Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-02-2012, 06:37 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Scoop,
Thank you for the explanation. I'm also not willing to vote "yes" on something that gives us a recurring "lost decade" or further degradation of this profession. (The two could easily be seen as synonymous.)
RE: Spirit Thread. Thanks for your 26+ years of service. I just cleared 21, and leave for Afghanistan at the end of this month.
Fly safe,
GJ
Thank you for the explanation. I'm also not willing to vote "yes" on something that gives us a recurring "lost decade" or further degradation of this profession. (The two could easily be seen as synonymous.)
RE: Spirit Thread. Thanks for your 26+ years of service. I just cleared 21, and leave for Afghanistan at the end of this month.
Fly safe,
GJ
05-02-2012, 07:05 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
2nd year UPS pay is $150,000.
05-02-2012, 07:16 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
Scoop,
I'm also not willing to vote "yes" on something that gives us a recurring "lost decade" or further degradation of this profession. (The two could easily be seen as synonymous.)
RE: Spirit Thread. Thanks for your 26+ years of service. I just cleared 21, and leave for Afghanistan at the end of this month.
GJ
I'm also not willing to vote "yes" on something that gives us a recurring "lost decade" or further degradation of this profession. (The two could easily be seen as synonymous.)
RE: Spirit Thread. Thanks for your 26+ years of service. I just cleared 21, and leave for Afghanistan at the end of this month.
GJ
05-02-2012, 07:18 PM
veut gagner ŕ la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
One way to look at the "scope must stand on it's own comment is", I don't care what you offer in Section 3 to get me to move on Section 1. Or Section 2, 4, 5, 6,...
Section 3 doesn't matter if I lose my job.
Section 3 doesn't matter if I lose my job.
05-02-2012, 07:20 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
One way to look at the "scope must stand on it's own comment is", I don't care what you offer in Section 3 to get me to move on Section 1. Or Section 2, 4, 5, 6,...
Section 3 doesn't matter if I lose my job.
Section 3 doesn't matter if I lose my job.
05-02-2012, 07:26 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
Carl,
Since I normally don't agree with you, I am going to ask you, with all due respect, how you interpret the above bold text. I received the same letter. I happen to be not such a "glass half empty" type of guy.
First, as stated above, it was communicated to C20 members that "SCOPE MUST STAND ON IT'S OWN. IT MUST BE AN IMPROVEMENT". My interpretation of that communication is that we "reel scope back in". How else can scope be "improved" if we don't regain what was previously lost?
Secondly, it's stated again that "IMPROVEMENTS IN OTHER AREAS OF THE PWA CANNOT OVERCOME A REDUCTION IN SCOPE PROTECTION". Again, as I mentioned above, how do you interpret the statement of, "other areas ..... cannot overcome a reduction in scope protection"?
Thanks,
GJ
Since I normally don't agree with you, I am going to ask you, with all due respect, how you interpret the above bold text. I received the same letter. I happen to be not such a "glass half empty" type of guy.
First, as stated above, it was communicated to C20 members that "SCOPE MUST STAND ON IT'S OWN. IT MUST BE AN IMPROVEMENT". My interpretation of that communication is that we "reel scope back in". How else can scope be "improved" if we don't regain what was previously lost?
Secondly, it's stated again that "IMPROVEMENTS IN OTHER AREAS OF THE PWA CANNOT OVERCOME A REDUCTION IN SCOPE PROTECTION". Again, as I mentioned above, how do you interpret the statement of, "other areas ..... cannot overcome a reduction in scope protection"?
Thanks,
GJ
Section I is about much more than RJs, though one of the goals of our contract opener is to “improve the balance of flying between Delta and DCI”.
This is what troubles me. ALL the reps and the MEC bureaucrats are using this EXACT same terminology. It's very careful to NEVER mention anything about holding the line on more larger RJ's or even reducing them. To me, that negates all the rest. It does so because it buys into the premise of "neutral negotiations", i.e., anything we gain must be offset by a give back. That's wrong. Negotiations is about making improvements that your company can afford and is within the realm of reasonable as compared to your competitors. There's nothing wrong with asking for reducing large RJ's AND improving JV's and code share. Our company can afford it and it's still worse than SWAPA's scope.
The use of the term "improving the balance of flying" is simply not needed...unless you know you're trying to hide the truth from your members. Hide it that is, until you dump it on their laps with the threat of mass resignations if they don't rubber stamp what their union has done. If that's your plan, then using these weasel words is a necessity.
Carl
05-02-2012, 07:29 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
Scoop,
Thank you for the explanation. I'm also not willing to vote "yes" on something that gives us a recurring "lost decade" or further degradation of this profession. (The two could easily be seen as synonymous.)
RE: Spirit Thread. Thanks for your 26+ years of service. I just cleared 21, and leave for Afghanistan at the end of this month.
Fly safe,
GJ
Thank you for the explanation. I'm also not willing to vote "yes" on something that gives us a recurring "lost decade" or further degradation of this profession. (The two could easily be seen as synonymous.)
RE: Spirit Thread. Thanks for your 26+ years of service. I just cleared 21, and leave for Afghanistan at the end of this month.
Fly safe,
GJ
Carl
05-02-2012, 07:37 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Carl,
Thanks for the explanation. I agree, this is a "make or break" contract for not only us, but the industry/profession as a whole. We lose this, we've lost maybe another ten years.
GJ
Thanks for the explanation. I agree, this is a "make or break" contract for not only us, but the industry/profession as a whole. We lose this, we've lost maybe another ten years.
GJ
05-02-2012, 08:08 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by Scoop
GJ,
The answer to your question is simple - Scope improvements will all come via tradeoffs within section 1. Theoretically, Scope will not be sourced as a "bill payer" to fund other contractual improvements. When you consider that Scope covers DCI, Joint Ventures, Code-sharing, alliances and whatever other term you can think of to describe what it actually is........... Outsourcing, it becomes easier to visualize.
So saying Scope will stand on its own does not mean we will hold the line at 255 large RJs at all, it means if you consider all of section 1, it will be improved.
Say for example (hypothetical numbers) that Delta Pilots currently fly 55% of the passengers who buy a Delta ticket. If under the new TA we increase that to 60% or 65% we have improved Scope. Here is the catch, our current Scope is so bad that we can easily allow 50 more large RJs and still improve our Scope.
Scope is my number 1 issue for this TA - without Scope improved payrates hardly make up for an extended stay in the right seat. I am against any more large RJs but that is not the only weakness in our section 1.
The problem is not that we will be selling Scope - Scope has already been taken/sold/traded etc, depending on your interpretation of the last 10 years. Currently our Scope sucks. I hate the fact that while I was furloughed DCI was hiring by the hundreds, but all aspects of section 1 are equally important - what good would recapturing 76 Scope do if we double our code shares and JVs?
I want growth and hiring at Delta. If the best way to do that is tradeoffs within section 1 than so be it.
Finally, my interpretation of "Scope must stand on its own" means that we will not be trading Scope for something other than Scope - say higher pay-rates for example. The problem with this is how do we, the line pilots know what was traded for what, and how things were actually costed behind closed doors etc. I guess we have to trust our Negotiating Commitee and I have no reason not to.
Scoop
The answer to your question is simple - Scope improvements will all come via tradeoffs within section 1. Theoretically, Scope will not be sourced as a "bill payer" to fund other contractual improvements. When you consider that Scope covers DCI, Joint Ventures, Code-sharing, alliances and whatever other term you can think of to describe what it actually is........... Outsourcing, it becomes easier to visualize.
So saying Scope will stand on its own does not mean we will hold the line at 255 large RJs at all, it means if you consider all of section 1, it will be improved.
Say for example (hypothetical numbers) that Delta Pilots currently fly 55% of the passengers who buy a Delta ticket. If under the new TA we increase that to 60% or 65% we have improved Scope. Here is the catch, our current Scope is so bad that we can easily allow 50 more large RJs and still improve our Scope.
Scope is my number 1 issue for this TA - without Scope improved payrates hardly make up for an extended stay in the right seat. I am against any more large RJs but that is not the only weakness in our section 1.
The problem is not that we will be selling Scope - Scope has already been taken/sold/traded etc, depending on your interpretation of the last 10 years. Currently our Scope sucks. I hate the fact that while I was furloughed DCI was hiring by the hundreds, but all aspects of section 1 are equally important - what good would recapturing 76 Scope do if we double our code shares and JVs?
I want growth and hiring at Delta. If the best way to do that is tradeoffs within section 1 than so be it.
Finally, my interpretation of "Scope must stand on its own" means that we will not be trading Scope for something other than Scope - say higher pay-rates for example. The problem with this is how do we, the line pilots know what was traded for what, and how things were actually costed behind closed doors etc. I guess we have to trust our Negotiating Commitee and I have no reason not to.
Scoop
05-02-2012, 10:32 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
Emirates airline boss Sheik Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum says Dubai carrier may expand in US, is open to acquisitions globally
Back in Europe, Emirates just took a 29% in Air Berlin (Air Berlin purchased LTU, the red 1011s for the old-timers). Now Emirates is looking at taking a stake in AF/KLM but AF/KLM only want's to do it if they get the feed from Air Berlin. Emirates btw operates the world's largest 777 and A380 fleet and has 90 A380 on order, they're not all going to just fly to and from DXB...
Big, big, moves are going on globally in the airline industry that will dwarf USAir/AA, I want our Section 1 a tight as it gets for codeshare and JV.
This isn't theoretical either, this is going on right now.
It's a codeshare today, but the JV is announced, approved and could start tomorrow.
If you saw the Virgin 777-300 at T5 in LAX at a Delta gate three times a day, you might rethink our current Section 1 too...
Cheers
George
Q: You recently announced a partnership with JetBlue. Why did you decide to go with a codeshare in the U.S.?
A: We always, I think, remain open about it. We have to decide on a win-win situation when we work with somebody else. … They can cover a number of destinations in the U.S. And maybe (there will be) others. I feel like sometimes I don’t want to decide for the commercial people to announce something that is in the pipeline.
Q: So are you saying that something is in the pipeline? In the U.S. or somewhere else?
A: I mean … (Laughs)
Q: Does Emirates have any interest in acquisitions of other airlines?
A: I will be very frank with you. I will tell you, I don’t have a number that I give to my people, that you have to go and spend that amount. Because I think that’s the wrong way to do it, by allocating a budget and saying: “Go and spend it.”
It’s opportunity, it’s timing, it’s (a question of) where. Is it going to be something that in the long term, short term, is a benefit to the business that we’re in?
A: We always, I think, remain open about it. We have to decide on a win-win situation when we work with somebody else. … They can cover a number of destinations in the U.S. And maybe (there will be) others. I feel like sometimes I don’t want to decide for the commercial people to announce something that is in the pipeline.
Q: So are you saying that something is in the pipeline? In the U.S. or somewhere else?
A: I mean … (Laughs)
Q: Does Emirates have any interest in acquisitions of other airlines?
A: I will be very frank with you. I will tell you, I don’t have a number that I give to my people, that you have to go and spend that amount. Because I think that’s the wrong way to do it, by allocating a budget and saying: “Go and spend it.”
It’s opportunity, it’s timing, it’s (a question of) where. Is it going to be something that in the long term, short term, is a benefit to the business that we’re in?
Big, big, moves are going on globally in the airline industry that will dwarf USAir/AA, I want our Section 1 a tight as it gets for codeshare and JV.
This isn't theoretical either, this is going on right now.
It's a codeshare today, but the JV is announced, approved and could start tomorrow.
If you saw the Virgin 777-300 at T5 in LAX at a Delta gate three times a day, you might rethink our current Section 1 too...
Cheers
George
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
