially hobbling judgement in TWA v ALPA, ther is no room for a mistake.
That does not mean we are donut supporters. We back ALPA 100% now and are trusting them to follow our collective wishes. Now before you and all the acolytes start harping on what is collective to this group, let me say this. I have not heard of one person, none, that would be ok with 11%.
I have not heard of one that is any favor of selling more scope.
I also have had no one say they are happy with our current duty period credit.
Finally, have not met anyone that is happy with our current DC % particularly when other recently BK'd airlines are pulling in close 20% DC on top of a 2.4% a/b fund.
Lastly, Doug Parker just did us another giant favor. We should pass the hat around and send him a nice gift. Maybe an all expenses trip to Colombia.
When he bid on us in BK, he effectively caused a revaluation of our claims at a much higher rate. He just also reset the bottom on the pay spectrum with his APA deal. No more company pointing to AMR and the LCC circus and demanding a comp to them.What does this all mean? DALPA better execute well here. If they do not, I am not sure that DPA will necessarily sweep right in. They could. But right behind them will be APA with a pitch with the full backing of CAPA, who now with the inevitable addition of LCC pilots, just became even more of a heavy weight on the Hill.
DALPA and ALPA are walking the tight rope right now. One error and it could be curtains. Whether it is a misreading of the pilot group prior to endorsing a substanderd TA, or a financially hobbling judgement in TWA v ALPA, ther is no room for a mistake.
04-27-2012 | 03:31 PM
On Reserve
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 137
Likes: 6
From: DAL FO
Free Bird One would think that DALPA surely knows any more allowances for scope will result in their being replaced by DPA?
Free bird.....unfortunately it looks like ALPA is going to try and call your bluff. The sad part is.....it isn't a bluff.
Free bird.....unfortunately it looks like ALPA is going to try and call your bluff. The sad part is.....it isn't a bluff.
04-27-2012 | 03:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Likes: 0
"While neither the MEC nor I are at liberty to discuss the many detailed moving parts of the current negotiations at this point, I will say this: The time to capitalize on opportunity is now, but that opportunity is also fleeting. If we are not able to reach an agreement in the near-term, we will likely revert to negotiations along a more traditional Section 6 timeline."
Followed later by:
"If we are able to reach a tentative agreement in the near-term and the MEC ratifies that agreement, it will only be because your elected representatives:
Here we go. Let the games begin. They are getting rid of 50's because they lose money. They are doing this regardless of the ongoing current labor negotiations. Trading a 50 that is destined for recycling for 900's--(not really 76's)-- above the current limit is a giant FAIL.
First thing they teach in sales is to create urgency. Any of you ever heard this before??
* "It is a one time offer"
* "Price increase in the next release"
* "Special financing only available for a short period of time, they won't tell us when it expires"
So, the cliff notes version = the opportunity is now and it is fleeting, it could be gone in an instant. If we present you with a TA it will because the MEC and reps believe we got all we can and that any additional negotiation will not achieve anymore gains.
Wow. TA is coming and the scope section is not going to be pretty. The spin has begun.
Followed later by:
"If we are able to reach a tentative agreement in the near-term and the MEC ratifies that agreement, it will only be because your elected representatives:
- Believe it is the right agreement at the right time, and
- Do not believe that proceeding down the traditional Section 6 timeline will result in a contract
that provides greater value to the Delta pilots
Here we go. Let the games begin. They are getting rid of 50's because they lose money. They are doing this regardless of the ongoing current labor negotiations. Trading a 50 that is destined for recycling for 900's--(not really 76's)-- above the current limit is a giant FAIL.
First thing they teach in sales is to create urgency. Any of you ever heard this before??
* "It is a one time offer"
* "Price increase in the next release"
* "Special financing only available for a short period of time, they won't tell us when it expires"
So, the cliff notes version = the opportunity is now and it is fleeting, it could be gone in an instant. If we present you with a TA it will because the MEC and reps believe we got all we can and that any additional negotiation will not achieve anymore gains.
Wow. TA is coming and the scope section is not going to be pretty. The spin has begun.
04-27-2012 | 03:36 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
