DTW Roadshow
 

I'm not there, but I thought I would get the thread started. Now someone who was there, step up. What's the gouge?

A North guy stood up early on in the presentation and ranted about his DC contribution. He was put in his place and didn't have any follow up during the Q&A after he was rebutted. No one was really militant and the crowd was pretty relaxed. A few voiced their displeasure that the rates came in a little light but could otherwise live with the TA. The tone of the room was that the TA will easily pass and that it's something we can live with. The MEC made a fairly convincing argument for ratifying the agreement while at the same time admitting the pay scales did come in a little light. Overall you walk away from the presentation feeling like it's a deal we can live with and the risk/reward for voting it down just isn't there. This is just MHO so if you disagree that is fine.

Nobody asked about the narrow body give away with the seventy 76 seat jets??

What narrow body give away?

i'm pretty surprised at that attitude if it's true

the 325 - large gauge RJ's allowed by this TA are replacement Narrow body flying.

Anyone who says differently is ignorant of the facts.

I think your humble opinion is accurate.
Its obviously not popular on this website but the TA is going to pass.

You know if this is true, Everything Joe Merchant ever said is true...and that extremely annoying american eagle flow up coining the term "airlinus pilotus" was also right.

Maybe DALPA understands why the Russians used "blocking troops."

If this TA passes, I am joining T in no-longer-apc-addicted-land.

HUSH!!! Don't lure him back !!!

That's like saying beetlejuice...

If DTW is signing off on the TA, it's a lost cause.

Its that rocking chair.
Management knew exactly who they were hiring.

.....................

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.

Sooooooo, you want to keep the money losing 50 seaters? 311 are attached to leases through 2015 and beyond. Instead, there could be 125 total, and 70 seaters (102 of them) could fill in on outgoing 50 seat routes. They won't just drop the routes that the 150 50 seaters are currently flying. Maybe then those routes can make more profits. That helps everyone. Where would the 717s fly to? Maybe current 76 seat routes that could make even more money? Now you are starting to understand.

He was no worse than several people on here; maybe the problem was that you didn't share his views?

Maybe. I'm wondering how well attended it was. Did the diehard no voters stay away?

GO BACK TO YOUR OWN BOARD. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

When you are actually a Delta Pilot and have spent time at an LEC meeting as a member, communicating with, and voting for the LEC representatives..... (Ya know the people who have spent time debating and ultimately selecting the MEC Chairman) then you can speak on Delta Pilot issues.

Go raise the bar as you see fit at your own airline.

Exactly!..

I was hired after the rocking chair thingy, therefore, NO.

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.

I'm not shooting at anyone. Just pointing out history.
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.

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...

It was standing room only, but it seemed like people were there to listen.

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

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, the 150 50 seaters won't be replaced? Their routes will be immediately dropped? I'd think the 70 seaters would cover most of them, and 76 seaters would cover for current 70 seat routes. What about the 717s? Where will they fly? 21 DC9s will go away, but after that I would think they would cover 76 seat routes, searching for more profits. You seem to forget about where the 717s would be deployed to.

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.

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.

United just demanded lower costs from Colgan (the King of the low cost regionals) for their big Dash 8s, and they couldn't do it! Republic will now try with those planes.

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

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.

From the Council 20 reps:

Unfortunately, the short notice of the road shows combined with pre-existing family and flying commitments will not allow your Council 20 representatives to be at the road show this Friday. Since we will not be there, it will be up to you to pay attention and ask the hard questions. Don’t let us down!

Carl got this email along with the rest of council 20. I will leave it to you to decide why Carl is trying to deceive you.

From what I've read so far, I don't like most of it.

I think it's woefully inadequate in several areas, especially if you are already a wide body Captain, there's not much in it for you.

But, it's a baby step in the right direction, right now, vs. waiting a couple years for a full blown section 6 negotiations, and to get how much more?

I'm still undecided. I'll be working during both of the ATL road shows so I'm very glad the MEC is putting up a Q+A on the DALPA forum.

I want to see/hear more of the 'fine print'. I'm looking for the little loop holes that management always seems to find after the ink is dry, that some how our crack team missed in their rush to get'r done.

Like, exactly how many guys are going to go early? Not that it matters to me, I'm already near the top of the list but too poor to go early, but it could generate some upward movement for my 20 year F/O's....UNLESS...the company doesn't replace those early out pilots with upgrades to fill their slots.

AND PUT IT IN WRITING! Such as this: All Early Retirements MUST be replaced, one for one, as soon as training can be accomplished.

If you were here in 1996, you've already seen this dance. They let 500 guys go early, which bought them about 2000 Yes votes from the most senior pilots, who all wanted to go early, for POS 96. But then they started parking the L10-11's those guys were flying.

Net movement...just about zero.

I want to hear that they are NOT going to park wide bodys if/when the fabled 300 guys go early. I want to hear that all those who retire early MUST BE REPLACED, ONE FOR ONE.

I hear rumors Richard wants to buy 10 777-300 Er's, but can't get the financing rates he wants until this deal is done and our credit score is better.

Well, ok, but what if those 10 'new' airframes end up being REPLACEMENT jets for the age old gas guzzler 747's over the next 5 years?

Couple that with the new work rule 'efficiencies' and you get very little upward progression.

And what about another merger after the ink is dry? Put something in writing that will protect the bottom half of our list from being burried...again, under the "Synergy" a merger will create.

This thing is pretty vague from what I have read so far, and the pay rates and DC increases are tiny, certainly not enough for a Dead Zoner to retire on, early. Those early outs will be guys who are today age 63-64, and just looking to get their medical premiums paid for a few years.

There's very little in it for anyone under the age of 60 who's already a wide body Capt., not much in it for a 20 year wide body F/O either, he doesn't want to go fly 717 Capt, or he'd already be on the 88 or 737.

BUT...it's a quick, small step in the right direction and we can exchange openers on another contract in two years, starting from a higher place so...

Do we take baby steps now, or wait for what's behind door number two, two years from now? I'm still undecided and I'll try to get as much detailed information as I can before I vote.

I'm actually glad there were several LEC's who voted no, because that will encourage more pilots to take a much closer look at the fine print, than if the MEC had all voted yes, for yet another POS. Too many sheeple will vote which ever way a Unanimous MEC votes, so a split vote is a good thing in my opinion. I hope it gets more of the sheeple to get involved and go to the road shows and uncover all the little easter eggs that seem to spring up to bite us, as soon as the ink is dry.

To do an analysis we need more than pilot pay. Don't these outsourced carriers have their own Boards, CEOs, hiring departments, excess staffing in dispatch and scheduling, lawyers, lawyers, lawyers, HR, etc, plus a profit? We need those costs. We can get the airplane numbers.

Because if you believe it's only about pilot pay and there are no synergies to be found elsewhere, then why do airlines merge? I bet you we could find some synergies in overhead costs and profits.

So we need all of those numbers if you don't mind providing them. :rolleyes:

That could be true but a roadshow audience is just a random snap shot.

I don't really understand this Bill, why do you want to make outsourcing more profitable for Delta?

The 717s are neat jets and the pay raises are just sitting there for the taking, but they're not worth making outsourcing more profitable.

I would bet the DTW reps were "asked" not to be there by the MEC because they both voted NO.

Now, I would love to see the DTW LEC have their own "roadshow" and explain it all.

That would be something!

It would. Do I really believe that..... about 80% of me says the MEC would never do that. But the other 20% of me believes it due to the past history of the MEC.

You'd lose that bet.

As much as I'm loath to do so, I agree with Slow.

Nu

Then why weren't they given ALPA leave to attend the meeting? I have seen ALPA leave granted for much less important issues.