Delta Hiring News
08-21-2019, 04:51 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by tennisguru
Honestly the first indication of ramped up hiring will be when they start running larger interview classes. Even when hiring was going full bore there was normally a 6-8 week wait between interview and indoc. To my knowledge interview groups have still been in the 5-7 people range or less for quite some time. Once that jumps up to 10+ that'll be your indicator that classes are about to get yuuuuuge....
08-21-2019, 04:47 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,502
got an email saying 600-800 new hires, didnt have a time line associated by it. I'd like to think it's by the end of the year and including those hired already this year, but that seems a bit ambitious this late in the year.
08-22-2019, 07:08 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: Middle Seat
Posts: 1,202
Originally Posted by tunes
got an email saying 600-800 new hires, didnt have a time line associated by it. I'd like to think it's by the end of the year and including those hired already this year, but that seems a bit ambitious this late in the year.
Wouldn’t that be like 350-550 new hires in the next 4 months to have that this year?
08-22-2019, 09:13 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 895
Originally Posted by crazyjaydawg
Wouldn’t that be like 350-550 new hires in the next 4 months to have that this year?
Yep, according to the August seniority list we’re at about 250 so far this year so it will have to crank up fast to meet those alleged numbers.
GP
08-22-2019, 10:09 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Position: Representing the REAL Delta
Posts: 847
Originally Posted by gloopy
Also agree.
That would be such an obviously dumb stratedgy even the B-School morons of the 90s wouldn't be doing it. Zero chance of success.
Oh look, we're trashing your QOL to make you sign a POS TA leaving in place the same gaps and loopholes that enable it in the first place, so sign that POS TA and we will hire to the point of being so fat no one will have to ever work on reserve etc.
Literally no one would fall for it and they would look obviously bad for trying.
That would be such an obviously dumb stratedgy even the B-School morons of the 90s wouldn't be doing it. Zero chance of success.
Oh look, we're trashing your QOL to make you sign a POS TA leaving in place the same gaps and loopholes that enable it in the first place, so sign that POS TA and we will hire to the point of being so fat no one will have to ever work on reserve etc.
Literally no one would fall for it and they would look obviously bad for trying.
This is no different than the deadhead issues. They’ve gone to crap because they are going to require us to pay for it. This leaves less negotiation leverage for other sections. Deadhead rules are a distraction.
I don’t believe a trade for one item in order to benefit another is required in the current state of the industry but a lot of guys in Atlanta and other bases do.
Last edited by cornbeef007; 08-22-2019 at 10:20 AM.
08-22-2019, 11:01 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by cornbeef007
This is no different than the deadhead issues. They’ve gone to crap because they are going to require us to pay for it. This leaves less negotiation leverage for other sections. Deadhead rules are a distraction.
I don’t believe a trade for one item in order to benefit another is required in the current state of the industry but a lot of guys in Atlanta and other bases do.
I don’t believe a trade for one item in order to benefit another is required in the current state of the industry but a lot of guys in Atlanta and other bases do.
Sudden hits to DH especially was a poor move by them. Arbitrators LOVE easy low to no cost things major peer set competitors already have in old book. If they try to go hard to the mat with that, they will look very, very unreasonable.
So the fulcrum here is really the raise (in pay and maybe retirement although that seems to have gone into the weeds straight from the hangar but we'll see) but either way this looks to be a poor negotiating stratedgy on their end IMO because we were never about to get some massive 30% raise and a restored FAE based retirement to any significant extent regardless, even if we ignored the work rule and DH abuses. Likewise, even with focus on those, we're still not signing anything without a raise above COLA to some extent, and I believe what is TA-able and ratifiable in those areas in either case are pretty similar. And as a result of the sudden onset degradations by design in other areas, we will be more involved and less likely to fall for a sub par TA.
08-22-2019, 12:09 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Position: Representing the REAL Delta
Posts: 847
Originally Posted by gloopy
I get your point, and maybe that's what they think too. But when this general type of stratedgy is used, it often unifies the pilot group far more than they would otherwise be. Had they not trashed all domestic flying for any and all on paper credit reductions, far fewer pilots would want better work rules. Had they not implemented massive degradations to DH and boarding to intentionally harass us, fewer pilots would care about that. All we would care about is maybe a small COLA+ raise and we'd sign onto current book for 3-4 more years.
Sudden hits to DH especially was a poor move by them. Arbitrators LOVE easy low to no cost things major peer set competitors already have in old book. If they try to go hard to the mat with that, they will look very, very unreasonable.
So the fulcrum here is really the raise (in pay and maybe retirement although that seems to have gone into the weeds straight from the hangar but we'll see) but either way this looks to be a poor negotiating stratedgy on their end IMO because we were never about to get some massive 30% raise and a restored FAE based retirement to any significant extent regardless, even if we ignored the work rule and DH abuses. Likewise, even with focus on those, we're still not signing anything without a raise above COLA to some extent, and I believe what is TA-able and ratifiable in those areas in either case are pretty similar. And as a result of the sudden onset degradations by design in other areas, we will be more involved and less likely to fall for a sub par TA.
Sudden hits to DH especially was a poor move by them. Arbitrators LOVE easy low to no cost things major peer set competitors already have in old book. If they try to go hard to the mat with that, they will look very, very unreasonable.
So the fulcrum here is really the raise (in pay and maybe retirement although that seems to have gone into the weeds straight from the hangar but we'll see) but either way this looks to be a poor negotiating stratedgy on their end IMO because we were never about to get some massive 30% raise and a restored FAE based retirement to any significant extent regardless, even if we ignored the work rule and DH abuses. Likewise, even with focus on those, we're still not signing anything without a raise above COLA to some extent, and I believe what is TA-able and ratifiable in those areas in either case are pretty similar. And as a result of the sudden onset degradations by design in other areas, we will be more involved and less likely to fall for a sub par TA.
We made a lot of gains in TA2 but JV issues weren’t one. They tossed a lot of gains our way, which I think was to distract/placate us enough that it would pass.
There was no doubt in my mind the 48.5 (maybe it was 47.5) percent Atlantic JV language was put there for a reason. As long as they complied with that metric, the worldwide block requirement of 650,000 hours wouldn’t be applicable. It was obvious they were going to cozy up with Korean but for our pilot group was worth the trade off.
How many flights do we service daily to Inchon, compared with Koreans to the United States. We got played.
08-22-2019, 03:20 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by gloopy
I get your point, and maybe that's what they think too. But when this general type of stratedgy is used, it often unifies the pilot group far more than they would otherwise be. Had they not trashed all domestic flying for any and all on paper credit reductions, far fewer pilots would want better work rules. Had they not implemented massive degradations to DH and boarding to intentionally harass us, fewer pilots would care about that. All we would care about is maybe a small COLA+ raise and we'd sign onto current book for 3-4 more years.
Sudden hits to DH especially was a poor move by them. Arbitrators LOVE easy low to no cost things major peer set competitors already have in old book. If they try to go hard to the mat with that, they will look very, very unreasonable.
So the fulcrum here is really the raise (in pay and maybe retirement although that seems to have gone into the weeds straight from the hangar but we'll see) but either way this looks to be a poor negotiating stratedgy on their end IMO because we were never about to get some massive 30% raise and a restored FAE based retirement to any significant extent regardless, even if we ignored the work rule and DH abuses. Likewise, even with focus on those, we're still not signing anything without a raise above COLA to some extent, and I believe what is TA-able and ratifiable in those areas in either case are pretty similar. And as a result of the sudden onset degradations by design in other areas, we will be more involved and less likely to fall for a sub par TA.
Sudden hits to DH especially was a poor move by them. Arbitrators LOVE easy low to no cost things major peer set competitors already have in old book. If they try to go hard to the mat with that, they will look very, very unreasonable.
So the fulcrum here is really the raise (in pay and maybe retirement although that seems to have gone into the weeds straight from the hangar but we'll see) but either way this looks to be a poor negotiating stratedgy on their end IMO because we were never about to get some massive 30% raise and a restored FAE based retirement to any significant extent regardless, even if we ignored the work rule and DH abuses. Likewise, even with focus on those, we're still not signing anything without a raise above COLA to some extent, and I believe what is TA-able and ratifiable in those areas in either case are pretty similar. And as a result of the sudden onset degradations by design in other areas, we will be more involved and less likely to fall for a sub par TA.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
