CVG roadshow notes and observations
05-31-2012, 05:55 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 767ER capt
Posts: 1,190
Originally Posted by NuGuy
No plan B if the TA is rejected? AND THEY ADMITTED THIS IN AN OPEN MEETING?
What an abject failure of leadership. What's the point of having MEMRAT, then?
If this is really the case, then the meetings are pure FUD, and must be put in that context.
Even if your "strategic planning" is really that poor, why would you advertise it to management?
The reason their average line value is skewed is because they don't include any lines under 70 hours in their calculations. So with %50 of the airline getting 68 hour lines from PBS the last 8 months, yea, that's a funny number.
Wow...I mean just wow.
Nu
What an abject failure of leadership. What's the point of having MEMRAT, then?
If this is really the case, then the meetings are pure FUD, and must be put in that context.
Even if your "strategic planning" is really that poor, why would you advertise it to management?
The reason their average line value is skewed is because they don't include any lines under 70 hours in their calculations. So with %50 of the airline getting 68 hour lines from PBS the last 8 months, yea, that's a funny number.
Wow...I mean just wow.
Nu
05-31-2012, 05:59 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Right Seat 744
Posts: 946
.............deleted............
Last edited by crewdawg52; 05-31-2012 at 06:14 AM.
05-31-2012, 06:46 AM
#13
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: assume it
Posts: 54
Thanks for the info....
I appreciate you taking the time to post this info.
My initial inclination is still NO.
It seems the MEC is plying the adage "A bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush" with this TA being the bird and the unknown of a rejected TA being the bush.
Why is it a foregone conclusion that IF this TA is rejected that a protracted section 6 process will then unfold. Isn't that just ONE of many possibilities? If MGT was so eager to complete this 7 months early isn't it also feasible that a rejected TA could be tweaked and completed ahead of schedule as well?
I've heard it said that in business, you never accept a first offer and that if you're not willing to say "NO", then you're not really negotiating.
I guess we're at the point in the new car negotiation where the salesman says "I gotta talk to my manager." and we say the same thing and turn to our wife. ha ha.
I spoke with 1 of our LEC reps so far regarding this and he states the negotiating committee HAS said NO several times and walked away and that this was as far as they could get given that, in general, other pilot groups are not helping us gain any leverage (FedEx, UPS, UAL, AMR... forgot to ask about SWA) and that any leverage we have has been played as far MGT is concerned. The only leverage we may have remaining is a strike and that would take years of meditation to reach.
So we really are dealing with an unknown if we reject this TA and what is each of our levels of comfort facing that unknown. It is possible that a protracted section 6 may unfold. It is also possible that the current agreement may be massaged and sweetened a bit.
My initial inclination is still NO.
It seems the MEC is plying the adage "A bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush" with this TA being the bird and the unknown of a rejected TA being the bush.
Why is it a foregone conclusion that IF this TA is rejected that a protracted section 6 process will then unfold. Isn't that just ONE of many possibilities? If MGT was so eager to complete this 7 months early isn't it also feasible that a rejected TA could be tweaked and completed ahead of schedule as well?
I've heard it said that in business, you never accept a first offer and that if you're not willing to say "NO", then you're not really negotiating.
I guess we're at the point in the new car negotiation where the salesman says "I gotta talk to my manager." and we say the same thing and turn to our wife. ha ha.
I spoke with 1 of our LEC reps so far regarding this and he states the negotiating committee HAS said NO several times and walked away and that this was as far as they could get given that, in general, other pilot groups are not helping us gain any leverage (FedEx, UPS, UAL, AMR... forgot to ask about SWA) and that any leverage we have has been played as far MGT is concerned. The only leverage we may have remaining is a strike and that would take years of meditation to reach.
So we really are dealing with an unknown if we reject this TA and what is each of our levels of comfort facing that unknown. It is possible that a protracted section 6 may unfold. It is also possible that the current agreement may be massaged and sweetened a bit.
05-31-2012, 06:50 AM
#14
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by CVG767A
That's not exactly what I said. I said that they don't know what course this thing will take if we vote it down. While DALPA might have a Plan B, you can be sure Delta Air Lines does, too. We are not privy to Delta's plan B, therefore we don't know what will happen after a no vote.
05-31-2012, 06:54 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by FIIGMO
I think that was the whole reason that DALAPA said no to increased seats on RJ's. We wanted scope capture and we did get it. Not as much as I wanted but we changed it for the positive. I am not sure i follow you here, but we feel bad about taking those jobs back and being proactive about being sure DCI alpa carries get a look at first for hire?
Vip I am just sure I did not follow your line of thought.
Fiig
Vip I am just sure I did not follow your line of thought.
Fiig
)What I read was that Delta wanted 82 seat aircraft at DCI and in exchange they would give us all the revenue that produced. I find it very hard to believe that RA would just give us all that extra money. Why add the seats if it doesn't help Delta's bottom line? And, How would we know that we were getting all the extra revenue? This would be impossible to figure. For the record I'm very glad we said NO. The point is Delta was admitting they supplement our income via outsourcing, meaning there is a lot or revenue available from these aircraft maybe enough to bring these aircraft up to mainline.
Secondly, we are funding the contract, according to CVGs notes from TO, at a cost of 420 million and that it is cost-neutral due to the added revenue from the new CRJ-900s and 717s. I'm not sure what the brake out of the % for each aircraft is but based on the DOT numbers most of the revenue will be coming on the backs of the new CRJ-900s.
Again, the company and ALPA are basically admitting that our pay raise is being funded by larger aircraft being outsourced. It's great we are possibly accelerating parking of 50 seats but we should not be increasing the larger RJs just to make that happen a few years faster.
05-31-2012, 06:56 AM
#16
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
If you read the LAX LEC note, it almost seems like they DO know what may happen next, but can't say anything. Read it again.
The business model proposal by our management team remains confidential. At some point they may release more of their concepts. It is not the intent here to divulge any confidential information, so for now we will just refer to this as their “business plan.” Whenever one side has a significant need at negotiations, there is leverage for the other party. Delta’s business plan did provide us with leverage for these negotiations. The exact nature of the leverage may never really be known. What we do know is that this leverage was real - but perishable. Given enough delay, the leverage would evaporate and the opportunity would be lost. You may wish to read those two sentences again as they did play an important role in our final decision.
05-31-2012, 07:01 AM
#17
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
The safe, conservative bet is to vote 'yes'. The risky bet of voting 'no' has the potential to achieve the most benefit, however, in scope, pay and work rules (thinking of ALV+15).
05-31-2012, 07:02 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 767ER capt
Posts: 1,190
Originally Posted by ayecarumba
Why is it a foregone conclusion that IF this TA is rejected that a protracted section 6 process will then unfold. Isn't that just ONE of many possibilities? If MGT was so eager to complete this 7 months early isn't it also feasible that a rejected TA could be tweaked and completed ahead of schedule as well?
05-31-2012, 07:04 AM
#19
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by vprMatrix
I'll try to explain it better (this is not one of my strong suits )
What I read was that Delta wanted 82 seat aircraft at DCI and in exchange they would give us all the revenue that produced. I find it very hard to believe that RA would just give us all that extra money. Why add the seats if it doesn't help Delta's bottom line? And, How would we know that we were getting all the extra revenue? This would be impossible to figure. For the record I'm very glad we said NO. The point is Delta was admitting they supplement our income via outsourcing, meaning there is a lot or revenue available from these aircraft maybe enough to bring these aircraft up to mainline.
Secondly, we are funding the contract, according to CVGs notes from TO, at a cost of 420 million and that it is cost-neutral due to the added revenue from the new CRJ-900s and 717s. I'm not sure what the brake out of the % for each aircraft is but based on the DOT numbers most of the revenue will be coming on the backs of the new CRJ-900s.
Again, the company and ALPA are basically admitting that our pay raise is being funded by larger aircraft being outsourced. It's great we are possibly accelerating parking of 50 seats but we should not be increasing the larger RJs just to make that happen a few years faster.
)What I read was that Delta wanted 82 seat aircraft at DCI and in exchange they would give us all the revenue that produced. I find it very hard to believe that RA would just give us all that extra money. Why add the seats if it doesn't help Delta's bottom line? And, How would we know that we were getting all the extra revenue? This would be impossible to figure. For the record I'm very glad we said NO. The point is Delta was admitting they supplement our income via outsourcing, meaning there is a lot or revenue available from these aircraft maybe enough to bring these aircraft up to mainline.
Secondly, we are funding the contract, according to CVGs notes from TO, at a cost of 420 million and that it is cost-neutral due to the added revenue from the new CRJ-900s and 717s. I'm not sure what the brake out of the % for each aircraft is but based on the DOT numbers most of the revenue will be coming on the backs of the new CRJ-900s.
Again, the company and ALPA are basically admitting that our pay raise is being funded by larger aircraft being outsourced. It's great we are possibly accelerating parking of 50 seats but we should not be increasing the larger RJs just to make that happen a few years faster.
70 extra 76 seaters are giving us $420 million per year? After parking 150 50 seaters? Really? And how is mainline getting 717s outsourcing? We would be flying those. Parking 150 50 seaters mean 80 less total RJs after adding 70 76 seaters. Less overall is better.
05-31-2012, 07:06 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 767ER capt
Posts: 1,190
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
From the LAX LEC letter:
The business model proposal by our management team remains confidential. At some point they may release more of their concepts. It is not the intent here to divulge any confidential information, so for now we will just refer to this as their “business plan.” Whenever one side has a significant need at negotiations, there is leverage for the other party. Delta’s business plan did provide us with leverage for these negotiations. The exact nature of the leverage may never really be known. What we do know is that this leverage was real - but perishable. Given enough delay, the leverage would evaporate and the opportunity would be lost. You may wish to read those two sentences again as they did play an important role in our final decision.
The business model proposal by our management team remains confidential. At some point they may release more of their concepts. It is not the intent here to divulge any confidential information, so for now we will just refer to this as their “business plan.” Whenever one side has a significant need at negotiations, there is leverage for the other party. Delta’s business plan did provide us with leverage for these negotiations. The exact nature of the leverage may never really be known. What we do know is that this leverage was real - but perishable. Given enough delay, the leverage would evaporate and the opportunity would be lost. You may wish to read those two sentences again as they did play an important role in our final decision.
