Odds of Delta TA passing
05-27-2012 | 11:27 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
Well sir, I respectfully disagree with your view on this. I do know that if with each contract we keep giving up a little more Scope at a time, there will come a time when there is nothing left as ALPA keeps moving the chains with each TA.
Really is interesting that in regards to not giving our jobs away we can have such opposing views. Or are we not in agreement that we shouldn't give away our jobs?
Really is interesting that in regards to not giving our jobs away we can have such opposing views. Or are we not in agreement that we shouldn't give away our jobs?
We both want the same thing as an end result, we just weem to disagree about the path to get there. I think we both know this can't be the TA that resolves all Scope issues, so the question is about the best way.
I think this TA adresses many large, middle, and small-gauge Scope issues. I'm glad we don't add a new larger airplane, and I'm not particularly obsessed about adding more of a permitted aircraft, provided the end result is that we don much more of our own flying at the end.
I think you see a path where turning this TA down gets us what you and I both want, and I see that path as a dead-end, which doesn't connect with our objectives over time.
05-27-2012 | 11:28 AM
#52
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Thanks Sink and CVG Captain.
I don't know which way to call it. I've managed to lose about $180K in the stock market by being too early at buys, then getting frustrated and selling just as the crowd jumped in and ran the price up.
Did well in real estate through 2007 to 2011 and now can't find inventory to buy. It was a lot easier when the banks were dumping property and any house could be had for a "dollar over."
In other words, my timing is off. Did I mention I got into the airline business in 2000?
However management also is fully aware of all of this. They wouldn't have been in such a rush to get a deal done if they could just wait a year or so and say, "Look at Europe. We simply can't pay you what you deserve.". Sometimes we learn quite a bit if we look at particular situations from a variety of perspectives, not just our own.
Did well in real estate through 2007 to 2011 and now can't find inventory to buy. It was a lot easier when the banks were dumping property and any house could be had for a "dollar over."
In other words, my timing is off. Did I mention I got into the airline business in 2000?
05-27-2012 | 11:42 AM
#53
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Bar,
I think what you say makes sense. Europe has been in the process of imploding for several years, and the process seems to be picking up speed. Whether they go the kick Greece out route (which would be far worse in my opinion) or the federalism route they are going to have a difficult time ahead which will almost certainly have a negative impact on the world and US economies- Delta included. There is logic in taking the deal on the table b/c of the uncertainties in Europe and the improvements in this TA.
But... the pay rates still stink! And the reduction in profit sharing is a slap in the face. Yet, I find I can probably get past both of those. I'm having a difficult time swallowing the scope changes. I don't like the holes that have been discussed repeatedly in regard to republic and cat b flying. I understand the improvement argument in regards to less RJs, but it sure doesn't feel like an improvement with 70 more large RJs on the way.
So, I'll say for me, the European situation is a factor I've considered, but I still don't think I can get past the scope. I think the language is too weak and the company will exploit it. If not this management, then the next. And I don't believe our union will enforce it. So bottom line, I don't trust the company or the union.
Although in reality, I have little hope that we won't vote this in. I spoke with two pilots MD88 CA and FO recently both were definite 'yes' votes, and neither had any awareness of the weaknesses in this contract. They thought a 20% raise was acceptable and were happy to get 717s, and they weren't interested in hearing another view point. I fear we have a lot of pilots who fall into this category.
I think what you say makes sense. Europe has been in the process of imploding for several years, and the process seems to be picking up speed. Whether they go the kick Greece out route (which would be far worse in my opinion) or the federalism route they are going to have a difficult time ahead which will almost certainly have a negative impact on the world and US economies- Delta included. There is logic in taking the deal on the table b/c of the uncertainties in Europe and the improvements in this TA.
But... the pay rates still stink! And the reduction in profit sharing is a slap in the face. Yet, I find I can probably get past both of those. I'm having a difficult time swallowing the scope changes. I don't like the holes that have been discussed repeatedly in regard to republic and cat b flying. I understand the improvement argument in regards to less RJs, but it sure doesn't feel like an improvement with 70 more large RJs on the way.
So, I'll say for me, the European situation is a factor I've considered, but I still don't think I can get past the scope. I think the language is too weak and the company will exploit it. If not this management, then the next. And I don't believe our union will enforce it. So bottom line, I don't trust the company or the union.
Although in reality, I have little hope that we won't vote this in. I spoke with two pilots MD88 CA and FO recently both were definite 'yes' votes, and neither had any awareness of the weaknesses in this contract. They thought a 20% raise was acceptable and were happy to get 717s, and they weren't interested in hearing another view point. I fear we have a lot of pilots who fall into this category.
05-27-2012 | 11:54 AM
#54
Banned
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Another way to look at this TA is to pan out and see it from 85,000 and Mach 3. In other words, what is the economic risk of forgoing this choice or opportunity cost of locking into a contract which is below market ?
This chart may be a bit confusing, but to the left it shows the decrease in Gross Domestic Product created by a Greek exit from the Euro. The mechanism for this happening is unfolding as Greeks (and Spanish) depositors take their Euro denominated money out of Greek banks and the European Central Bank comes in to recapitalize the banks. Eventually Germans will tire of pumping money into Greek banks when even the Greeks themselves do not have confidence in their system.
When the Greek institutions run out of Euros they will be forced to issue IOU's then issue their own currency. The creation of a currency takes time and will be highly unstable. Real value depreciation of 50% (100% inflation) is expected.
If Greeks manage to remain sane through this process it might be time for the rest of Europe and the US to plan a nice cheap vacation to the Greek Islands. There will be a "flight to quality" as people and institutions seek a safe place for their money (US and to some extent the Middle East). This will increase the value of the dollar causing deflation, which is good for consumers (us) but bad for producers (Delta & our employers).
Spain will be the problem ... this just looks at a "Gr-exit" a "Spain-xit" would have about a 5 times greater impact.
Further, to the extent that this causes price deflation in the United States, Delta would hope to deflate our pay in a similar fashion to remain value neutral. Or in other words, by locking in gains now, we pilots are effectively hedged against economic uncertainty. While that may be stating the obvious ... we really are in an uncertain time. The US government has had the accelerator floored for a while with near zero cost financing from the Fed. Not only is the Fed out of bullets, their policies could cause hyperinflation coming out of the back side (which is when we would NEED a new contract pronto).
The way I see it, June is going to be an exciting month in Euro politics. The first of several votes begins on June 7th. Rapid action to either Federalize, or break up, will be needed. Can Brussels and the rest of Europe act quickly? I doubt it.
So what does any of this mean to us other than the additional 5% decline in European capacity planned by Delta this fall?
If you review the history of Delta agreements, we have not made it to an amendable date since 1999 / 2000. In every case our contract has been modified in response to ongoing events. Statistically, it is likely this contract will be modified before it's amenable date.
I am not trying to scare people. Could be good news like lots of people traveling to cheap European vacations or bad news, like we had in 2008 (but with governmental paralysis making things much worse).
Bottom line, would you rather negotiate your next contract with TA2012 as a basis, or using our current contract as the starting point?
If it is good news, we are already up roughly 20% from current book. If it is bad news, we are already up roughly 20% from current book. If the "news" is a merger, would you rather start from where we are now, or enjoy the benefits of being better paid with a hard number on the DCI fleet as we enter negotiations?
Just putting a different perspective on this question and I am curious your thoughts.
05-27-2012 | 12:18 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Thanks for being respectful in your disagreement; I will do the same.
We both want the same thing as an end result, we just weem to disagree about the path to get there. I think we both know this can't be the TA that resolves all Scope issues, so the question is about the best way.
I think this TA adresses many large, middle, and small-gauge Scope issues. I'm glad we don't add a new larger airplane, and I'm not particularly obsessed about adding more of a permitted aircraft, provided the end result is that we don much more of our own flying at the end.
I think you see a path where turning this TA down gets us what you and I both want, and I see that path as a dead-end, which doesn't connect with our objectives over time.
We both want the same thing as an end result, we just weem to disagree about the path to get there. I think we both know this can't be the TA that resolves all Scope issues, so the question is about the best way.
I think this TA adresses many large, middle, and small-gauge Scope issues. I'm glad we don't add a new larger airplane, and I'm not particularly obsessed about adding more of a permitted aircraft, provided the end result is that we don much more of our own flying at the end.
I think you see a path where turning this TA down gets us what you and I both want, and I see that path as a dead-end, which doesn't connect with our objectives over time.
Thanks for the civil chat, I do realize that we both want the same outcome.
05-27-2012 | 01:09 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Not only is the Fed out of bullets, their policies could cause hyperinflation coming out of the back side (which is when we would NEED a new contract pronto).
Bottom line, would you rather negotiate your next contract with TA2012 as a basis, or using our current contract as the starting point?[/B]
Just putting a different perspective on this question and I am curious your thoughts.
So let's say that the economy goes TU. Unemployment goes up etc. Maybe the company goes into BK once again, this sounds familiar. The company would more than likely take back any pay raises and be left with more 76 seat jets. Did I mention this sounds familiar?
Of all of the reasons to vote yes on this TA I don't agree with your logic Bar. I'm sure someone can give a good reason why I'm wrong, just my .02.
05-27-2012 | 03:39 PM
#57
Line Holder
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 993
Likes: 0
From: VEOP Retired! 7ER A was last position
I love it when guys lash out at my airline. I guess the argument is...."we suck, but you suck even more!"
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!
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!
05-27-2012 | 04:32 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 316
I was confident until this TA that we would not outsource one more large regional jet. I think you just pointed out what we will sell for our next 8 percent raise at our amendable date. We will let the company take out the first class seats and configure it for 90 seats. What's the big deal? No new airplanes will be added unlike in this TA.
05-27-2012 | 04:43 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
From: 737n/FO
I'm not a payrate-first guy, and I like Section 1, so what you're highlighted is another reason I'm leaning towards yes. I essentially view the Section 3 language as a insurance. Great insurance for deflation, acceptable insurance for stagflation, and an opportunity to have to kick myself in the [deleted] for several months, as the company makes a killing, if the economy picks up, and inflation does too. In that case, the worst outcome is that the company is able to clean up its' balance sheet further, and perhaps renew the fleet.
In the last scenario, a stable company wouldn't stop us from getting upset that we failed to lock in enough gains, but then again, between the new FTDT, and a possible merger, I see additional opportunities to open the contract up. That's why I think that, if everything goes well, it would be a matter of months, not years before we can improve on C21012.
That makes the cost of this "insurance" TA much more affordable.
In the last scenario, a stable company wouldn't stop us from getting upset that we failed to lock in enough gains, but then again, between the new FTDT, and a possible merger, I see additional opportunities to open the contract up. That's why I think that, if everything goes well, it would be a matter of months, not years before we can improve on C21012.
That makes the cost of this "insurance" TA much more affordable.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
