Why Should I vote yes?
06-12-2012 | 01:00 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
06-12-2012 | 01:03 PM
#63
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,601
Likes: 0
From: Dismayed
06-12-2012 | 02:12 PM
#65
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,601
Likes: 0
From: Dismayed
06-13-2012 | 06:14 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
From: 757 Left
Let's talk about the contention that the pay rates are a homerun. Go over to the DALPA site and read Mullis' treatise about Homo Sapiens Day. I am sure that most people on here find him only slightly more obnoxious than me, but I wil preface this by saying that even he and I have had our dust ups. Hell I even threatened to punch him in the nose once. But I digress. In that paper, he lays out the math on how this pay increase is on a percentage basis, vastly superior to C2K, and THAT is apparently the gold standard by which this agreement was to have been measured. Or you can ignore math. There is no spin. It is mathematics, and it is spot on.
Interesting that SWA has to be leaped all in one fell swoop for this to be considered a success. Frankly, I am not worried about SWA because their merger is about to slow their progress to a crawl if not stop it altogether in it's tracks. Look at how it is gonna play out. 1) Garry Ichan has already made public statements to the fact that they need to get costs under control. 2) They just had a merger where they fortunately were able to stomp one group down and limit the monetary damage to FO pay... What I mean here is that instead of having to bring the AT captains up to SWA captain pay, they now only have to bring them up to SWA FO pay because of the way they were essentially stapled... and if we sign this TA, that will become even more apparent because they will ALL be FOs with no potential to upgrade until 2015. That was a HUGE cost savings to SWa management, but they still have an entire group (1700??) pilots that have to be brough tup to at least SOME parity) Point is that they are probably not gonna make any great leaps forward in their upcoming contract. I predict the usual 3% increase, but nothing more than that.. We'll see. Even if they DO make a great stride forward, that would be all the more reason to vote FOR this because it is a 3 year deal, and we will be back at the table with them squarely in our sights... Easy breezy...
The paranoia about the RJs is just silly. The TA recaptures mainline flying. Period. The 717s must come online before the RJs can... the percentages of mainline flying relative to DCI increase with every set of 10 RJs that are allowed. That is a CLEAR win. The 76s are gone never to return. Since we are recapturing the block hours that DCI once flew, it is a win. Percentages of hourly flying are what create jobs.. not how many baby airplanes DCI has...
The furlough protections are absolute and punitive to the company. That is a no brainer.
Guys getting wrapped around the axle about Force Majeur need to understand what that clause means. They cannot just say that just because of unforseen, unplanned for normal events require contract avoidance they will get it is just plain absurd and paranoid. It means that catastrophic events that the company will do what it needs to survive. (Got news... they can do that anyway).
So.. sorry if I was blunt before... I was because it seemed as if you were looking for confirmation of your no reasons.
Interesting that SWA has to be leaped all in one fell swoop for this to be considered a success. Frankly, I am not worried about SWA because their merger is about to slow their progress to a crawl if not stop it altogether in it's tracks. Look at how it is gonna play out. 1) Garry Ichan has already made public statements to the fact that they need to get costs under control. 2) They just had a merger where they fortunately were able to stomp one group down and limit the monetary damage to FO pay... What I mean here is that instead of having to bring the AT captains up to SWA captain pay, they now only have to bring them up to SWA FO pay because of the way they were essentially stapled... and if we sign this TA, that will become even more apparent because they will ALL be FOs with no potential to upgrade until 2015. That was a HUGE cost savings to SWa management, but they still have an entire group (1700??) pilots that have to be brough tup to at least SOME parity) Point is that they are probably not gonna make any great leaps forward in their upcoming contract. I predict the usual 3% increase, but nothing more than that.. We'll see. Even if they DO make a great stride forward, that would be all the more reason to vote FOR this because it is a 3 year deal, and we will be back at the table with them squarely in our sights... Easy breezy...
The paranoia about the RJs is just silly. The TA recaptures mainline flying. Period. The 717s must come online before the RJs can... the percentages of mainline flying relative to DCI increase with every set of 10 RJs that are allowed. That is a CLEAR win. The 76s are gone never to return. Since we are recapturing the block hours that DCI once flew, it is a win. Percentages of hourly flying are what create jobs.. not how many baby airplanes DCI has...
The furlough protections are absolute and punitive to the company. That is a no brainer.
Guys getting wrapped around the axle about Force Majeur need to understand what that clause means. They cannot just say that just because of unforseen, unplanned for normal events require contract avoidance they will get it is just plain absurd and paranoid. It means that catastrophic events that the company will do what it needs to survive. (Got news... they can do that anyway).
So.. sorry if I was blunt before... I was because it seemed as if you were looking for confirmation of your no reasons.
Pay raises "vastly superior" to C2K? From the TVM gold guy. C2K had 20% on day one of C2K (full retro pay), then every year 4.5%. That is less than 20% over 3 years. Not buying this argument Of course, the gold guy has been threatening, pushing and screaming at guys that won't acquiesce to his point of view. Perhaps he really wants management to fire him.
Just reaching parity with LUV rates on day one would be a inadequate. The DAL pilots deserve higher rates and they them deserve today. Not buying into management can not pay; management does not want to, and it is ALPA's job to convince them otherwise. If ALPA does its' job, then SWAPA will be able to pattern bargain higher rates again. Remember when Grinstein used pattern bargaining in bankruptcy by comparing us to all the other pay rates?
They furlough protection is an illusion. The penalty is removing 6 seats? Anderson is not losing sleep over this provision.
06-13-2012 | 07:04 AM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
The paranoia about the RJs is just silly. The TA recaptures mainline flying. Period. The 717s must come online before the RJs can... the percentages of mainline flying relative to DCI increase with every set of 10 RJs that are allowed. That is a CLEAR win. The 76s are gone never to return. Since we are recapturing the block hours that DCI once flew, it is a win. Percentages of hourly flying are what create jobs.. not how many baby airplanes DCI has...
This is a very dangerous road to go down. If the trend of giving away Scope for management simply replacing our fleet continues we are cutting our own throats. That business model cannot continue for DALPA.
I do realize that there are Scope gains in this TA. Giving away more 70 + seat RJ's was one of my parameters for a NO vote before we saw the TA. I also think the ALV increase stinks. ALV increase = less pilots needed. If we needed the International folks to have a higher ALV then the language should of stated that "International ALV will increase".
If one doesn't mind more 70 + seat RJ's and fewer pilots required then vote yes.
06-13-2012 | 08:15 AM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 0
Per the road show video on "Scope", the current mainline jet count is 707 and is down from the base count of 767 mainline jets at the time of the merger. In my opinion, we are allowing more 70 + seat RJ's in exchange for replacing jets that have already been parked. Once the current DC-9's are parked and added to the 60 jets that we are down right now I'll bet you get really close to 88 if not more.
This is a very dangerous road to go down. If the trend of giving away Scope for management simply replacing our fleet continues we are cutting our own throats. That business model cannot continue for DALPA.
I do realize that there are Scope gains in this TA. Giving away more 70 + seat RJ's was one of my parameters for a NO vote before we saw the TA. I also think the ALV increase stinks. ALV increase = less pilots needed. If we needed the International folks to have a higher ALV then the language should of stated that "International ALV will increase".
If one doesn't mind more 70 + seat RJ's and fewer pilots required then vote yes.
This is a very dangerous road to go down. If the trend of giving away Scope for management simply replacing our fleet continues we are cutting our own throats. That business model cannot continue for DALPA.
I do realize that there are Scope gains in this TA. Giving away more 70 + seat RJ's was one of my parameters for a NO vote before we saw the TA. I also think the ALV increase stinks. ALV increase = less pilots needed. If we needed the International folks to have a higher ALV then the language should of stated that "International ALV will increase".
If one doesn't mind more 70 + seat RJ's and fewer pilots required then vote yes.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
