Delta Pilots Association
10-19-2010, 12:10 PM
#1441
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
The difference is the first would have been contractual. By said date we get X back. Could have put a metric in there too, but it is of no consequence since we did not do that. The difference is that one would have been agreed to and the other one needs us to come to an agreement with the company.
You seemed to be saying that the company's ability to pay us an increase is contingent on their profitability for a negotiated increase. You further indicated that we should have gotten a snap back when we took the pay cuts. Well, on one hand you seem to be saying that it would be bad (hurt the company) if we negotiate pay increases without the level of profitability you think we need. But on the other hand you said we should have negotiated snap backs. Either way, the company would be increasing our pay before they meet your standards for getting us a pay increase. I see inconsistency in your logic.
10-19-2010, 12:22 PM
#1442
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
The six quarters of profitability refer to what analysts say and management parrots as the minimum number of consecutive quarters of profitability before lending institutions think DAL is a safe lending bet and that Wall Street thinks that maybe the airlines are sustainable businesses on their own thereby bidding up the stock price.
Kind of the perfect storm of financial goodness.
I dont know why a 7-8% margin is required.
Kind of the perfect storm of financial goodness.
I dont know why a 7-8% margin is required.
10-19-2010, 12:23 PM
#1443
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
No 88, I am stating that it is their willingness.
I am not stating bad or good. I am telling you what the numeric value is that is attached to the demand, and telling you that I question the willingness of the company to play any sort of ball. I have further qualified it by stating that our current profit margins are in the ballpark of where there may be a possibility that an opener like that might be responded to.
Also, if there were snap backs it would have given you your money back but I would venture to bet that we would not have seen growth in 07/08. I also will further state that snap backs protect you, not the company. I would have liked to see them either in full or incrementally based on the level of profitability.
I am not mincing words. I am telling you that where we are and where we want to be will be viewed very differently by different parties including the NMB. It does not matter what I think it will do to the company, I am just telling you what response we should expect to get based on their profitability level. They will care less where we were, only where we and the company are. Em the facts. A myopic view but one we have no control over.
Many guys on this list will retire in the next few years, they will want something quick. You and I can wait it out, me more than you. It is an important contract and if it takes five plus years to get a TA half of this list will be gone before it is amendable.
I am not stating bad or good. I am telling you what the numeric value is that is attached to the demand, and telling you that I question the willingness of the company to play any sort of ball. I have further qualified it by stating that our current profit margins are in the ballpark of where there may be a possibility that an opener like that might be responded to.
Also, if there were snap backs it would have given you your money back but I would venture to bet that we would not have seen growth in 07/08. I also will further state that snap backs protect you, not the company. I would have liked to see them either in full or incrementally based on the level of profitability.
I am not mincing words. I am telling you that where we are and where we want to be will be viewed very differently by different parties including the NMB. It does not matter what I think it will do to the company, I am just telling you what response we should expect to get based on their profitability level. They will care less where we were, only where we and the company are. Em the facts. A myopic view but one we have no control over.
Many guys on this list will retire in the next few years, they will want something quick. You and I can wait it out, me more than you. It is an important contract and if it takes five plus years to get a TA half of this list will be gone before it is amendable.
Last edited by acl65pilot; 10-19-2010 at 12:33 PM.
10-19-2010, 12:29 PM
#1444
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by scambo1
The six quarters of profitability refer to what analysts say and management parrots as the minimum number of consecutive quarters of profitability before lending institutions think DAL is a safe lending bet and that Wall Street thinks that maybe the airlines are sustainable businesses on their own thereby bidding up the stock price.
Kind of the perfect storm of financial goodness.
I dont know why a 7-8% margin is required.
Kind of the perfect storm of financial goodness.
I dont know why a 7-8% margin is required.
10-19-2010, 12:32 PM
#1445
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by gloopy
Call their bluff then. If they do that for the USA, they lose their one and only eternal babysitter and they would have to provide for their own defense. Why do that when the world's reserve force (us) will do that for them forever and ever?
If we call their bluff and they don't blink, then we stop babysitting that corner of the world with our multi-trillion dollar mega-Marshall plan borrowed from fickle allies and borderline enemies alike. Our current trajectory is unsustainable enough as it is without giving away the store to Emirates for their little delusional rich kids playing with airplanes in the sandbox fantasy. That whole region is full of Branson wanna be's. The last thing we need to do is let them play in our backyard too because they play dirty with the money we pay them in the first place.
If we call their bluff and they don't blink, then we stop babysitting that corner of the world with our multi-trillion dollar mega-Marshall plan borrowed from fickle allies and borderline enemies alike. Our current trajectory is unsustainable enough as it is without giving away the store to Emirates for their little delusional rich kids playing with airplanes in the sandbox fantasy. That whole region is full of Branson wanna be's. The last thing we need to do is let them play in our backyard too because they play dirty with the money we pay them in the first place.
Trust me if I were in the White House I would, but that is not the way we play. Look at HND. Four slots for an Open Skies agreement that is anything but truly open for our side! What makes you think we can expect a different play over in the UAE?
10-19-2010, 12:39 PM
#1446
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
10%!!! Are you kidding me?? Sounds like someone's expectations have already been effectively managed.
We must get scope reversal. That will not come cheap. You want your 30, 40, 50, 60, 200% raise? You just might get it. BUT it will come in the form of zero scope restoration and probably additional scope relief.
Then the next downturn you will watch your restoration raise evaoprate and then some with the additional downward pressure of more outsourcing. Even in today's level of outsourcing we see half of our block hours (AKA pilot jobs) sent to the lowest bidder and our only current "100 seater" slated for retirement. If priority number one is the percentage raise, you can kiss it all goodbye eventually, unless you are within 5-10 years of retirement. Even then you have to be willing and able to gut the entire profession for future generations just for a cookie today.
I was talking about an immediate bridge contract with a 2 year ammendable date with significant scope reversal, approximately 20% compounded raise in just over a 12 month period (DOS and DOS +1 in 12 months and 1 day) and another 2-4% B fund contribution and some immediate work rule improvements. Think we can get more than that, including scope reversal, and get it quicker? OK, I'm all for that. But just keep in mind that 99.999999% of pilot CBA history shows us that when we insist on massive raises (give us 1-3 Bilion more per year and give it to us now or we will burn it all down unless you give us every last golden egg, etc) then odds are, overwhelimgly, that the negotiating committee will focus on the raise and completely surrender scope restoration and maybe even gut scope further.
In addition to that, odds are overwhelming that the process will take several years beyond the ammendable date in the first place. The NC will promise 100% retro, but again, odds are scope will pay for it one way or another.
I agree we need restoration. There are several approaches we can take towards that goal. But thinking on 1-1-13 we will instantly get 50%+ raises, every work rule we want, 1-3 Billion will slide off the bottom line without friction from the company's point of view, and we will take a stellar credit rating to the market to get those new 100 seaters, well that's a pretty big gamble. And its just that, a gamble.
And like it or not, it does depend on what UCAL gets. A lot actually. That doesn't mean we can't eclipse what they get. In fact we most likely can. But if they pay to get scope back and now it's our turn and all we care about is the raise, you know how the company and the NC (and definately ALPA natl) will want to pay for it.
10-19-2010, 12:50 PM
#1448
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Originally Posted by gloopy
You didn't listen (read) what I said, you only laser beam focused on the year one raise percentage. You want to me "managed"? Continue to do just that.
We must get scope reversal. That will not come cheap. You want your 30, 40, 50, 60, 200% raise? You just might get it. BUT it will come in the form of zero scope restoration and probably additional scope relief.
Then the next downturn you will watch your restoration raise evaoprate and then some with the additional downward pressure of more outsourcing. Even in today's level of outsourcing we see half of our block hours (AKA pilot jobs) sent to the lowest bidder and our only current "100 seater" slated for retirement. If priority number one is the percentage raise, you can kiss it all goodbye eventually, unless you are within 5-10 years of retirement. Even then you have to be willing and able to gut the entire profession for future generations just for a cookie today.
I was talking about an immediate bridge contract with a 2 year ammendable date with significant scope reversal, approximately 20% compounded raise in just over a 12 month period (DOS and DOS +1 in 12 months and 1 day) and another 2-4% B fund contribution and some immediate work rule improvements. Think we can get more than that, including scope reversal, and get it quicker? OK, I'm all for that. But just keep in mind that 99.999999% of pilot CBA history shows us that when we insist on massive raises (give us 1-3 Bilion more per year and give it to us now or we will burn it all down unless you give us every last golden egg, etc) then odds are, overwhelimgly, that the negotiating committee will focus on the raise and completely surrender scope restoration and maybe even gut scope further.
In addition to that, odds are overwhelming that the process will take several years beyond the ammendable date in the first place. The NC will promise 100% retro, but again, odds are scope will pay for it one way or another.
I agree we need restoration. There are several approaches we can take towards that goal. But thinking on 1-1-13 we will instantly get 50%+ raises, every work rule we want, 1-3 Billion will slide off the bottom line without friction from the company's point of view, and we will take a stellar credit rating to the market to get those new 100 seaters, well that's a pretty big gamble. And its just that, a gamble.
And like it or not, it does depend on what UCAL gets. A lot actually. That doesn't mean we can't eclipse what they get. In fact we most likely can. But if they pay to get scope back and now it's our turn and all we care about is the raise, you know how the company and the NC (and definately ALPA natl) will want to pay for it.
We must get scope reversal. That will not come cheap. You want your 30, 40, 50, 60, 200% raise? You just might get it. BUT it will come in the form of zero scope restoration and probably additional scope relief.
Then the next downturn you will watch your restoration raise evaoprate and then some with the additional downward pressure of more outsourcing. Even in today's level of outsourcing we see half of our block hours (AKA pilot jobs) sent to the lowest bidder and our only current "100 seater" slated for retirement. If priority number one is the percentage raise, you can kiss it all goodbye eventually, unless you are within 5-10 years of retirement. Even then you have to be willing and able to gut the entire profession for future generations just for a cookie today.
I was talking about an immediate bridge contract with a 2 year ammendable date with significant scope reversal, approximately 20% compounded raise in just over a 12 month period (DOS and DOS +1 in 12 months and 1 day) and another 2-4% B fund contribution and some immediate work rule improvements. Think we can get more than that, including scope reversal, and get it quicker? OK, I'm all for that. But just keep in mind that 99.999999% of pilot CBA history shows us that when we insist on massive raises (give us 1-3 Bilion more per year and give it to us now or we will burn it all down unless you give us every last golden egg, etc) then odds are, overwhelimgly, that the negotiating committee will focus on the raise and completely surrender scope restoration and maybe even gut scope further.
In addition to that, odds are overwhelming that the process will take several years beyond the ammendable date in the first place. The NC will promise 100% retro, but again, odds are scope will pay for it one way or another.
I agree we need restoration. There are several approaches we can take towards that goal. But thinking on 1-1-13 we will instantly get 50%+ raises, every work rule we want, 1-3 Billion will slide off the bottom line without friction from the company's point of view, and we will take a stellar credit rating to the market to get those new 100 seaters, well that's a pretty big gamble. And its just that, a gamble.
And like it or not, it does depend on what UCAL gets. A lot actually. That doesn't mean we can't eclipse what they get. In fact we most likely can. But if they pay to get scope back and now it's our turn and all we care about is the raise, you know how the company and the NC (and definately ALPA natl) will want to pay for it.
This pilot group views scope in a completely different way than it ever has before. You've got very senior Captains on here railing about how important it is! Everyone I fly with and everyone I run into talks about scope as being extremely important. You would have never seen that before the last couple of years. So, no, I don't think this pilot group will relax scope or give up on scope restoration no matter how big the pay increase is. I know I certainly won't.
But on the other hand, I won't vote for a contract that doesn't at least make significant progress towards pay restoration over the life of the contract. Your suggested increases do not come anywhere close to my minimum threshold. If ALPA is thinking like you on this (which I suspect they are), then I will vote for DPA in a heartbeat.
10-19-2010, 12:50 PM
#1449
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Trust me if I were in the White House I would, but that is not the way we play. Look at HND. Four slots for an Open Skies agreement that is anything but truly open for our side! What makes you think we can expect a different play over in the UAE?
As for Japan, we are still writing the next chapter in that story. Our military base will be drawn down eventually. We know it and they want that as well. We pay way too much to defend them as a nation and a region, and its time they start paying their fair share. Same for Korea. But geopolitics aside, the UAE has IMHO zero leverage because to any extent that they can spank us by carrying out their little threats, we can crapstorm right back on them ten fold. And I suggest we do. Making concessions so that dellusional oil tycoons can play airline tycoon with house money (most of it ours in the first place borrowed from China anyway) is unsat. Our relationship with our so called allies in that region is incredibly one sided. How we handle it is up for debate, but additional concessions is out of the question.
10-19-2010, 12:51 PM
#1450
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by sailingfun
A billion per year might be doable. That amount however will not be anywhere near a restoration contract. It will take well over 2 billion a year for that. To get a billion a year will take a strong united pilot group. I am not seeing that with the DPA thing.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
