DTW Roadshow
06-02-2012 | 06:01 AM
#21
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,506
Likes: 0
From: 737 ATL
In the past, the pilots have always saluted their leaders and voted accordingly.
No TA approved by the MEC has ever been rejected.
It's a new Delta pilot group this time though.
This is our first combined vote since the merger. We've all been traumatized by bankruptcy. Anything could happen.
The MEC admin made a huge call. Right or wrong, at least they led. I can't deny that.
Either way, the rank and file still has the final say and I will respect the outcome.
06-02-2012 | 06:16 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Likes: 0
How do you know this to be a "fact"?
Pinnacle was unable to operate 16 of its 76 seaters profitably and has rejected the DCI agreement under which they were flying.
ASA and SkyWest were unable operate 12 of their 70 seaters profitably and lost those aircraft to GoJets.
I'm going to channel my inner Scambo...
Pinnacle was unable to operate 16 of its 76 seaters profitably and has rejected the DCI agreement under which they were flying.
ASA and SkyWest were unable operate 12 of their 70 seaters profitably and lost those aircraft to GoJets.
I'm going to channel my inner Scambo...
06-02-2012 | 06:18 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
I think everyone should attend a roadshow. It's easy to demonize people while typing on an anonymous user name. No matter what you think of the outcome, those guys are not out to screw us.
There were a lot of DPA guys there, and everyone was very respectful. It gives some good background on why decisions were made. I highly recommend going
06-02-2012 | 06:23 AM
#24
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
How do you know this to be a "fact"?
Pinnacle was unable to operate 16 of its 76 seaters profitably and has rejected the ASA under which they were flying.
ASA and SkyWest were unable operate 12 of their 70 seaters profitably and lost those aircraft to GoJets.
I'm going to channel my inner Scambo...
Pinnacle was unable to operate 16 of its 76 seaters profitably and has rejected the ASA under which they were flying.
ASA and SkyWest were unable operate 12 of their 70 seaters profitably and lost those aircraft to GoJets.
I'm going to channel my inner Scambo...
So let's allow 70 more large RJs to help those management teams last longer in the future!
06-02-2012 | 06:28 AM
#25
Banned
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
I don't think he will understand making our outsourced jobs more profitable. I know I don't. The point is quite the opposite. As a group, we want those jobs in house and being the money-losers that they are is a win for us. MGT just might change their business plan. This bind they are in now was their own doing and one of the downsides of the outsource and whipsaw scheme. We can fly the 76 seaters profitably. I know it to be a fact. You know what would make the company wildly profitable....outsource all our flying to the lowest bidder. You advocating for these NB replacements takes us closer to that MGT goal. It has to stop. Stopping requires decelerating.....more 76 seaters is accelerating towards MGTs goal of outsourcing our domestic system. 76 seaters are capable....50s are not.
06-02-2012 | 06:30 AM
#26
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
From: 744B
If the reports of DTW being a love-fest are correct, the rocking chair doesn't quite explain it - most guys up there never sat in the rocking chair. And the CVG roadshow was supposedly fairly heated.
Let's see whether this thing passes and by how much before you turn the guns inward. And when you do, I hope they're mostly aimed at the MEC administration that pulled of their little fait accompli.
Let's see whether this thing passes and by how much before you turn the guns inward. And when you do, I hope they're mostly aimed at the MEC administration that pulled of their little fait accompli.
As a "no" voter, I hardly think it was a love-fest. I got more of a feeling from those sitting around me that it is a lost cause. It has been a lost cause since the MEC administration and the NC excluded the rest of the MEC from the process.
I also believe it was less heated because of all the information that can be found online. Why bother asking a question when it has been asked before and they are going to give the standard scripted answer anyways.
06-02-2012 | 06:31 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Likes: 0
Not exactly a good analogy. Those are outsourced carriers and are under contract to operate those routes... they don't sell the tickets for them. On top of that, it shows how incredibly poor the management structures are that we support through outsourcing.
So let's allow 70 more large RJs to help those management teams last longer in the future!
So let's allow 70 more large RJs to help those management teams last longer in the future!
Prove it in some form. Start with the known difference in longevity and compare pilot pay tables. That's public info.
The MEC was provided a brief that went through actual ASA expenses, actual DCI versus mainline pilot expenses, cost reductions from elimination of margins and duplication, AND it included additional revenue from increasing the large RJ seating capacity to 80/82 seats since they would no longer be scope restricted if flown on mainline. The numbers didn't come close to what he asserts.
So it appears to me his theory is not actually fact.
06-02-2012 | 06:35 AM
#28
Banned
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
OK, skip the analogy. He asserts that he knows for a fact we can operate those aircraft profitably at mainline.
Prove it in some form. Start with the known difference in longevity and compare pilot pay tables. That's public info.
The MEC was provided a brief that went through actual ASA expenses, actual DCI versus mainline pilot expenses, cost reductions from elimination of margins and duplication, AND it included additional revenue from increasing the large RJ seating capacity to 80/82 seats since they would no longer be scope restricted if flown on mainline. The numbers didn't come close to what he asserts.
So it appears to me his theory is not actually fact.
Prove it in some form. Start with the known difference in longevity and compare pilot pay tables. That's public info.
The MEC was provided a brief that went through actual ASA expenses, actual DCI versus mainline pilot expenses, cost reductions from elimination of margins and duplication, AND it included additional revenue from increasing the large RJ seating capacity to 80/82 seats since they would no longer be scope restricted if flown on mainline. The numbers didn't come close to what he asserts.
So it appears to me his theory is not actually fact.
06-02-2012 | 06:35 AM
#29
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
The most interesting part for me is the MEC not wanting the LEC reps there. The MEC does not want debate, they want 100% control of the message at these road shows. And they have it.
Everyone needs to remember this when this weak language blows up on all of us. The MEC will say: "Hey, YOU voted for it!". IMO, the MEC won this battle, but they will lose the war and be decertified for their actions. Specifically, the dictatorial control of our negotiations process that ignored our elected reps and put many of them in no-win situations. The MEC will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Carl
Everyone needs to remember this when this weak language blows up on all of us. The MEC will say: "Hey, YOU voted for it!". IMO, the MEC won this battle, but they will lose the war and be decertified for their actions. Specifically, the dictatorial control of our negotiations process that ignored our elected reps and put many of them in no-win situations. The MEC will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Carl
06-02-2012 | 06:44 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,673
Likes: 0
From: 7er
Why again were the DTW LEC reps not there? I think I recall that one had a prior family commitment and the other 2 were working? A family commitment I can understand but WRT the LEC reps that had to work, why weren't they granted ALPA leave so they could get out of work to attend the meeting? Sounds like BS to me.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
