|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1718813)
How so you make such statements? Literally thousands of my fellow pilots? How do you know? :confused:
http://delta-pilots.org/storage/imag...er%20icon.png? Not all, but I'll bet there are at least a couple thousand in that number who fall into the category of what I was talking about. |
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
(Post 1718849)
Since you like data so much... :D
http://delta-pilots.org/storage/imag...er%20icon.png? Not all, but I'll bet there are at least a couple thousand in that number who fall into the category of what I was talking about. |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1718729)
The total hit was around 100-150 pilots with an mean of 125 based on average conditions. That blip is shown in the summer of 2013. After that blip, the steady rise in pilots required reflect the major shift in flying from regionals to mainline; that shift was the sine qua non of the entire deal in 2012 and that has been delivered more than promised in the ratification materials.
However, when we say these things cost us 100-150 pilots, that's really another way of saying that the work of those 100-150 pilots has been distributed across the pilot group via these productivity increases. Additionally, these efficiency gains realized by the company in C2012 remain with us, so I don't feel "blip" is an accurate word to use to describe their effects. Yes, there was a steady increase in pilots required due to the shift of block hours from regional to mainline, which is a good thing... however, these efficiencies given up to assist in funding the raises weren't just a "blip" that would be quickly overcome by hiring, they are productivity increases (however big or small they turn out to be) that will continue to shape the quality of life of each Delta pilot going forward. Not jumping on the bandwagon of bashing Sailing and Alpha, or even arguing the larger issue, just pointing out how I feel using this sort of language can shape perspective. |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1718729)
I guess that now we have officially abandoned the cost neutral argument. The numbers are just overwhelming. I helped prepare the costing sheets but they belong to the MEC and not to me. If the MEC wants to release them they can but I can't. Certainly you understand that when you produce a work product for an organization, it belongs to them and not to you.
The funny part is I can post the spreadsheet or I can tell what the result is. Apparently you will believe the spreadsheet but not what I tell you. In fact, if I posted the spreadsheet you would just claim they were made up numbers anyway. The grand total is just north of $1.012 billion. The facts are that we got a 19.5% increase in total cash compensation and that includes the full hit on profit sharing. The only other concessions were manpower concessions, and the graph of pilots required shows the manpower required by the CONTRACT and thus it is the only relevant measure of what those concessions mean. The total hit was around 100-150 pilots with an mean of 125 based on average conditions. That blip is shown in the summer of 2013. After that blip, the steady rise in pilots required reflect the major shift in flying from regionals to mainline; that shift was the sine qua non of the entire deal in 2012 and that has been delivered more than promised in the ratification materials. Without showing some more evidence of manpower reductions, there are no other mysterious concessions to offset that 19.5% increase in cash compensation. You can't just say "concessions offset the pay" without pointing out what the concessions were or showing how those concessions have resulted in fewer pilots required by our contract. The company saved some money from RJ maintenance, some on RJ contracts, some with increased revenue from passengers flying on two class aircraft instead of 50 seaters. None of that money came from Delta pilot's pockets and instead ended up in our pockets. I seriously don't care what sources of revenue/cost savings they find elsewhere in their cost structure. The money is green and spends just the same wherever it came from. The bottom line: 19.5% cash compensation; numerous work rule improvements; better vacation; more mainline flying. That is the net effect of that contract. May not be enough for you but the numbers are the numbers. It was not cost neutral for pilots, not even close, the end state is plus $400 million. The rest of this argument is just noise. Oh no, he hasn't given up the cost neutral argument. Not by a long shot. He is keeping that in his back pocket to pull out when he has nothing else to contribute. |
Still a classic, from Q2 2012 Earnings Call:
Operator We’ll take our next question from Mary Jane Credeur with Bloomberg News. Mary Jane Credeur - Bloomberg News Hi, folks. Can you talk a little bit about how you’re going to afford that new pilot contract? Richard Anderson Hi, Mary Jane, this is Richard. Sorry for not saying hello. When you look at the overall value that we’re going to create as a result of unlocking the ability to refleet plus the productivity that has been built into that agreement, we’re confident that it will be an important part of our ability to get to unit cost over the next couple of years to improve our margins and our return on invested capital. Glen Hauenstein And, Mary Jane, this is Ed. One additional thing, we also reduced the profit sharing going forward and that’s an important part of helping to fund that cost growth. Mary Jane Credeur - Bloomberg News Sure. Okay. Thank you. |
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
(Post 1718648)
Oh that's just great. You're fine with accepting bankruptcy as the new baseline and sustaining a 34% pay cut for 10 years and long after the financial crisis for our company has been over. At least you're in good company in the DALPA echo chamber.
Oy vey...... |
And from earlier this year.
Operator (Operator Instructions) We’ll have our first question from Jamie Baker, JPMorgan. Jamie N. Baker - JPMorgan Securities LLC Hey, good morning everybody. First question relates to the pilots, and I realize it’s a little bit early to be asking given the contract runs through next year. But, when you achieved the current contract you had pretty clear asks, you needed improved access to large RJs. You needed better mechanism to facilitate a 50-seat retirements and of course, the 717 was a component of the current contracts. So, as we look forward and ponder what the pilot ask might be for 2016 and beyond. It isn't clear to me that you're in a stronger position to negotiate it, it isn't clear what the management incrementally needs. Is there something we need to be concerned about? Edward H. Bastian Well. No, you shouldn’t be concerned about it, simply because of our track record. I think if you look back over the past eight years, we've always been able to partner with our pilots and figure out what we need to do to keep Delta at the top of the industry. And while we don't talk specifically about how or when we engage and what we talk about, our track record is the best in the industry in that regard. Lee Moak with Bloomberg Moak contends that ALPA pilots at the larger carriers enjoy what he calls “mature, good contracts” already. Radical overhauls aren’t in the cards, he says. Most of the contract talks are likely to center on basic compensation—hourly pay rates and how much carriers pay into pilots’ retirement plans. “There will be a business discussion of pay as it relates to revenue,” Moak says. “You can argue about $2 or $2.05, and that matters to the crew member,” but “you’re working on the margins” on the new contracts, he says. Airlines have been mum on what they’ll seek in the contract talks, despite some analyst queries on quarterly earnings calls. |
Originally Posted by Whidbey
(Post 1718902)
We continue to discuss moving days in the summer bid months and giving up ALV+15 in terms of jobs. For those of us on the property, using this language places the issue in a light that at first glance is more palatable to us...
However, when we say these things cost us 100-150 pilots, that's really another way of saying that the work of those 100-150 pilots has been distributed across the pilot group via these productivity increases. Additionally, these efficiency gains realized by the company in C2012 remain with us, so I don't feel "blip" is an accurate word to use to describe their effects. Yes, there was a steady increase in pilots required due to the shift of block hours from regional to mainline, which is a good thing... however, these efficiencies given up to assist in funding the raises weren't just a "blip" that would be quickly overcome by hiring, they are productivity increases (however big or small they turn out to be) that will continue to shape the quality of life of each Delta pilot going forward. Not jumping on the bandwagon of bashing Sailing and Alpha, or even arguing the larger issue, just pointing out how I feel using this sort of language can shape perspective. We like to simplify our contract objectives in one phrase: "More money. More time off." In C2012 we got a little money but we also gave up significant time off. Whether or not it was exactly "neutral" is a pointless debate. All I know is we need to do a lot better in 2015. |
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1718954)
I'm fine with it. If one isn't happy with the TA, then vote NO. To which I responded: Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/im...s/viewpost.gif Oh that's just great. You're fine with accepting bankruptcy as the new baseline and sustaining a 34% pay cut for 10 years and long after the financial crisis for our company has been over. At least you're in good company in the DALPA echo chamber. Did you have anything meaningful to add to the conversation? |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1718959)
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:43 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands