Details on Delta TA
08-23-2014 | 06:33 AM
#732
At home on the maddog!
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 0
From: Retired (mandatory age 65)
I thought the conventional wisdom among DALPA aficionados was that my way of thinking would get us "parked" (love that term... no pilot likes to get "parked" 
). You know... time value of money and all that. 
08-23-2014 | 06:36 AM
#733
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
How about we talk about our laundry list of desired improvements.
Last edited by scambo1; 08-23-2014 at 06:48 AM.
08-23-2014 | 06:56 AM
#734
Banned
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
08-23-2014 | 07:18 AM
#735
Straight QOL, homie
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,202
Likes: 1
From: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
08-23-2014 | 08:14 AM
#736
At home on the maddog!
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 0
From: Retired (mandatory age 65)
08-23-2014 | 08:19 AM
#737
At home on the maddog!
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 0
From: Retired (mandatory age 65)
Not really. When we talk about restorative type "laundry lists" we get the kind of response from DALPA aficionados that I suggested to Alan. If he would seriously want someone with my point of view on the negotiating committee, I honestly would like to know how he reconciles that. Hard questions don't always have to turn into a food fight.
08-23-2014 | 08:21 AM
#738
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 0
1) Your point of view would prevail and we'd succeed beyond our wildest dreams
2) Your point of view would prevail and we'd get parked
3) Your point of view would not prevail, we'd be worse off as a result, and you'd be correctly frustrated at how weak the prevailing majority is
4) Your point of view would be altered by the things you learn from being on the committee and we'd be better off as a result
In any case, I believe that you would have a more informed perspective to share on these boards.
08-23-2014 | 08:31 AM
#739
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
The issue that nobody at DALPA wants to talk about is, So WHAT?
If I were Lee Moak, or Mike D, I would say to the NMB, "You park us, we park the airplanes, period." No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
Is that an illegal job action? Yup. Is Lee or MD going to go to jail, to get your pay and pension restored? Nope. That's why they won't even say the word.
But absent that threat, we have no real leverage, other than begging for 3% raises, after taking 42% pay cuts.
What was it Richard said, "Labor risk has been taken off the table..."
Without Labor Risk, we have no leverage.
So bend over and take C2015 in the pooper, again. You will NEVER see 'restoration' absent the threat of a job action. Richard is not going to throw that much money at us just because he likes us. If however, his billions of Delta Shares were to drop in value, due to pilot unrest....well...now we may be getting somewhere! But we don't have the leadership to pull it off. And to be honest, we don't have the membership to pull it off either. What did you think that rocking chair was for?
08-23-2014 | 08:58 AM
#740
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Likes: 0
We're not going to fall for it though. Even if we're told to fall for it, we're not going to fall for it.
We're very productive, especially considering the company chooses to have the least productive fleet mix in the industry. They get a revenue premium from that however, which is a small part of why we are a very high revenue per pilot group. They say productivity per pilot, we say revenue per pilot.
Case closed.
I don't think they really want banding as a means to an end. What they really want are longer freezes and FAR117 undoing soft changes lik e block time starting at wheel spin up and other schemes. Other than that, we don't have very much "productivity" left to give. Not to mention they could get massive increased productivity by simplifying fleet types anytime they want to. That is and always has been their choice.
We're very productive, especially considering the company chooses to have the least productive fleet mix in the industry. They get a revenue premium from that however, which is a small part of why we are a very high revenue per pilot group. They say productivity per pilot, we say revenue per pilot.
Case closed.
I don't think they really want banding as a means to an end. What they really want are longer freezes and FAR117 undoing soft changes lik e block time starting at wheel spin up and other schemes. Other than that, we don't have very much "productivity" left to give. Not to mention they could get massive increased productivity by simplifying fleet types anytime they want to. That is and always has been their choice.
What is coming our way?
Reduced profit sharing to fund pay increases. Worst mistakewe could ever makes opening this Pandora's box. If it was a good deal, why would management want it?
Rolling AF/KLM scope violation into C2015. Management will work this settlement down to nothing by forcing it into the new PWA.
Longer freezes. Management is in a full fledged panic over the training waterfall. As always, they expect us to fix their problems.
Jerry
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
