|
It passes easily 65-70% to 25-30%
|
Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1198595)
You've got it all wrong....giving up more DC-9 sized airframes with better range and a greater ability to steal mainline flying IMPROVES scope.
The company LOVES the 50 seater, and is making a HUGE sacrifice parking their beloved small RJ's early. (that's the "spin" the yes voters are trying to sell here). :) (I especially love how the TA makes you finance the small raise by significantly reducing profit sharing!) Stop giving up scope! (yes, I have read the TA and it is a MAJOR concessionary deal as far as scope goes.....) We could use the help. The 76 seat is a big issue but we gave that up several contracts ago. Once gone hard and very costly to put the horse back in the barn. Every time I see an RJ taxi by I see 2 pilots in the cockpit. This TA gets rid of a bunch of those outsourced pilots. DL is making record profits using tons of 50 seaters so I guess I fail to see the we have leverage factor. They could easily use the $ they save from not paying us to finance the upcoming costs associated with the 50 seaters and still make record profits (been following the price of jet-a lately). This coming Feb we will get a nice profit sharing check that is not reduced by anything with or without the TA. The reduction doesn't start until 2013 with that check coming Feb 2014. If DL makes the max $2.5 bil then that reduction is about 2%. By then we will have had about 16% in raises(compounded) that we have been receiving so your statement about meager pay raise funded by our bonus is a little bogus. I don't mind a DL pilot saying the pay raise is not enough but I have trouble when the bottom of the pack who have done NOTHING to help our cause snipes at our pay rates. By the way I am leaning towards a no vote because I believe there is more $ on the table and the reward of capturing that out weighs the risk of a no vote. |
Originally Posted by Elvis90
(Post 1198360)
Hey, I start Atlanta June 1st! I've found 1 yes & 10 no's or so in MSP. Most guys feel insulted, but also understand that it's just business.
Oh, and for the first time in my brief Delta career I was able to book the jumpseat to work! (to ATL) I love it! See, going DFW-MSP, it's all DCI, so I can't book it...sure would be nice to fix that DCI problem...hmmm... |
Originally Posted by finis72
(Post 1198610)
How's your SLI going ? Think you'll get it and a TA any time soon?
We could use the help. The 76 seat is a big issue but we gave that up several contracts ago. Once gone hard and very costly to put the horse back in the barn. Every time I see an RJ taxi by I see 2 pilots in the cockpit. This TA gets rid of a bunch of those outsourced pilots. DL is making record profits using tons of 50 seaters so I guess I fail to see the we have leverage factor. They could easily use the $ they save from not paying us to finance the upcoming costs associated with the 50 seaters and still make record profits (been following the price of jet-a lately). This coming Feb we will get a nice profit sharing check that is not reduced by anything with or without the TA. The reduction doesn't start until 2013 with that check coming Feb 2014. If DL makes the max $2.5 bil then that reduction is about 2%. By then we will have had about 16% in raises(compounded) that we have been receiving so your statement about meager pay raise funded by our bonus is a little bogus. I don't mind a DL pilot saying the pay raise is not enough but I have trouble when the bottom of the pack who have done NOTHING to help our cause snipes at our pay rates. By the way I am leaning towards a no vote because I believe there is more $ on the table and the reward of capturing that out weighs the risk of a no vote. |
Originally Posted by Reservebum
(Post 1198590)
I'm no expert at contract negotiating, but if mother Delta is in a hurry to get this through, there is probably a reason (can you say $2.5B profit?). Council 20's chairman's letter paints a good picture of the real 'value' of this TA.
My view...why the rush? Why give up any scope at all? The 50 seaters will soon go away anyway (or Delta takes a huge hit) why give up a single thing for something that will soon take care of itself? It's called leverage...let's use it! My fear...people are too short-sighted and will vote for an immediate pay raise, no matter how minuscule. NO, thank you. There is no huge hurry. There were concerns. One issue is the 717's. Boeing wants the aircraft placed. One way or another they are taking them back from SWA. SW is a massive Boeing customer. They have to take them back or SW will play the Airbus card. Remember when Herb had a A319 model on his desk? This surprises me but there are other players for the 717's. A block of identical airframes that can be delivered in mass is a unusual thing. That creates value. If we don't take the aircraft they are not going to the desert like I thought. They will go somewhere else. I don't know how much time we might have if we vote down this contract. I believe however if the company comes right back to the table and we get a deal done then the 717's will still be there for us. The 50 seaters are not going away if we don't reach a agreement. Its much cheaper for the company to keep them flying then pay the costs associated with parking them. The company has to make a decision ASAP to sign a massive agreement for engine overhauls or get rid of the aircraft. Once they go the overhaul route we are keeping them for a while. They are not the money losing monsters portrayed on here. A quick look at the 10Q's can confirm that. Again however if the company chooses to come back to the table there is plenty of time. I think the company will come back to the table. If we start meeting after 4 July we should be able to have a new agreement in place and voted on by 1 Sep. I know what it is going to take to get me to vote yes. Its going to take keeping the same profit sharing, 4 more percent in the 1 Jan 13 raise and 1 percent more in the DC effective 1 Jan 13. Cost to the company 140 to 160 million. Is it worth it to the company? Hopefully! |
Originally Posted by Reservebum
(Post 1198590)
I'm no expert at contract negotiating, but if mother Delta is in a hurry to get this through, there is probably a reason (can you say $2.5B profit?). Council 20's chairman's letter paints a good picture of the real 'value' of this TA.
My view...why the rush? Why give up any scope at all? The 50 seaters will soon go away anyway (or Delta takes a huge hit) why give up a single thing for something that will soon take care of itself? It's called leverage...let's use it! My fear...people are too short-sighted and will vote for an immediate pay raise, no matter how minuscule. NO, thank you. There is no huge hurry. There were concerns. One issue is the 717's. Boeing wants the aircraft placed. One way or another they are taking them back from SWA. SW is a massive Boeing customer. They have to take them back or SW will play the Airbus card. Remember when Herb had a A319 model on his desk? This surprises me but there are other players for the 717's. A block of identical airframes that can be delivered in mass is a unusual thing. That creates value. If we don't take the aircraft they are not going to the desert like I thought. They will go somewhere else. I don't know how much time we might have if we vote down this contract. I believe however if the company comes right back to the table and we get a deal done then the 717's will still be there for us. The 50 seaters are not going away if we don't reach a agreement. Its much cheaper for the company to keep them flying then pay the costs associated with parking them. The company has to make a decision ASAP to sign a massive agreement for engine overhauls or get rid of the aircraft. Once they go the overhaul route we are keeping them for a while. They are not the money losing monsters portrayed on here. A quick look at the 10Q's can confirm that. Again however if the company chooses to come back to the table there is plenty of time. I think the company will come back to the table. If we start meeting after 4 July we should be able to have a new agreement in place and voted on by 1 Sep. I know what it is going to take to get me to vote yes. Its going to take keeping the same profit sharing, 4 more percent in the 1 Jan 13 raise and 1 percent more in the DC effective 1 Jan 13. Cost to the company 140 to 160 million. Is it worth it to the company? Hopefully! |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1198629)
There is no huge hurry. There were concerns. One issue is the 717's. Boeing wants the aircraft placed. One way or another they are taking them back from SWA. SW is a massive Boeing customer. They have to take them back or SW will play the Airbus card. Remember when Herb had a A319 model on his desk? This surprises me but there are other players for the 717's. A block of identical airframes that can be delivered in mass is a unusual thing. That creates value. If we don't take the aircraft they are not going to the desert like I thought. They will go somewhere else. I don't know how much time we might have if we vote down this contract. I believe however if the company comes right back to the table and we get a deal done then the 717's will still be there for us.
The 50 seaters are not going away if we don't reach a agreement. Its much cheaper for the company to keep them flying then pay the costs associated with parking them. The company has to make a decision ASAP to sign a massive agreement for engine overhauls or get rid of the aircraft. Once they go the overhaul route we are keeping them for a while. They are not the money losing monsters portrayed on here. A quick look at the 10Q's can confirm that. Again however if the company chooses to come back to the table there is plenty of time. I think the company will come back to the table. If we start meeting after 4 July we should be able to have a new agreement in place and voted on by 1 Sep. I know what it is going to take to get me to vote yes. Its going to take keeping the same profit sharing, 4 more percent in the 1 Jan 13 raise and 1 percent more in the DC effective 1 Jan 13. Cost to the company 140 to 160 million. Is it worth it to the company? Hopefully! |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1198629)
There is no huge hurry. There were concerns. One issue is the 717's. Boeing wants the aircraft placed. One way or another they are taking them back from SWA. SW is a massive Boeing customer. They have to take them back or SW will play the Airbus card. Remember when Herb had a A319 model on his desk? This surprises me but there are other players for the 717's. A block of identical airframes that can be delivered in mass is a unusual thing. That creates value. If we don't take the aircraft they are not going to the desert like I thought. They will go somewhere else. I don't know how much time we might have if we vote down this contract. I believe however if the company comes right back to the table and we get a deal done then the 717's will still be there for us.
The 50 seaters are not going away if we don't reach a agreement. Its much cheaper for the company to keep them flying then pay the costs associated with parking them. The company has to make a decision ASAP to sign a massive agreement for engine overhauls or get rid of the aircraft. Once they go the overhaul route we are keeping them for a while. They are not the money losing monsters portrayed on here. A quick look at the 10Q's can confirm that. Again however if the company chooses to come back to the table there is plenty of time. I think the company will come back to the table. If we start meeting after 4 July we should be able to have a new agreement in place and voted on by 1 Sep. I know what it is going to take to get me to vote yes. Its going to take keeping the same profit sharing, 4 more percent in the 1 Jan 13 raise and 1 percent more in the DC effective 1 Jan 13. Cost to the company 140 to 160 million. Is it worth it to the company? Hopefully! I think your analysis is mostly spot on. The big problem with the 50-seater is the number of seats...thus the push for more 76-seat jets. (compare the DAL 330-220 and 330-300 CASM and you will immediately see what I mean) Cheers George |
Originally Posted by NERD
(Post 1198560)
My guess is it passes. Less than 80% will bother to vote and of that it will pass by a small margin. 57%
|
Originally Posted by finis72
(Post 1198610)
How's your SLI going ? Think you'll get it and a TA any time soon?
We could use the help. The 76 seat is a big issue but we gave that up several contracts ago. Once gone hard and very costly to put the horse back in the barn. Every time I see an RJ taxi by I see 2 pilots in the cockpit. This TA gets rid of a bunch of those outsourced pilots. DL is making record profits using tons of 50 seaters so I guess I fail to see the we have leverage factor. They could easily use the $ they save from not paying us to finance the upcoming costs associated with the 50 seaters and still make record profits (been following the price of jet-a lately). This coming Feb we will get a nice profit sharing check that is not reduced by anything with or without the TA. The reduction doesn't start until 2013 with that check coming Feb 2014. If DL makes the max $2.5 bil then that reduction is about 2%. By then we will have had about 16% in raises(compounded) that we have been receiving so your statement about meager pay raise funded by our bonus is a little bogus. I don't mind a DL pilot saying the pay raise is not enough but I have trouble when the bottom of the pack who have done NOTHING to help our cause snipes at our pay rates. By the way I am leaning towards a no vote because I believe there is more $ on the table and the reward of capturing that out weighs the risk of a no vote. Let's talk about giving up 90 seat airframes that will expand the ability of Delta management to replace DAL pilots. You guys always push the envelope in outsourcing, and SOME of you see the need to stop it. Others see a carrot (the 717's) and bite at it every time. Pilots are always surprised when the intent of the contract is not followed. We never learn. DAL's intent is to get you looking at shiny new jets, then pull the rug out from under you in a few years and outsource most of your domestic flying. As far as UAL goes....we were forced to take 70 seaters while in BK. CAL is still limited to 50. Since we are no longer in BK (and not in a concessionary mindset) we will look to improve our scope. That means less 70 seaters, no 90 seaters, and the 50 seat jets will disappear due to their lack of economic sense. The 90 seaters you keep allowing are a much greater threat to our careers than the little 50 seater. You guys will be opening up a TON of new routes with the extended range and carrying capacity of these big jets. Like you said, it's very expensive to fix scope after the fact. That's why you have to stop allowing this to continue. Once again....parking airplanes that management doesn't want for BIG ones that they DO is not in your best interest! |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:59 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands