Details on Delta TA
06-03-2015, 07:37 AM
#5391
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Professor
So I am sure someone is going to figure out how a 30 million dollar payout for JV non compliance is a bad thing?
Go ahead. I'm waiting.
Go ahead. I'm waiting.
Unbelievable.
Carl
06-03-2015, 07:38 AM
#5392
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by sailingfun
So the question of the day is what is really going on behind the scenes with the two LEC's that have issues with the contract direction. Is it the quality of the agreed upon sections or is it actually a desire to change how we are paid from a mostly seniority based system to a system primarily based on longevity? What is the real issue?
Carl
06-03-2015, 08:00 AM
#5394
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,920
Originally Posted by Professor
Carl. Buddy, I knew I could count on you for a non-factual, incendiary and condescending post.
Thank you for never disappointing.
You are our strength. Our rock of discontentment.
Thank you for never disappointing.
You are our strength. Our rock of discontentment.
06-03-2015, 08:00 AM
#5395
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,315
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
It's not two LEC's sailingfud and you know that. So why would you say it?
Carl
Carl
06-03-2015, 08:01 AM
#5396
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,066
The $30M settlement is great but that's $2500 per pilot or so on average.
I haven't seen anything other than an announcement. I don't think the details are out yet but...
My guess is it will go to international guys or potential upgrades. My further guess is that it rewrites production balance to a lower value so this doesn't happen again. The Virgin JV agreement set the floor below current flying because they saw this coming and didn't want to pay for noncompliance on Virgin.
BTW the Deltanet news piece on the May dip disappeared. I was going to reference it but, too late. Hmmm?
I haven't seen anything other than an announcement. I don't think the details are out yet but...
My guess is it will go to international guys or potential upgrades. My further guess is that it rewrites production balance to a lower value so this doesn't happen again. The Virgin JV agreement set the floor below current flying because they saw this coming and didn't want to pay for noncompliance on Virgin.
BTW the Deltanet news piece on the May dip disappeared. I was going to reference it but, too late. Hmmm?
Last edited by notEnuf; 06-03-2015 at 08:23 AM.
06-03-2015, 08:01 AM
#5397
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by Professor
So I am sure someone is going to figure out how a 30 million dollar payout for JV non compliance is a bad thing?
Go ahead. I'm waiting.
Go ahead. I'm waiting.
And what is the JV section of the new Section 1 of the TA going to be?
Now, if that cost the pilot group $100M in lost wages, then $30M is a disappointment. If the Section 1 language is a concession, then it's a real disappointment when the two are put together.
But, it cost us $20M in lost wages and we got an extra $10M put on top of it, it's good. Especially if the Section 1 language improved.
So why at this point, without knowing more than what was told in the email and without seeing the new Section 1 should we really have any opinion on it? That would be like cheering 9933 in Section 3 before you find out its funded in Section 1 and 23 and the people here are too smart to get sucked in to headlines before they read the article.
06-03-2015, 08:03 AM
#5398
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,315
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
How much was actually lost because of the JV non compliance?
More or less than $30M?
And what is the JV section of the new Section 1 of the TA going to be?
If that cost the pilot group $100M in lost wages, then $30M is a disappointment. If the Section 1 language is a concession, then it's a real disappointment when the two are put together.
Now if it cost us $20M in lost wages and we got an extra $10M put on top of it, it's good. Especially if the Section 1 language improved.
So why at this point, without knowing more than what was told in the email and without seeing the new Section 1 should we really have any opinion on it?
it'd be like cheering 9933 in Section 3 before you find out its funded in Section 1 and 23.
Too soon Professor. Too soon.
More or less than $30M?
And what is the JV section of the new Section 1 of the TA going to be?
If that cost the pilot group $100M in lost wages, then $30M is a disappointment. If the Section 1 language is a concession, then it's a real disappointment when the two are put together.
Now if it cost us $20M in lost wages and we got an extra $10M put on top of it, it's good. Especially if the Section 1 language improved.
So why at this point, without knowing more than what was told in the email and without seeing the new Section 1 should we really have any opinion on it?
it'd be like cheering 9933 in Section 3 before you find out its funded in Section 1 and 23.
Too soon Professor. Too soon.
06-03-2015, 08:06 AM
#5399
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,882
Originally Posted by Professor
So I am sure someone is going to figure out how a 30 million dollar payout for JV non compliance is a bad thing?
Go ahead. I'm waiting.
Go ahead. I'm waiting.
Scoop
06-03-2015, 08:12 AM
#5400
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
Originally Posted by Scoop
It totally depends on the long term resolution of the issue. It could be very good to very bad. Not enough information to make a decision.
Scoop
Scoop
I think that is the right response.
But I'm beyond ignorant. So. There is that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
