One side is mistaken
06-24-2015 | 08:38 PM
#81
Banned
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Whack a mole continues...a few posts ago you were worried about scope. I explained why I'm not concerned so now we're on to this - which is the biggest problem with the TA. Quite honestly I don't think its going to be as big of an impact as the NFW crowd is speculating. The very most junior line holders will feel it. It is a concession. I don't like it. However in the greater context of the deal I am willing to accept it because we all have choices except for the newest of newhires and even they will be senior in 6 months. What happens if the hiring/movement grinds to a a halt will be your next point right? Training will naturally slow down so the impact will ebb and flow.
You can call it selling out if you want. I agree it is the worst part about the deal, but I'm willing to go along with it because of the upsides in the TA and the fact that I don't think most guys will even notice the impact.
You can call it selling out if you want. I agree it is the worst part about the deal, but I'm willing to go along with it because of the upsides in the TA and the fact that I don't think most guys will even notice the impact.
17 years and I don't feel all that senior after most of those years were stagnation, with more stagnation and lost QOL built into this TA.
06-24-2015 | 08:40 PM
#82
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 830
Likes: 10
From: metal tube operator
The very most junior line holders will feel it. It is a concession. I don't like it. However in the greater context of the deal I am willing to accept it because we all have choices except for the newest of newhires and even they will be senior in 6 months.
You can call it selling out if you want. I agree it is the worst part about the deal, but I'm willing to go along with it because of the upsides in the TA and the fact that I don't think most guys will even notice the impact.
06-24-2015 | 08:40 PM
#83
La Familia Delta
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,467
Likes: 0
From: B-717 FO / C-17 AC
Whack a mole continues...a few posts ago you were worried about scope. I explained why I'm not concerned so now we're on to this - which is the biggest problem with the TA. Quite honestly I don't think its going to be as big of an impact as the NFW crowd is speculating. The very most junior line holders will feel it. It is a concession. I don't like it. However in the greater context of the deal I am willing to accept it because we all have choices except for the newest of newhires and even they will be senior in 6 months. What happens if the hiring/movement grinds to a a halt will be your next point right? Training will naturally slow down so the impact will ebb and flow.
You can call it selling out if you want. I agree it is the worst part about the deal, but I'm willing to go along with it because of the upsides in the TA and the fact that I don't think most guys will even notice the impact.
You can call it selling out if you want. I agree it is the worst part about the deal, but I'm willing to go along with it because of the upsides in the TA and the fact that I don't think most guys will even notice the impact.
Prediction: You and I are going to have this conversation again in 2018. And I'll remind you in 2018 that this is the year to stand up for yourself. And in 2018, you'll come up with more reasons to take the first deal. Ok lets seal that in the vault and revisit in 3 years
06-24-2015 | 08:40 PM
#84
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
From: DAL FO
06-24-2015 | 08:41 PM
#85
veut gagner ŕ la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Yes but IF they take delivery of the 76 seaters they are allowed the min ratio goes up to either 1.56 (current max under the PWA) or 1.81 (Max under the TA.) It's a noose. It they want to pull tight, the noose tightens. Either deal provides us significantly better protections than what delta pilots had after 9/11 when they watch DCI grow at their expense. I don't want to go there again which is why the block hour ratios make sense.
If they don't take deliveries of any more 76-seaters, you can park 116 MD-88s and still meet the 1.35 ratio, which is unchanged in TA2015. Again, check DALPAs numbers, we're going to be at 1.6 for June, 1.35 is the min, we're above the min. From a protection standpoint that is not good.
If they took their full allotment allowed by C2012, you could go back to 2012 mainline fleet number which is about -70 domestic jets. Or 50 jets with TA2015. Or -20 domestic jets from where we are today with TA2015 language but in doing so you'd just erased MD88s and replaced them with EMB-190s that pay $30+ less than the 717.
If 2018 builds on 2015, we're hosed.
06-24-2015 | 08:45 PM
#86
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
From: DAL FO
well scope, sick, and LCA bidding were all big deals to me and so of course I have to address them. Youre solidly focused on the money portion of it, and that's fine, but buyer beware. Youre money making opportunities wont be there like you hoped. Under the current PWA you can essentially write your own paycheck, and then enjoy the higher PS on it. You tie your hands with this new TA. This isn't about throwing a specific concession at you to see what sticks, its about the whole package. If you look at only the money you miss a lot of the important details that youre voluntarily giving up without any pushback whatsoever.
Prediction: You and I are going to have this conversation again in 2018. And I'll remind you in 2018 that this is the year to stand up for yourself. And in 2018, you'll come up with more reasons to take the first deal. Ok lets seal that in the vault and revisit in 3 years
Prediction: You and I are going to have this conversation again in 2018. And I'll remind you in 2018 that this is the year to stand up for yourself. And in 2018, you'll come up with more reasons to take the first deal. Ok lets seal that in the vault and revisit in 3 years
There were pilots just like you worried about all kinds of things in 2012 - in fact they were sick, profit sharing and scope. I'd say it's turned out just fine. If the No's carry the day, I will support the will of the majority. There is a lot of that out there. We may finally get to see what that strategy looks like. Not my preference but it would be interesting to see if play out.
06-24-2015 | 08:48 PM
#87
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
From: DAL FO
The only noose involved is the one we're making ourselves if there is a real significant downturn.
If they don't take deliveries of any more 76-seaters, you can park 116 MD-88s and still meet the 1.35 ratio, which is unchanged in TA2015. Again, check DALPAs numbers, we're going to be at 1.6 for June, 1.35 is the min, we're above the min. From a protection standpoint that is not good.
If they took their full allotment allowed by C2012, you could go back to 2012 mainline fleet number which is about -70 domestic jets. Or 50 jets with TA2015. Or -20 domestic jets from where we are today with TA2015 language but in doing so you'd just erased MD88s and replaced them with EMB-190s that pay $30+ less than the 717.
If 2018 builds on 2015, we're hosed.
If they don't take deliveries of any more 76-seaters, you can park 116 MD-88s and still meet the 1.35 ratio, which is unchanged in TA2015. Again, check DALPAs numbers, we're going to be at 1.6 for June, 1.35 is the min, we're above the min. From a protection standpoint that is not good.
If they took their full allotment allowed by C2012, you could go back to 2012 mainline fleet number which is about -70 domestic jets. Or 50 jets with TA2015. Or -20 domestic jets from where we are today with TA2015 language but in doing so you'd just erased MD88s and replaced them with EMB-190s that pay $30+ less than the 717.
If 2018 builds on 2015, we're hosed.
The replacement jets at mainline is a wash of an argument because they can do that now if they want to. In fact they are with the 757 down to the 737-900. Nothing in our current or proposed contract prevents them from downsizing if they decide to. What the ratios do is force them to keep it on our list.
06-24-2015 | 08:49 PM
#88
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
From: DAL A320 CA
CG, what I don't understand is why you lament what happened post 9/11 with RJ flying expanding at the expense of mainline but don't consider that with this TA you make that just as plausible a thing to do today as it was then.
50-seaters were profitable on 09SEP11, they're not now and wouldn't be even with 9/11 2.0. What is profitable now and post 9/11 2.0 would be 76-seaters.
If 9/11 2.0 happened today and Delta needed to cut capacity, they could cut a large portion of it from mainline without touching DCI, thanks to where the ratio minimum is set with c2012.
And fwiw, with DCI's current fleet is the C2012 ratio is 1.35, post TA2015, it's 1.35. The 1.56 and new 1.81 are not in play. In June we're slated, according to DALPA, to be at 1.6 on the ratio, 1.35 is the min, so you could cut about 120 mainline jets and furlough and never see another DCI jet get parked.
Adding more 76-seaters makes DCI more profitable. The wisest thing we could have done to save transferring flying from here to there was to make them choke on their 50-seat fleet, instead, we let them expand their 76-seat fleet.
50-seaters were profitable on 09SEP11, they're not now and wouldn't be even with 9/11 2.0. What is profitable now and post 9/11 2.0 would be 76-seaters.
If 9/11 2.0 happened today and Delta needed to cut capacity, they could cut a large portion of it from mainline without touching DCI, thanks to where the ratio minimum is set with c2012.
And fwiw, with DCI's current fleet is the C2012 ratio is 1.35, post TA2015, it's 1.35. The 1.56 and new 1.81 are not in play. In June we're slated, according to DALPA, to be at 1.6 on the ratio, 1.35 is the min, so you could cut about 120 mainline jets and furlough and never see another DCI jet get parked.
Adding more 76-seaters makes DCI more profitable. The wisest thing we could have done to save transferring flying from here to there was to make them choke on their 50-seat fleet, instead, we let them expand their 76-seat fleet.
This TA is gonna do what we've been squawking about for years..recapturing more DCI flying to mainline..opening the door for more CS-300's and E-190E2's at mainline. Delta pilots flying more Delta pax. More DCI pilots hired at Delta to fly Delta pax. So what if we have to verify an illness after 15 lost work days..if you're sick, you're sick.
I'm #11 in my category..I've very rarely enjoyed the LCA gravy train..if it hasn't happened by now..it ain't gonna happen.
Sorry to disappoint..but I sincerely think this TA, delivered 6 months early, with 73 captains making $250/hr on 1/1/16, scope and work rules improvements deserves your consideration.
Vote your conscience..
Respectfully, CG
06-24-2015 | 08:49 PM
#89
Banned
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
The only noose involved is the one we're making ourselves if there is a real significant downturn.
If they don't take deliveries of any more 76-seaters, you can park 116 MD-88s and still meet the 1.35 ratio, which is unchanged in TA2015. Again, check DALPAs numbers, we're going to be at 1.6 for June, 1.35 is the min, we're above the min. From a protection standpoint that is not good.
If they took their full allotment allowed by C2012, you could go back to 2012 mainline fleet number which is about -70 domestic jets. Or 50 jets with TA2015. Or -20 domestic jets from where we are today with TA2015 language but in doing so you'd just erased MD88s and replaced them with EMB-190s that pay $30+ less than the 717.
If 2018 builds on 2015, we're hosed.
If they don't take deliveries of any more 76-seaters, you can park 116 MD-88s and still meet the 1.35 ratio, which is unchanged in TA2015. Again, check DALPAs numbers, we're going to be at 1.6 for June, 1.35 is the min, we're above the min. From a protection standpoint that is not good.
If they took their full allotment allowed by C2012, you could go back to 2012 mainline fleet number which is about -70 domestic jets. Or 50 jets with TA2015. Or -20 domestic jets from where we are today with TA2015 language but in doing so you'd just erased MD88s and replaced them with EMB-190s that pay $30+ less than the 717.
If 2018 builds on 2015, we're hosed.
06-24-2015 | 08:54 PM
#90
La Familia Delta
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,467
Likes: 0
From: B-717 FO / C-17 AC
Yup. No point in even sending in a NC to the table. They'll come back with their heads down saying the company says this is the final offer take it or leave it. We'll of course believe it and all run to our computers and frantically vote yes, and wipe our brows and pat ourselves on the back. Phew, crisis averted, we avoided the big bad NMB. Our CEO Mr. Bastian will then parade us around for everyone to see, showcasing the amazing positive relationship between Delta Pilots and management. Because employees make a difference, and we value our employees. Does anyone else see the irony in all of this?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
