Air Tran 717's reported to go to Delta
04-11-2012, 09:12 AM
#581
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by gloopy
I'm more worried that SWA pays Delta whale pay for small 737's. Besides, downgauging the fleet would still drag the pay scales down even with LBP because there would have to be a means to balance the pay for significant fleet average sizes anyway.
If we agreed to one rate and then the next day the company orders 50 stretch A380-900's "thousand seaters" we would be squealing for a cut of that. Likewise, if we parked all widebodies and became a global MD88 and ER airline, the company would demand a lowering of that one rate to account for the massive loss in revenue. It would likely be a floating average but in any case, there would be even more pressure than we face today to be as big as possible at "the mainline" at all costs so as to preserve our one rate of pay when the fleet size average went down.
Not to mention the enormous pressure to sell more scope to preserve the one rate because we *really* wouldn't want those barbie fun jets being flown by our list polluting up the pay scale, the company wouldn't pay whale pay for CRJ's (unless whale pay was brought way, WAY down) and besides, for every 3 large RJ's we'll give you guys a new shiny widebody jet.
LBP fixes some issues, no doubt. But it causes others and at the end of the day we would likely end up with pay banding to some degree anyway.
If we agreed to one rate and then the next day the company orders 50 stretch A380-900's "thousand seaters" we would be squealing for a cut of that. Likewise, if we parked all widebodies and became a global MD88 and ER airline, the company would demand a lowering of that one rate to account for the massive loss in revenue. It would likely be a floating average but in any case, there would be even more pressure than we face today to be as big as possible at "the mainline" at all costs so as to preserve our one rate of pay when the fleet size average went down.
Not to mention the enormous pressure to sell more scope to preserve the one rate because we *really* wouldn't want those barbie fun jets being flown by our list polluting up the pay scale, the company wouldn't pay whale pay for CRJ's (unless whale pay was brought way, WAY down) and besides, for every 3 large RJ's we'll give you guys a new shiny widebody jet.
LBP fixes some issues, no doubt. But it causes others and at the end of the day we would likely end up with pay banding to some degree anyway.
04-11-2012, 09:24 AM
#582
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,868
[QUOTE=gloopy;1167533]
Like, OK 153 76ers can flex up to 200 for 5-7 years but then back down to 153 then zero at the end of current leases, all 50's go away in 3 years, Alaska code share is reduced to 25 seats a day between markets and we rule the skies in all JV's and get a big fat make it rain restoration raise. Would that be worth considering?
In an ideal world I would say lets look at something like this. The problem is that we live in a world where the company will grow to 200 today with a future promise of shrinking.
We all know how this story plays out - the company grows and when its time to live up to the hard part they come to DALPA with the next great "Promise."
Which is exactly where we are now - DALPA and the company agreed to the current 70-76 seat limit a few years ago - well lets see what happens.
Will DALPA actually attempt to hold the company to the 153 limit? Which by the way was previously a 120 limit that DALPA agreed to raise to 153. Or is Scope the bargaining chip that will always be on the table?
50-70-76-??????
Scoop
Like, OK 153 76ers can flex up to 200 for 5-7 years but then back down to 153 then zero at the end of current leases, all 50's go away in 3 years, Alaska code share is reduced to 25 seats a day between markets and we rule the skies in all JV's and get a big fat make it rain restoration raise. Would that be worth considering?
In an ideal world I would say lets look at something like this. The problem is that we live in a world where the company will grow to 200 today with a future promise of shrinking.
We all know how this story plays out - the company grows and when its time to live up to the hard part they come to DALPA with the next great "Promise."
Which is exactly where we are now - DALPA and the company agreed to the current 70-76 seat limit a few years ago - well lets see what happens.
Will DALPA actually attempt to hold the company to the 153 limit? Which by the way was previously a 120 limit that DALPA agreed to raise to 153. Or is Scope the bargaining chip that will always be on the table?
50-70-76-??????
Scoop
04-11-2012, 10:37 AM
#583
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Posts: 1,044
[QUOTE=Scoop;1167612]
Like, OK 153 76ers can flex up to 200 for 5-7 years but then back down to 153 then zero at the end of current leases, all 50's go away in 3 years, Alaska code share is reduced to 25 seats a day between markets and we rule the skies in all JV's and get a big fat make it rain restoration raise. Would that be worth considering?
In an ideal world I would say lets look at something like this. The problem is that we live in a world where the company will grow to 200 today with a future promise of shrinking.
We all know how this story plays out - the company grows and when its time to live up to the hard part they come to DALPA with the next great "Promise."
Which is exactly where we are now - DALPA and the company agreed to the current 70-76 seat limit a few years ago - well lets see what happens.
Will DALPA actually attempt to hold the company to the 153 limit? Which by the way was previously a 120 limit that DALPA agreed to raise to 153. Or is Scope the bargaining chip that will always be on the table?
50-70-76-??????
Scoop
“I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger Today”
An appeal for a small loan that will not be paid back.
No more hamburgers.
Originally Posted by gloopy
Like, OK 153 76ers can flex up to 200 for 5-7 years but then back down to 153 then zero at the end of current leases, all 50's go away in 3 years, Alaska code share is reduced to 25 seats a day between markets and we rule the skies in all JV's and get a big fat make it rain restoration raise. Would that be worth considering?
In an ideal world I would say lets look at something like this. The problem is that we live in a world where the company will grow to 200 today with a future promise of shrinking.
We all know how this story plays out - the company grows and when its time to live up to the hard part they come to DALPA with the next great "Promise."
Which is exactly where we are now - DALPA and the company agreed to the current 70-76 seat limit a few years ago - well lets see what happens.
Will DALPA actually attempt to hold the company to the 153 limit? Which by the way was previously a 120 limit that DALPA agreed to raise to 153. Or is Scope the bargaining chip that will always be on the table?
50-70-76-??????
Scoop
An appeal for a small loan that will not be paid back.
No more hamburgers.
04-11-2012, 04:10 PM
#584
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by tsquare
First of all, LBP has NOTHING to do with the size or makeup with the fleet. I think that is where many get lost. LBP is just what it says... Longevity Based Pay. You are paid based on years of service, with the only discriminator being whether you are in the left or right seat.
When looking at our rates there is really only one large gap; the one between the ER and the 330. Other than that the differences between our pay isn't that great as it is. There is no way management is going to make multibillion dollar fleet decisions based on the pay differentials we have. The 737-900ER's we ordered to replace 757 were purely a matter of the economics and price of the plane. Looking at the pay rate differences between the two would make the company doing it for that reason absolutely insane, and/or outright vindictive. Not to mention some of those planes were ordered to replace aging A320's so that would result in a relatively small increase in pay.
First of all, DAL will never buy a bunch of 380s. They won't even buy a bunch of 777s , and they LIKE them... So why interject an argument like that?
But for the sake of that argument, it would be incumbent upon us to get a high enough rate on the WB equipment so as to make those 380 pay rates palatable.
Pay banding might work though, and I wouldn't be objected to it. An MD 90 should pay at least what an A319 does.
05-29-2012, 05:10 PM
#585
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Position: 7ER A
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by WideRide
Fact, not speculation:
Delta wants the 717's and they are being discussed right now as part of the contract openers.
My personal speculation: The Company will seek a lower hourly rate increase and/or SCOPE concessions for these jets.
ALPA will try to sell it to us with the lure of shiny jets, fear of Iran instabilty, fuel prices, etc.
No scope concessions and no jets for low rates!!!! Call your reps!!!
Delta wants the 717's and they are being discussed right now as part of the contract openers.
My personal speculation: The Company will seek a lower hourly rate increase and/or SCOPE concessions for these jets.
ALPA will try to sell it to us with the lure of shiny jets, fear of Iran instabilty, fuel prices, etc.
No scope concessions and no jets for low rates!!!! Call your reps!!!
Originally Posted by tsquare
OK then there Sparky, if it is a "fact" then why don't you divulge your source? If it is a fact, then they shouldn't mind..
As far as your crap about ALPA trying to sell us blah blah blah.. that just reeks of the Krispy Kreme Krowd propaganda...
The only thing of any substance in your post were the last 3 words. Other than that..
As far as your crap about ALPA trying to sell us blah blah blah.. that just reeks of the Krispy Kreme Krowd propaganda...
The only thing of any substance in your post were the last 3 words. Other than that..
Originally Posted by shiznit
Can you provide a reference for your "fact"?
Your speculation is unfounded. 88 717-200 airframes will merely replace(with potentially added growth) the 68 DC-9 airframes that NWA operated pre-Delta merger.
Your speculation is unfounded. 88 717-200 airframes will merely replace(with potentially added growth) the 68 DC-9 airframes that NWA operated pre-Delta merger.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
