Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? >

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Search

Notices

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-30-2012 | 02:15 PM
  #97491  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
From: MD88A
Default

Originally Posted by capncrunch
For some reason I thought they had some sort of set up on ALPA where you could get the manuals and also when you connected at a later date it would update the manuals if there was a revision. Maybe not.

I'll get them the old fashioned way...
IPubs.me. Login inFO found on DALPA sit forum.
Old 04-30-2012 | 04:42 PM
  #97492  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 326
Default

I wrote to my rep about scope. I was less than thrilled with the response. He said scope is not for sell. I liked that. Then he went into a long paragraph about how scope is more than just 76 seaters and how JV's are just as important. I believe that JV's are just as important, but my e-mail to him was just about 76 seaters. I feel he was giving me a bait and switch. He did not say that we will not outsource one more 76 seat jet. My rep also said something about using production balances to protect our jobs. The Compass jets fly from MSP to YVR. That's almost a 3 hour international flight. Shuttle America is flying medium sized markets like Chicago-New York, New-York-Washington, DC (DCA), and New York-Boston. Delta is putting out national ads bragging about first class being in these jets. We are not part of any of this. I don't understand why we would even consider allowing more of these jets.
Old 04-30-2012 | 04:52 PM
  #97493  
Carl Spackler's Avatar
Back on TDY
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot
That is why, allowing more 76 seat jets while being tied to our block hour levels may be the ugliness that has to be accepted/shoved down our throats to protect our flanks on JV's and Code Shares.
This is important to address because it will be the exact scare tactic used by the MEC administration to get the reps to fall in line. There is nothing in our current language to "protect our flanks" from any additional abuse by JV's or code share. If this tactic provided DAL more profit capability, DAL would want to keep this current language as long as possible. They're not...because they've likely reached diminishing returns with the JV/code share outsourcing strategy. What DAL currently cannot do is outsource additional 76 seat jets without getting us to change our already pathetically weak language.

Classic negotiations. Threaten something you have no intention of doing (because it makes no economic sense), to get your adversary to willingly accept something that will damage them far worse.

We shouldn't be worried about living with our current language for a few more years while we get scope language closer to SWAPA under the auspices of the NMB. We should be far more worried about agreeing to larger jet scope, then living with that language for the duration of the new contract plus 5 more years while management drags their feet.

Carl
Old 04-30-2012 | 05:33 PM
  #97494  
acl65pilot's Avatar
Happy to be here
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
This is important to address because it will be the exact scare tactic used by the MEC administration to get the reps to fall in line. There is nothing in our current language to "protect our flanks" from any additional abuse by JV's or code share. If this tactic provided DAL more profit capability, DAL would want to keep this current language as long as possible. They're not...because they've likely reached diminishing returns with the JV/code share outsourcing strategy. What DAL currently cannot do is outsource additional 76 seat jets without getting us to change our already pathetically weak language.

Classic negotiations. Threaten something you have no intention of doing (because it makes no economic sense), to get your adversary to willingly accept something that will damage them far worse.

We shouldn't be worried about living with our current language for a few more years while we get scope language closer to SWAPA under the auspices of the NMB. We should be far more worried about agreeing to larger jet scope, then living with that language for the duration of the new contract plus 5 more years while management drags their feet.

Carl

I disagree. I can see a Virgin Atlantic and JAL JV. Virgin gets brought in to the North Atlantic AF JV and our percentages change, and JAL protects DAL's flank when NRT gets hosed by HND.

If that is not enough, you could see another Asian JV as well. The Asian ones are the most important because their governments are more involved and are more likely to be revenue sharing which we do not have a trigger for a production balance.

As for 76 seaters, I agree they want more, and they really should be flown here.

There are some benefits for waiting and some for not waiting. It really depends on the contract language. I will wait and judge the one we vote on.
Old 04-30-2012 | 05:44 PM
  #97495  
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 793
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
I wrote to my rep about scope. I was less than thrilled with the response. He said scope is not for sell. I liked that. Then he went into a long paragraph about how scope is more than just 76 seaters and how JV's are just as important. I believe that JV's are just as important, but my e-mail to him was just about 76 seaters. I feel he was giving me a bait and switch. He did not say that we will not outsource one more 76 seat jet. My rep also said something about using production balances to protect our jobs. The Compass jets fly from MSP to YVR. That's almost a 3 hour international flight. Shuttle America is flying medium sized markets like Chicago-New York, New-York-Washington, DC (DCA), and New York-Boston. Delta is putting out national ads bragging about first class being in these jets. We are not part of any of this. I don't understand why we would even consider allowing more of these jets.
While I would love to see all of our reps respond with unequivocal support to turn the tide on scope, I don't think not getting this should be seen as a bad sign. Our reps have probably been asked to not respond with anything too solid that could possibly detract from the on-going negotiations, i.e. don't make their jobs harder than it already is. Hence, the non-response response some may give to the members they represent. The important thing is to contact your reps and emphasize how important the issue of scope rests with you. They asked for our input leading up to negotiations, and scope was definitely something they heard along with a myriad of other concerns, but IMHO now is the time to reemphasize just how important an issue scope is.
Old 04-30-2012 | 06:19 PM
  #97496  
Jack Bauer's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot
As I understand the response from my reps:

The company has not asked to operate airframes with 90 seats. I am sure they have asked for more 76 seat jets, but I did not confirm that, just my suspicion.

As for the C-series or anything over 84K. I am not sure the MEC would play ball on any of those airframes. Again, just my assumption after a ton of discussions.
I dont think the company would push for 90 seats (no first class) when they are in love with their 90's flying with 76 seats including first class. They are spending money bragging about first class. That said, I could see them pushing for more of these or more larger RJ's altogether. And the correct response from our reps should be a simple, quick response.....NO.

Last edited by Jack Bauer; 04-30-2012 at 06:31 PM.
Old 04-30-2012 | 06:24 PM
  #97497  
acl65pilot's Avatar
Happy to be here
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Default

Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
I dont think the company would push for 90 seats in the current 90 seaters flying as 76 seats with first class. They are spending money bragging about the first class section in RJ's as we speak. That said, I could see them pushing for more 90 seaters flying with 76 seats including first class or more larger RJ's altogether. And the correct response from our reps should be a simple, quick response.....NO.

Well them that then, and tel them often. Make sure you make a rational case to them as to why. Same for pay. Answer why!

I do suspect that they have asked and probably put a few quids on it as well. Time will tell, and we will see if they can come to an agreement within the next few weeks.

I still say the drop dead on this expedited scheme is mid June.
Old 04-30-2012 | 06:26 PM
  #97498  
forgot to bid's Avatar
veut gagner à la loterie
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Default

FTB, proud new member of the "wait and see what the TA is" club:

Old 04-30-2012 | 06:35 PM
  #97499  
forgot to bid's Avatar
veut gagner à la loterie
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Default

Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
I dont think the company would push for 90 seats (no first class) when they are in love with their 90's flying with 76 seats including first class. They are spending money bragging about first class. That said, I could see them pushing for more of these or more larger RJ's altogether. And the correct response from our reps should be a simple, quick response.....NO.
it's funny, you can always tell what the company is proud of by what it advertises.



And it's proud of 747s and EMB-175s.
Old 04-30-2012 | 06:36 PM
  #97500  
Boomer's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,629
Likes: 15
From: blueJet
Default

Looks like the Marines have themselves a warplane that even the hippies could love... It makes rainbows! (2:00 mark)

F-35B Ship Suitability Testing - YouTube
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
On Autopilot
Regional
22617
11-05-2021 07:03 AM
AeroCrewSolut
Delta
153
08-14-2018 12:18 PM
Bill Lumberg
Major
71
06-13-2012 08:36 AM
Quagmire
Major
253
04-16-2011 06:19 AM
JiffyLube
Major
12
03-07-2008 04:27 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices