RAH No Vote
04-07-2014 | 09:47 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
The question is whether we make our reps direct the NC to spend "negotiating capital" on something that has little to no future value.
Once DCI has been refleeted by mutual contracts, I think we will then see the contracts get axed by failure to meet operational metrics. At that point flying comes back to mainline where it can be operated to DAL specs. My direction for the NC is to ensure that when 70-76 seat flying comes back to mainline that remaining DCI flying has to be cut before DAL mainline 70-76 block hours in the same fleet size segment.
It's too expensive for DAL to just STFD at DCI, but they will do it in a cost effective way. RA is a control freak, and the lack of control and performance across the board at DCI infuriates him. Rome wasn't built in a day.
04-07-2014 | 10:28 AM
#32
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
It won't matter, there won't be pilots to fly them without mainline pay and benefits anyway... I seriously doubt the company even asks. We can probably ask for a gradual reduction in permitted DCI and they'd say yes... It's a throwaway item for them, RA hates the DCI product. The only reason they wanted the extra 76's last time was to dangle a carrot to the RAH, TSH, SKYW, XJT mgts to cut 50's out 5-9 years early to save DAL Inc. money in operating and maintaining that dinosaur fleet. It wasn't designed for labor arbitrage.. The overall shrinkage and hard caps instead of ratios is a clear indication that MGT has no desire to regrow DCI.
The question is whether we make our reps direct the NC to spend "negotiating capital" on something that has little to no future value.
Once DCI has been refleeted by mutual contracts, I think we will then see the contracts get axed by failure to meet operational metrics. At that point flying comes back to mainline where it can be operated to DAL specs. My direction for the NC is to ensure that when 70-76 seat flying comes back to mainline that remaining DCI flying has to be cut before DAL mainline 70-76 block hours in the same fleet size segment.
It's too expensive for DAL to just STFD at DCI, but they will do it in a cost effective way. RA is a control freak, and the lack of control and performance across the board at DCI infuriates him. Rome wasn't built in a day.
The question is whether we make our reps direct the NC to spend "negotiating capital" on something that has little to no future value.
Once DCI has been refleeted by mutual contracts, I think we will then see the contracts get axed by failure to meet operational metrics. At that point flying comes back to mainline where it can be operated to DAL specs. My direction for the NC is to ensure that when 70-76 seat flying comes back to mainline that remaining DCI flying has to be cut before DAL mainline 70-76 block hours in the same fleet size segment.
It's too expensive for DAL to just STFD at DCI, but they will do it in a cost effective way. RA is a control freak, and the lack of control and performance across the board at DCI infuriates him. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Shiz I hope you are spot on.
04-07-2014 | 10:57 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
From: 330 FO
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornbeef007
DCI block hours are down, thats good. The total number of DCI seats are down, that good as well. The total number of 76 seat DCI aircraft did not go down with the new contract, once the number of mainline aircraft exceeds a specific threshold. This was a trade, not a win.
The total number of possible 76 seaters did go down in contract 2012. The combined total of both 70 and 76 seaters went up. The 70 seater is considered by many not far behind the 50 seater on the extinction list so not to worried about that.
Originally Posted by cornbeef007
DCI block hours are down, thats good. The total number of DCI seats are down, that good as well. The total number of 76 seat DCI aircraft did not go down with the new contract, once the number of mainline aircraft exceeds a specific threshold. This was a trade, not a win.
The total number of possible 76 seaters did go down in contract 2012. The combined total of both 70 and 76 seaters went up. The 70 seater is considered by many not far behind the 50 seater on the extinction list so not to worried about that.
We are idiots. Or at least those who speak for us are.
04-07-2014 | 11:09 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
From: Representing the REAL Delta
I stand corrected. However, I think we can agree that now is the time to keep our eye on the ball and allow no DCI aircraft gains next time around. No trades, under any circumstances...
04-07-2014 | 11:54 AM
#35
Straight QOL, homie
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,202
Likes: 0
From: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
04-07-2014 | 02:21 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
Back to RAH... Good on you for saying "NO!"
It will be difficult to make big monetary gains due to the nature of how an "outsourced lift provider corporation" gets paid.
That bein said, economics should still be better and your "non-economic" sections should be absolutely stellar to offset that. I hope the NMB will put some pressure on BB and his boys to get you a deal worth signing.
Stay strong!
04-07-2014 | 02:39 PM
#37
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
How's about NOW is the time to find out what is happening on the big jet scope side...AND to come together against NAI, Air Berlin, emirates, quatar, etihad, etc...
04-07-2014 | 02:49 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
This battle must be fought and won so that the pilots at Eagle, RAH, and XJT (and others) have a future career to enjoy.
04-07-2014 | 04:01 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
From: B737 CA
Here's a small start requiring 2 minutes of one's time, for those who haven't yet: #denyNAI | Tell Obama to deny Norwegian Air Shuttle's application to fly into the US
04-07-2014 | 06:08 PM
#40
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
From: DAL A320 CA
I seriously doubt that. First, most new hires are smart enough to keep their mouths shut at least while they're new (outside of APC and the occasional column in the world's most widely read aviation magazine, that is 
). Secondly, most of us are likely to agree with guys like CGfalconHerc that were furloughed & stagnated for long periods: outsourcing is bad. I think CG and I agree on that. Where we seem to be disagreeing is that I think it was bad for everyone, while he seems to think the RJ guys reaped a windfall. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. As CG mentioned in his last post, there is definitely a contingent of RJ lifers that either never wanted to start over at a major or were unable to get hired (no degree, DUI, marks on record etc). These guys definitely benefited from outsourcing, they made more money and got better schedules than they would have if the regionals had stayed in their Be1900/E120 niche. But a large portion of the current regional lifers never meant to be lifers - there just weren't any major airline jobs when the timing was right, and then life/family/money got in the way. Increased outsourcing didn't really help these guys, in many cases it killed their careers. And then there are those of us at the regionals who always had a major airline job as a goal. I guess you can make the argument that outsourcing helped us get our turbine PIC - but to what end? Turbine PIC doesn't matter much if the majors aren't hiring. Having the regionals grow to the behemoths they did while the majors furloughed guys like CG certainly didn't help our careers. So while some RJ lifers may disagree, I think you'll find most ex-RJ guys that get hired at the majors will tend to agree with guys like CG who were harmed by outsourcing.
). Secondly, most of us are likely to agree with guys like CGfalconHerc that were furloughed & stagnated for long periods: outsourcing is bad. I think CG and I agree on that. Where we seem to be disagreeing is that I think it was bad for everyone, while he seems to think the RJ guys reaped a windfall. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. As CG mentioned in his last post, there is definitely a contingent of RJ lifers that either never wanted to start over at a major or were unable to get hired (no degree, DUI, marks on record etc). These guys definitely benefited from outsourcing, they made more money and got better schedules than they would have if the regionals had stayed in their Be1900/E120 niche. But a large portion of the current regional lifers never meant to be lifers - there just weren't any major airline jobs when the timing was right, and then life/family/money got in the way. Increased outsourcing didn't really help these guys, in many cases it killed their careers. And then there are those of us at the regionals who always had a major airline job as a goal. I guess you can make the argument that outsourcing helped us get our turbine PIC - but to what end? Turbine PIC doesn't matter much if the majors aren't hiring. Having the regionals grow to the behemoths they did while the majors furloughed guys like CG certainly didn't help our careers. So while some RJ lifers may disagree, I think you'll find most ex-RJ guys that get hired at the majors will tend to agree with guys like CG who were harmed by outsourcing.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CAL EWR
Union Talk
8
11-08-2008 02:37 PM
