Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-27-2012, 08:05 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Heyas Gloopy,
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
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
As I've said for many months now, this MEC will return a TA with more scope sales in it. This MEC will then threaten to resign if we vote NO. This MEC will then warn us that we'll be many years getting back to square one if we vote NO and they resign. O'Malley's letter is the setup for it.
The above notwithstanding, we can beat the MEC at their own game by voting NO. It will take 100% of the bottom half of the list to hold strong however. The bottom half of our list will make us, or break us.
Carl
04-27-2012, 08:09 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl
04-27-2012, 08:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Carl,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are in underboob rehab. Jesse's picture is clearly overboob. Your recovery is a three-hundred-sixty degree process. You have to take it one degree at a time.
If you get lost, just start over.
Good luck.
04-27-2012, 08:17 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
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.
Also many will state that section1 is not just about rj's but JV's codes shares holing companies. Et al. There are huge holes in a lot of this that will require significant capital to fix. The reps know this. Wait and see what we are presented. It may involve more rj's but more mainline jobs and tighter language on all parts of section 1. I gathered that from the letter.
As much as I want to read the conclusion out of this letter, the devil is in the details and until we see them all we should be doing is filling our reps in boxes with constant direction on what we do not want. We need to take a long view on scope and this needs to be constantly imputed to the reps. So type away and let them know what you will vote NO for.
I do agree with Nu, this letter makes me think we are getting close.
04-27-2012, 08:18 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
04-27-2012, 08:19 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
This is exactly correct. I know I've been preaching this for years now, but we all must understand that this MEC's first priority when it comes to communications is how to NOT tell you what THEIR agenda is. This is why they must use the tortured language and spin. They know full well that ANY scope sale is unsat for most of us, but it is exactly what THEY want. It's part and parcel of ALPA national's strategy.
As I've said for many months now, this MEC will return a TA with more scope sales in it. This MEC will then threaten to resign if we vote NO. This MEC will then warn us that we'll be many years getting back to square one if we vote NO and they resign. O'Malley's letter is the setup for it.
The above notwithstanding, we can beat the MEC at their own game by voting NO. It will take 100% of the bottom half of the list to hold strong however. The bottom half of our list will make us, or break us.
Carl
As I've said for many months now, this MEC will return a TA with more scope sales in it. This MEC will then threaten to resign if we vote NO. This MEC will then warn us that we'll be many years getting back to square one if we vote NO and they resign. O'Malley's letter is the setup for it.
The above notwithstanding, we can beat the MEC at their own game by voting NO. It will take 100% of the bottom half of the list to hold strong however. The bottom half of our list will make us, or break us.
Carl
04-27-2012, 08:25 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
One degree at a time Carl, one degree at a time.
Carl
04-27-2012, 08:26 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,930
Quote from Baja:
Release of Scope is a NO for me...add me to the list of non-budgers! And if Hawaiian or AK is in the mix for a merger there better not be ONE guy hired after me senior or another NO vote (not that I'll have a choice - just sayin')
Baja.
Baja,
That is how most of us on this forum feel but what does that mean? Our Scope currently sucks. Would allowing 20 more 76 seaters and getting rid of 200 50 seaters along with more restrictions on Alaska count as a Scope concession or a Scope tightening?
[QUOTE=Sink r8;1177122]I suspect they'll frame the discussion about Scope in terms of the complete package. IOW, they'll tighten a bunch of things, from 50-seaters to WB, and offer some concessions on some 76 seaters.
I'm open to looking at Section 1 as a package. If we could get a much lower hard cap on the total number of RJ's, a minimum (and improved) ratio of block hours between us and the regionals, eliminate the [bleep] 3:1 ratio, eliminate the add-and-subtract loophole, get strong % in JV's, and future JV's, I would keep an open mind.
Guys,
Like Baja I would love to say not 1 more 76 seater, but on the other hand Sink makes a lot of sense. And what if we get that but the company gets 90 seat turboprops? Or Alaska Scope continues as is, and eventually screws other bases like LAX and SEA are currently being shafted?
This issue is very complicated. We could very well give up a few more 76 seaters and have a much improved overall Scope section.
Or we could give up a few more 76 seaters and think we have a much improved Scope section and get shafted in a few years.
One thing is for sure - our section 1 sucks. We need to vastly improve it at all levels - DCI, Alaska, JVs, COdeshares etc. This will all affect us not just DCI - although I think DCI has done the most damage to our careers so far.
And one more thing - there may be 100 frequent posters on this forum out of 12,000 DAL Pilots. Guess what came up first in the contract survey? Pay, followed by pay, followed closely by pay again, with Scope and retirement way behind. Not everyone is as concerned about Scope as us.
Scoop
Release of Scope is a NO for me...add me to the list of non-budgers! And if Hawaiian or AK is in the mix for a merger there better not be ONE guy hired after me senior or another NO vote (not that I'll have a choice - just sayin')
Baja.
Baja,
That is how most of us on this forum feel but what does that mean? Our Scope currently sucks. Would allowing 20 more 76 seaters and getting rid of 200 50 seaters along with more restrictions on Alaska count as a Scope concession or a Scope tightening?
[QUOTE=Sink r8;1177122]I suspect they'll frame the discussion about Scope in terms of the complete package. IOW, they'll tighten a bunch of things, from 50-seaters to WB, and offer some concessions on some 76 seaters.
I'm open to looking at Section 1 as a package. If we could get a much lower hard cap on the total number of RJ's, a minimum (and improved) ratio of block hours between us and the regionals, eliminate the [bleep] 3:1 ratio, eliminate the add-and-subtract loophole, get strong % in JV's, and future JV's, I would keep an open mind.
Guys,
Like Baja I would love to say not 1 more 76 seater, but on the other hand Sink makes a lot of sense. And what if we get that but the company gets 90 seat turboprops? Or Alaska Scope continues as is, and eventually screws other bases like LAX and SEA are currently being shafted?
This issue is very complicated. We could very well give up a few more 76 seaters and have a much improved overall Scope section.
Or we could give up a few more 76 seaters and think we have a much improved Scope section and get shafted in a few years.
One thing is for sure - our section 1 sucks. We need to vastly improve it at all levels - DCI, Alaska, JVs, COdeshares etc. This will all affect us not just DCI - although I think DCI has done the most damage to our careers so far.
And one more thing - there may be 100 frequent posters on this forum out of 12,000 DAL Pilots. Guess what came up first in the contract survey? Pay, followed by pay, followed closely by pay again, with Scope and retirement way behind. Not everyone is as concerned about Scope as us.
Scoop
04-27-2012, 08:43 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,520
04-27-2012, 08:46 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
O'Malley's letter sounds pretty ominous for the scope hawks among us.
Creating a sense of urgency and saying that this opportunity is "fleeting", etc. etc. makes it seem like they are preparing us for some significant concessions.
I'm suspicious about this "hurry up, do it fast" climate. I hope management is not just firing their guns in the air and stampeding our guys.
O'Malley would do well to re-read his last letter. I liked it better.
We believe opportunities exist—right now—to reach a comprehensive agreement on an expedited timeline, but let me make this point perfectly clear. While we will attempt to expedite the process, we will not compromise the product.
Creating a sense of urgency and saying that this opportunity is "fleeting", etc. etc. makes it seem like they are preparing us for some significant concessions.
I'm suspicious about this "hurry up, do it fast" climate. I hope management is not just firing their guns in the air and stampeding our guys.
O'Malley would do well to re-read his last letter. I liked it better.
We believe opportunities exist—right now—to reach a comprehensive agreement on an expedited timeline, but let me make this point perfectly clear. While we will attempt to expedite the process, we will not compromise the product.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
