|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1201158)
He also told me he had no intention of running for ALPA President. Now that I think of it, nothing I ever heard that man say has ever been truthful.
Makes me proud to call him a mainline pilot and Delta pilot :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1201154)
Seriously guys, don't we think the mainline fleet is going to > 790 if the 717 / MD90 / 737's arrive and the replacement of 757's is "leisurely" ? If so, management has their 76 seaters under current language. By 2015 management will certainly be on their way to getting those airplanes while retiring some of the oldest CRJ700's (which are not the Next Gen aircraft).
If not provided with contractual relief then I (and others) expect the CRj 200's to hang around until they hit their required heavy checks, which should come due about 10 to 12 years after they were placed in service. Some of those airplanes were still coming as late as 2006 / 2007 on orders placed in 2004. My question is not whether this contract is everything I want. My question is whether this contract gets us closer to what we collectively want to achieve in the reduction of outsourcing. Am I looking at this incorrectly? In a one dimensional way, single metric way, this TA reduces outsourcing. The problem, as I see it, is that it further throws open the door with outsourcing of an economically viable (mainline in every way) airplane. You have been the loudest and clearest educator on the economics of the 76 seaters. I actually LIKE to commute on them. When I get in one, it is a nice NON-regional jet. That guage plane does not affect me (personally) anymore. Heck, the 717 doesn't really affect me anymore. I am a no vote out of a personal moral obligation to hold my ground on my belief that the outsourcing stops with me, right here, right now. I realize I am only one vote, but all the "perspectives" in the world can't change that, for me. In many ways, the council 20 chairman's letter echoed most of my own thoughts on this TA overall. I was VERY surprised when I read it...pleasantly. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1201158)
The 76 seat grievance was after the Compass vote. ...
Agree with you on not believing a word out of Lee Moak's mouth. What really struck me about both that private meeting and the following C44 meeting was the condescending attitude he took. He kept repeating: "Well, there are a lot of very complex issues involved, some of which I'm not at liberty to discuss...." (this in relation to the Compass representation issue). He repeated that to me in private when I told him that most of my coworkers and I had absolutely no desire for DCI to get additional airplanes and wished Delta pilots would do their own flying. The insinuation was clear - young junior and regional pilots clearly didn't "get it" and we should trust our betters. The only reason I remember that day well is because it was a key turning point in my losing all trust in ALPA. Unfortunately the MEC administration is still filled with Lee's people. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1201173)
Bar;
In a one dimensional way, single metric way, this TA reduces outsourcing. The problem, as I see it, is that it further throws open the door with outsourcing of an economically viable (mainline in every way) airplane. You have been the loudest and clearest educator on the economics of the 76 seaters... . Without knowing the Company's "business plan B" I'm at a near complete loss on how to evaluate this change in our contract. Usually I at least think I'm a move or two ahead of where they are going. In this case it looks like a win / win. The no votes who have explained their position appear to be focused on "not enough," which I can live with under the expectation that this is a interim step in the right direction. I'd rather start our next negotiation closer to the goal. In other words, I'll take first and 50 in this game over fourth and long. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1201187)
Without knowing the Company's "business plan B" I'm at a near complete loss on how to evaluate this change in our contract. Even if not, I'm willing to take some more time in "traditional" Section 6 to do it right. The company has a lot at stake here, too, lest it join the ranks of unhappy, unmotivated pilot groups. |
Bar
Lets use your example and say that we still get the 717s without the TA. You further say that this would be growth for us. Perfect. Now DCI gets more 76 seaters but they give up 70 seaters. So now DCI has still the 255 limit. In regards to the 50 seater, we would have plenty of lift on the property to fill the void. This increases the incentive to retire the 50 seaters at lease end rather than pay millions in unwanted maintenance. Delta has publicly stated it wants to get rid of them. History proves it. Now if management avoids the 717 with a tejected TA then DCI continues to shrink. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1200845)
True, but instead of trading (assumed) CRj900's for swapping out the leases, is plan B the C Series?
Obviously, fleet renewal COULD be accomplished using more mainline airplanes and more mainline pilots than the TA provides for. Too much information is being held back for anyone to truly make an intelligent decision. For the 100th time, DALPA represents management...not its pilots. Carl |
Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1200897)
I know I'll probably set you off on a name calling frenzy...but here goes...
We were offered your contract, and we turned it down. The scope concessions were too much to take, and money isn't everything. Jeff Smisek was asked "why didn't the UAL pilots get a fast contract like DAL?" His response was "the UAL pilots aren't as helpful as the DAL pilots are." So you guys can keep bragging about how you get contracts fast, but we are not willing to take a fast deal which will outsource CRJ-900's. We drew a line in the sand, and we are SACRIFICING money for the sake of more important things. You can negotiate $500 per hour, but if there are only 10 pilots left....did you really do yourself a favor? The CRJ900 will replace a TON of your domestic flying. DAL will shrink the mainline and get more scope out of you with every new TA. Keep bragging about your small pay raise that you help to fund with less profit sharing and concessionary work rules!:p This ain't over yet. Carl |
Originally Posted by rvr350
(Post 1200961)
My questions to our brothers are: Why are we helping the company to shed airplanes that they got in the first place, with the sole intention of replacing our jobs, and now we're supposed to play nice, and assist them to put on the final touch and put the noose on our necks? I guess most of us don't even know we're standing on a 3 pegged chair, and the executioner is just sharpening his axe.
Carl |
Originally Posted by DLpilot
(Post 1201208)
Bar
Lets use your example and say that we still get the 717s without the TA. You further say that this would be growth for us. Perfect. Now DCI gets more 76 seaters but they give up 70 seaters. So now DCI has still the 255 limit. In regards to the 50 seater, we would have plenty of lift on the property to fill the void. This increases the incentive to retire the 50 seaters at lease end rather than pay millions in unwanted maintenance. Delta has publicly stated it wants to get rid of them. History proves it. Now if management avoids the 717 with a tejected TA then DCI continues to shrink. What about the 700's that come off lease? What about management's announced plans which keep the 50 seat fleet at > or = to 125 ? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:58 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands