Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-22-2012, 03:51 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 56
Delta pilot deal allows it to add regional jets - BusinessWeek
So we are voting to allow a scope sale and a reduction in profit sharing?
So we are voting to allow a scope sale and a reduction in profit sharing?
05-22-2012, 04:00 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Delta pilot deal allows it to add regional jets - BusinessWeek
So we are voting to allow a scope sale and a reduction in profit sharing?
So we are voting to allow a scope sale and a reduction in profit sharing?
Walk away from the table NC.
05-22-2012, 04:03 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,057
Obviously there are a ton of areas to sift through with this TA. Here are some of big issues I have on first pass:
More large RJs. The company can't wait to get them! Someone smarter than me will have to explain why this is a good thing for us. Maybe total scope is an improvement, maybe not. This section should be picked apart, put back together and picked apart again. We need to be thinking worst case. We need to make sure that there are provisions in the event that mainline parks jets though.
SWA just deferred aircraft orders. If they are indeed getting rid of the 717's, where are those pilots going to go? Is there any chance that they are taking Delta's 737 order slots in exchange for the 717's? If not, where does SWA put all of the AirTran guys that won't have an airplane to fly? If we do give up 737 slots, are we keeping the 757's & 767's longer?
A320 and M88 guys (and possibly future 717 pilots) are still underpaid compared to the 737 pilots. 124 seats in a 737-700 shouldn't pay $8-$10 more an hour than the 160 seat M90's or A320's. I think this area needs a lot of thought. All the narrow bodies ought to be lumped together (minus the 757). 4, 8, 3, 3 barely keeps up with inflation. Section 3 really is an insult.
A cut in profit sharing??? Really? This might be the straw that breaks my back just out of principle (if scope ends up being a positive for us, otherwise its a definite deal breaker too). The company is setup to rake in record profits and we agree to 4, 8, 3, 3 and reduced profit sharing??? Maybe someone can explain to me, but if we go over 2.5 billion, do we make the 20% on all of it, or just the amount over 2.5? For example, if we had a 2.8 billion profit, would we get 10% on the first 2.5 and then 20% on the 300 million, or 20% on the full 2.8 billion?
Per Diem is still very low for the places we go. You have to live pretty tight to get by on $50 in NYC on your 24 hour layover.
I'm at the bottom of the list and I sure hope that they didn't use any negotiating capital for any of the furlough protections. The company is virtually certain we won't be furloughing anytime on the horizon. Towards the end of the decade, they won't be able to hire guys fast enough. That said, the protections are nice - I just hope we didn't pay anything for them.
Someone mentioned that training pay for distributed training goes to 1 for 2, but my contract still shows 1 for 3 and xxx for training pay? Maybe they have updated that since (I haven't downloaded it again).
7 short calls? The increase in reserve pay is nice, but combined with the increase in ALV, might require less pilots.
Again, first pass so I'm sure there are other issues, but these are the ones that struck me most. Like most of you, I just can't get excited about this thing.
More large RJs. The company can't wait to get them! Someone smarter than me will have to explain why this is a good thing for us. Maybe total scope is an improvement, maybe not. This section should be picked apart, put back together and picked apart again. We need to be thinking worst case. We need to make sure that there are provisions in the event that mainline parks jets though.
SWA just deferred aircraft orders. If they are indeed getting rid of the 717's, where are those pilots going to go? Is there any chance that they are taking Delta's 737 order slots in exchange for the 717's? If not, where does SWA put all of the AirTran guys that won't have an airplane to fly? If we do give up 737 slots, are we keeping the 757's & 767's longer?
A320 and M88 guys (and possibly future 717 pilots) are still underpaid compared to the 737 pilots. 124 seats in a 737-700 shouldn't pay $8-$10 more an hour than the 160 seat M90's or A320's. I think this area needs a lot of thought. All the narrow bodies ought to be lumped together (minus the 757). 4, 8, 3, 3 barely keeps up with inflation. Section 3 really is an insult.
A cut in profit sharing??? Really? This might be the straw that breaks my back just out of principle (if scope ends up being a positive for us, otherwise its a definite deal breaker too). The company is setup to rake in record profits and we agree to 4, 8, 3, 3 and reduced profit sharing??? Maybe someone can explain to me, but if we go over 2.5 billion, do we make the 20% on all of it, or just the amount over 2.5? For example, if we had a 2.8 billion profit, would we get 10% on the first 2.5 and then 20% on the 300 million, or 20% on the full 2.8 billion?
Per Diem is still very low for the places we go. You have to live pretty tight to get by on $50 in NYC on your 24 hour layover.
I'm at the bottom of the list and I sure hope that they didn't use any negotiating capital for any of the furlough protections. The company is virtually certain we won't be furloughing anytime on the horizon. Towards the end of the decade, they won't be able to hire guys fast enough. That said, the protections are nice - I just hope we didn't pay anything for them.
Someone mentioned that training pay for distributed training goes to 1 for 2, but my contract still shows 1 for 3 and xxx for training pay? Maybe they have updated that since (I haven't downloaded it again).
7 short calls? The increase in reserve pay is nice, but combined with the increase in ALV, might require less pilots.
Again, first pass so I'm sure there are other issues, but these are the ones that struck me most. Like most of you, I just can't get excited about this thing.
05-22-2012, 04:16 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I've stuck (more or less) to my New Year's resolution to stay off this board, as it was sucking the life out of me.
And I don't really intend to change that, but I couldn't help but notice the incredible hypocrisy and double talk coming from many on here. Consider the following:
1. Guys like Carl complained at the time of the merger, that even though hourly rates went up, his pay went down because of the low reserve guarantee. Now that's been fixed, and guys are whining. For a guy currently on reserve and getting 70 hours of pay, moving the guarantee to 80 (assuming an 82 ALV), coupled with the contractual pay raises results in a 29% increase in W2 on 1/1/13! Not too shabby.
And I don't really intend to change that, but I couldn't help but notice the incredible hypocrisy and double talk coming from many on here. Consider the following:
1. Guys like Carl complained at the time of the merger, that even though hourly rates went up, his pay went down because of the low reserve guarantee. Now that's been fixed, and guys are whining. For a guy currently on reserve and getting 70 hours of pay, moving the guarantee to 80 (assuming an 82 ALV), coupled with the contractual pay raises results in a 29% increase in W2 on 1/1/13! Not too shabby.
Either way, moving the reserve guarantee from 70 to 80 means fewer pilots required, right?
2. ALPA used to say DCI wasn't a big factor because they were only 15% of total ASMs. Guys on this board lambasted that and said its all about block hours; ASMs are irrelevant. Now, ALPA substantially increases the block hour ratio, grounding several hundred DCI jets, and guys say that doesn't matter; it's all about size. So which is it?
4. Guys hated profit sharing when we traded pay to get it. They said it will never pay off, it's subject to bean counter manipulation, etc. They said SHOW ME THE MONEY. Now, ALPA negotiates a "modest" decrease in profit sharing, while still maintaining the top bracket (20% of all income above $2.5B goes to the employees -- think if AAPL had that!), and you're complaining.
5. Lastly, and most importantly, if you want to know why our "team" of professional airline pilots are not winning this game, look at your teammates. Every time Delta ALPA comes up to bat, we hit a single. Not sexy, the crowd doesn't go wild, but we hit a single and get on base. Next comes APA -- swing for the fences, but strke out. Then comes USAir -- swinging for that fence again, strikeout. Sadly, our brothers at UCAL appear to be doing the same thing.
I think you can look around and see how people feel about that.
Even SWAPA. Because all of us took 4 giant steps backward, they ended up at the front of the line. They work for a company making record profits year in and year out, and now they are finally out front with a chance to LEAD the profession, and what do they do? Do they eliminate the need to buy your job with a type rating paid for by yourself? NO. Do they take an aggressive stance against management and get solid pay raises? NO. They aren't even close to what we negotiated back in 2001 for pay, yet they've had 38 years of unparalleled profitability. Talk about "we'll get 'em next time!" No, they have put themselves in neutral, waiting for us to pass them by, so they can get their cost advantage again, and use that to grow their airline.
BTW, SWA doesn't require you to pay for your type rating and we're not even close to what was negotiated in 2001.
k?
Last edited by forgot to bid; 05-22-2012 at 04:49 AM.
05-22-2012, 04:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,574
Sailing,
While I appreciate the fact that you are against this TA, I have to take this opportunity to point out that, so far, you have been correct about just about everything. But, in my book, there is a big difference between being correct about something and being right.
This post is yet another example of where while you might be proven to be correct when "another piece to this TA puzzle [is] announced before the vote," but if you are, something is very wrong here.
If you know that "something will be announced before the vote" now, why do you know this? If you are Delta management, then I understand your position. It's your job to play us for all you can. Good on you.
But, if you are a Delta pilot (union rep or not), you don't have any business being in the position where you know how the company will alter our voting process with future announcements. The totality of your posts don't pass the sniff test. What's going on?
Seriously, please explain.
While I appreciate the fact that you are against this TA, I have to take this opportunity to point out that, so far, you have been correct about just about everything. But, in my book, there is a big difference between being correct about something and being right.
This post is yet another example of where while you might be proven to be correct when "another piece to this TA puzzle [is] announced before the vote," but if you are, something is very wrong here.
If you know that "something will be announced before the vote" now, why do you know this? If you are Delta management, then I understand your position. It's your job to play us for all you can. Good on you.
But, if you are a Delta pilot (union rep or not), you don't have any business being in the position where you know how the company will alter our voting process with future announcements. The totality of your posts don't pass the sniff test. What's going on?
Seriously, please explain.
Sometimes you simply need to think. How many rumors have been posted on here that make zero economic sense to the company in the last 3 years. Yet pilot after pilot bites on them here.
The company stated it was going to place a order for 100 large narrow bodies and 100 small narrow bodies. The small order is canceled with no real explanation. You think maybe the company was looking ahead to the contract? Think maybe they knew that a carrot was going to be needed?
At any rate you will not have to wait long to find out. It will happen in the next 4 weeks.
05-22-2012, 04:23 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
How is it not a concession to say RAH was violating the spirit of section 1 and then carve out an exception for them to continue?
05-22-2012, 04:47 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
05-22-2012, 04:50 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Simple, I called my union and asked a lot of hard questions about the TA. I also informed them based on their answers I would be voting no. Call you rep and talk to them. How much would you like to bet I am both correct and right on this. The company has to know that there is little chance of this passing as written. I have no doubt the small narrow body order will be inked before we vote. It will have a clause making it contingent on contract ratification because they have to get out of the 50 seat leases with Bombardier. The only way that is going to happen is with a large aircraft order. It could include the C series or be a combination of the A319's and 900 from Bombardier.
Sometimes you simply need to think. How many rumors have been posted on here that make zero economic sense to the company in the last 3 years. Yet pilot after pilot bites on them here.
The company stated it was going to place a order for 100 large narrow bodies and 100 small narrow bodies. The small order is canceled with no real explanation. You think maybe the company was looking ahead to the contract? Think maybe they knew that a carrot was going to be needed?
At any rate you will not have to wait long to find out. It will happen in the next 4 weeks.
Sometimes you simply need to think. How many rumors have been posted on here that make zero economic sense to the company in the last 3 years. Yet pilot after pilot bites on them here.
The company stated it was going to place a order for 100 large narrow bodies and 100 small narrow bodies. The small order is canceled with no real explanation. You think maybe the company was looking ahead to the contract? Think maybe they knew that a carrot was going to be needed?
At any rate you will not have to wait long to find out. It will happen in the next 4 weeks.
What you are saying makes sense.
Why do WE the pilots of DAL have to PAY for this.
I really don't get it.
I have to walk away from this computer.
This whole episode makes me ashamed.
Bait and switch, penance for anothers sins, bailing a crack ho wife out of jail, defending a child molester...It's a violation on many levels. That's what this whole mess is.
05-22-2012, 04:58 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Capt
Posts: 2,049
Deleted with prejudice
05-22-2012, 05:05 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,431
What you are saying makes sense.
Why do WE the pilots of DAL have to PAY for this.
I really don't get it.
I have to walk away from this computer.
This whole episode makes me ashamed.
Bait and switch, penance for anothers sins, bailing a crack ho wife out of jail, defending a child molester...It's a violation on many levels. That's what this whole mess is.
Why do WE the pilots of DAL have to PAY for this.
I really don't get it.
I have to walk away from this computer.
This whole episode makes me ashamed.
Bait and switch, penance for anothers sins, bailing a crack ho wife out of jail, defending a child molester...It's a violation on many levels. That's what this whole mess is.
Vote NO and be done with it.
Also, sometimes this week's anger is next weeks forgotten afterthought. You cannot even find a negative mention of our C2K on these boards any more. It is held up as an exalted contract that sets the standard for all hopeful future contracts.
And yet, I can remember when it was approved by the membership back in 2000 or early 2001, I had a fellow pilot on the crew bus telling me how he was going to "quit the union" because the contract was "so concessionary." Nothing I tried to tell him would dissuade him from his opinion at the time. Looking back, I am guessing he probably thinks a bit differently now.
That said, absent some info that I haven't discovered yet, I can't see voting for this TA. We could have done better, and should have. I especially hate the "you might get new airplanes" sales pitch. Let's face it. Ultimately, management will buy or not buy the planes they need to run this airline. A TA shouldn't need ratification to lock in our management's business strategy. More carrot and stick BS.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
