|
Originally Posted by vprMatrix
(Post 1201655)
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. VP, I disagree with your logic: "... why would they give us that extra money?" Easy, because Scope is a one way street. If we were to fall for that (Thankfully we didn't) they would have an 82 seat Scope precedent and in three years our pay rates would up for negotiating but the 82 seats would not. Second - they were trying to get us to cave on Scope for a bigger pay raise - we didn't. How this confirms "...Delta was admitting they supplement our income via outsourcing," is beyond me. They tried - we refused. I think while your logic is possible it is definitely a stretch. Scoop |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1201869)
VP,
I disagree with your logic: "... why would they give us that extra money?" Easy, because Scope is a one way street. If we were to fall for that (Thankfully we didn't) they would have an 82 seat Scope precedent and in three years our pay rates would up for negotiating but the 82 seats would not. Second - they were trying to get us to cave on Scope for a bigger pay raise - we didn't. How this confirms "...Delta was admitting they supplement our income via outsourcing," is beyond me. They tried - we refused. I think while your logic is possible it is definitely a stretch. Scoop NO MORE LARGE RJ'S along with real contract improvements. That would be a partial victory. Parking large and small RJ's with a large pay bump and better work rules. That would constitute a victory. Please review those definitions. Thank you. |
-Q&A session was very contentious, with 90% of the pilot angst focusing on the proposed pay rates.
I think the above quote is the most significant part of the CVG summary. I'm still on the fence as the whether I'm voting yes/no, but if I choose to vote no it will be the 70 additional 76 seaters that does it. The problem with a scope NO vote is I don't think most of the NO voters will have scope as their primary concern apart from those who read APC. And if the TA gets voted down with pay as the primary concern, then I'm sure the company would be happy to give us another 10-15% more for 82 seats. I guess I fear with pay as the primary concern a reworked TA with additional pay will have WORSE scope what is being offered now. By the way, I'm an APC idiot. How do I quote a message? |
Bottom right Hand corner... ........(hit quote)
|
Originally Posted by flying_wendell
(Post 1201882)
-Q&A session was very contentious, with 90% of the pilot angst focusing on the proposed pay rates.
I think the above quote is the most significant part of the CVG summary. I'm still on the fence as the whether I'm voting yes/no, but if I choose to vote no it will be the 70 additional 76 seaters that does it. The problem with a scope NO vote is I don't think most of the NO voters will have scope as their primary concern apart from those who read APC. And if the TA gets voted down with pay as the primary concern, then I'm sure the company would be happy to give us another 10-15% more for 82 seats. I guess I fear with pay as the primary concern a reworked TA with additional pay will have WORSE scope what is being offered now. By the way, I'm an APC idiot. How do I quote a message? Your numbers and valuation are way off. The company wants to refleet the airline to carry about the same number of passengers but do it more efficiently with a better product. The difference in total profit between the fleet we have today and what they would like to have was significant but nothing like what is talked about here. The company quid if we allowed 82 seats was 2 percent in pay. I find it really interesting that because the company adds 717's to the mainline it makes this a cost neutral contract? Thats a big stretch, does that mean if they add 777 in the next contract it will be cost neutral? I spent several hours talking to one of the three main negotiators about all this. The information is easy to obtain if you look for it. Yes the company makes more money with a different fleet. No we did not get credit towards cost for the company adding mainline aircraft and jobs. Yes we did get credit for the DCI changes but it was based on the actual extra revenue that might be produced and then only a portion of that revenue. If we wanted it all then there is no incentive for the company to make any changes. We are talking single digit points in the overall cost of the contract. |
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
(Post 1201877)
Haha nice spin spinmeister. Saying we didn't accept 82 seaters while selling the troops on more permanent 90 seaters (with 76 seats including first class) is disingenuous at best.
NO MORE LARGE RJ'S along with real contract improvements. That would be a partial victory. Parking large and small RJ's with a large pay bump and better work rules. That would constitute a victory. Please review those definitions. Thank you. I give up what am I spinning? Is it when I say our Scope sucks - is that spin? Don't look for disagreement where non exists. The saying tilting at windmills comes to mind. I have not even decided how I am voting yet - leaning No FYI, but am in no rush to decide. Yes - I am for NO MORE LARGE RJ's along with real contract improvements - Where do I vote yes for that? Scoop |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1201903)
I give up what am I spinning? Is it when I say our Scope sucks - is that spin? Don't look for disagreement where non exists. The saying tilting at windmills comes to mind. I have not even decided how I am voting yet - leaning No FYI, but am in no rush to decide.
Yes - I am for NO MORE LARGE RJ's along with real contract improvements - Where do I vote yes for that? Scoop |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1201869)
VP,
I disagree with your logic: "... why would they give us that extra money?" Easy, because Scope is a one way street. If we were to fall for that (Thankfully we didn't) they would have an 82 seat Scope precedent and in three years our pay rates would up for negotiating but the 82 seats would not. Second - they were trying to get us to cave on Scope for a bigger pay raise - we didn't. How this confirms "...Delta was admitting they supplement our income via outsourcing," is beyond me. They tried - we refused. I think while your logic is possible it is definitely a stretch. Scoop It makes perfect sense in my own mind. :D |
Originally Posted by ayecarumba
(Post 1201649)
....
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. .... |
Originally Posted by DAWGS
(Post 1201843)
I don't agree. They would have 70 fewer large RJs.
As I have stated in previous post, I don't trust MGT to follow the intent of our contract as it relates to ratios and I don't believe our union will challenge MGT when they violate the intent. When the ratios go out the window, as I believe they will eventually during the life of this contract, we shrink....DCI grows. 1 event deemed beyond their control and the ratios are toast. Any protections you think we have, will be renegotiated by our union in tough times (no memrat...LOA). Trust and history being the issues that that they are, there is no other way to defend our flying other than to insist we do it. Having said that, I will not vote to outsource any jobs. We need to hold the line on big RJs. They are a direct replacement of mainline flying in this circumstance. I will not vote to make the same mistake others made previously. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst outcome or circumstance. This agreement makes that number 450. 111 jets worth of block hours is a significant difference. It would take until 2020 until that 450 is reached without our consent... DAL pilots could be on their 2nd or 3rd PWA negotiation by that point.... We always try to improve the pay, and we have restricted outsourcing from the JPWA up to now, why wouldn't we tighten the DCI noose 2 or 3 more times also? I am with you WRT trust of mgt. and their intentions. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:37 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands