Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-22-2012, 07:03 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 204
I still can’t get past section one. The fifty seaters are inefficient and are going to be parked one way or another. So we are going to help them do this by allowing a bunch more 76 seaters to replace them. Oh but the company is going to commit to getting a narrowbody aircraft. Guess what, they were already going to get these anyway. They needed to fill the gap between the MD-88 and 76 seaters anyways. So we are helping them park planes that will be parked anyway in exchange for planes that they were going to be bought anyways plus selling out on scope. WTH!! Offering early outs now and not with the rest of the company. Reducing capacity, no movement, and backward career progression the last few years hoping to leverage all that now. Guys I feel we are being played like a fiddle here and I am ****ed. So how much would it cost to cancel the 50 seat contracts and park them. That amount should be subtracted from the total cost they say this contract is worth. I bet it would end up showing a concessionary contract. Just saying with the amount of cooperation we are giving here we sure didn’t get much in return.
05-22-2012, 07:04 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,902
The importance of thr roduction balance snapshot date CANNOT be understated.
Nu
Nu
05-22-2012, 07:05 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
I am actually quite happy with the proactive engagement of our MEC and administration in ALPA. I wish they ran their committee structure the same way
That being said, there is an emotional element to all of this, and that. Has to be factored into the mix. We are humans, and we act on emotion. I got the chance to read through the agreement in the back of an MD88 last night. There is a lot of good in there. There is also a lot of give back. But, hey, it's negotiating right? I guess you can fall back to that except for that sticky human element of emotion. This contract should have been 99% give back to us, and it isn't. Quite the opposite. It seems to also fall short of where we wanted to be post contract. TO said that we would not sacrifice quality of expediency. We have. I have several more readings to go, but gleaned a few nuggets. Incidentally, I notice that you elect to use 80 hours, and the ensuing percentage as you example of pay increase, when indeed not all months will be an 80 hour guarantee, and those months are able to come with increased productivity to offset the increased pay. That is part of that pesky more give and take than should be necessary after enduring the contract we have been under for 7 years--and that is but one example.
I actually like the advances made in section 1. Again, there is more give on our part than I think is necessary. We are bailing the company out again with regard to RJs, but at least we are reigning it in overall. The JVs have good language there as well. Yet again we see "circumstances beyond the company's control". As T said, the company would likely get it anyway if necessary. The company shouldn't need to staff airplanes with other than Delta pilots in the event of a circumstance for which they. Have no control. Additionally, nobody has mentioned 1b 46, where once again we have snuck in some overweight corporate jets into the "exceptions". So much for that big coup. They break the contract, we catch it, they have to cease. Now it is codified. Human emotion interferes with my proactive engagement function in this manner.
The exceptions for Chautauqua and Shuttle America are troubling as well. There needs to be sunsetting here.
Speaking of DCI, I am not in favor of guaranteeing certain percentages of our classes for DCI pilots. This reeks of "meet and confer" and I don't like it. Big fuss is raised on the alpa boards of not bringing 76 seats to mainline, because they will be flown by pilots not yet hired, yet here we are negotiating for pilots not hired.
Lest anyone be accusatory, I am not for the increase in 76 seat jets. Management created this problem, and they should fix it, but they cannot without our help. I would like to believe that we're it not for the other jabs we receive when we should be receiving mostly return on our investment.
Section 3 is low. End of story. Profit sharing ,needs to stay the same, period.
Section 5. Great job. Hotel for CQ. EXCELLENT. Now all we need is hotel for new hires all the way through training and that section will be complete.
Section 7. Fail. To be sure, the are gains. 5 way split-good. Increase in vacation per day-good. Lack of 6th week, bad. Pay per day of vacation-bad, still. This could have been a great stride without setting off alarms on wall street.
Section 11. Sli pay at 85 hours encourages parking yourself in the boys club. My opinion is that these guys park themselves for QOL and don't need the extra money as well. But I digress.
Section 12. Duty period average. Another great gain that could have been without setting off alarms on wall street. 4:30 doesn't cut it. I will give a B for effort and getting it in there to improve upon, but it doesn't help out all that much. The reason for falling short on this is weak, IMO.
Section 14. Finally, we get rid of something which shouldn't have been there in the first place. Not a big fan of showing preference of one group over another, extra sick pay after your 19th year. Definitely a better section in this agreement.
Section 23. Such a detailed section that I want to attend a roadshow just for this. Most notably what stuck out to me was the LACK of reroute penalties. This company wants to be on time. That's fine. Then pay me for changing the layover I bid when I am running 10 minutes late for "circumstances beyond my control"
Reserve definitely better. No question. However, offsets in productivity nullify some of the benefit.
I reserve further comment and judgement for when I am better educated-especially scheduling, r&i.
Just the first of many read throughs on a 1:40 minute flight.
That being said, there is an emotional element to all of this, and that. Has to be factored into the mix. We are humans, and we act on emotion. I got the chance to read through the agreement in the back of an MD88 last night. There is a lot of good in there. There is also a lot of give back. But, hey, it's negotiating right? I guess you can fall back to that except for that sticky human element of emotion. This contract should have been 99% give back to us, and it isn't. Quite the opposite. It seems to also fall short of where we wanted to be post contract. TO said that we would not sacrifice quality of expediency. We have. I have several more readings to go, but gleaned a few nuggets. Incidentally, I notice that you elect to use 80 hours, and the ensuing percentage as you example of pay increase, when indeed not all months will be an 80 hour guarantee, and those months are able to come with increased productivity to offset the increased pay. That is part of that pesky more give and take than should be necessary after enduring the contract we have been under for 7 years--and that is but one example.
I actually like the advances made in section 1. Again, there is more give on our part than I think is necessary. We are bailing the company out again with regard to RJs, but at least we are reigning it in overall. The JVs have good language there as well. Yet again we see "circumstances beyond the company's control". As T said, the company would likely get it anyway if necessary. The company shouldn't need to staff airplanes with other than Delta pilots in the event of a circumstance for which they. Have no control. Additionally, nobody has mentioned 1b 46, where once again we have snuck in some overweight corporate jets into the "exceptions". So much for that big coup. They break the contract, we catch it, they have to cease. Now it is codified. Human emotion interferes with my proactive engagement function in this manner.
The exceptions for Chautauqua and Shuttle America are troubling as well. There needs to be sunsetting here.
Speaking of DCI, I am not in favor of guaranteeing certain percentages of our classes for DCI pilots. This reeks of "meet and confer" and I don't like it. Big fuss is raised on the alpa boards of not bringing 76 seats to mainline, because they will be flown by pilots not yet hired, yet here we are negotiating for pilots not hired.
Lest anyone be accusatory, I am not for the increase in 76 seat jets. Management created this problem, and they should fix it, but they cannot without our help. I would like to believe that we're it not for the other jabs we receive when we should be receiving mostly return on our investment.
Section 3 is low. End of story. Profit sharing ,needs to stay the same, period.
Section 5. Great job. Hotel for CQ. EXCELLENT. Now all we need is hotel for new hires all the way through training and that section will be complete.
Section 7. Fail. To be sure, the are gains. 5 way split-good. Increase in vacation per day-good. Lack of 6th week, bad. Pay per day of vacation-bad, still. This could have been a great stride without setting off alarms on wall street.
Section 11. Sli pay at 85 hours encourages parking yourself in the boys club. My opinion is that these guys park themselves for QOL and don't need the extra money as well. But I digress.
Section 12. Duty period average. Another great gain that could have been without setting off alarms on wall street. 4:30 doesn't cut it. I will give a B for effort and getting it in there to improve upon, but it doesn't help out all that much. The reason for falling short on this is weak, IMO.
Section 14. Finally, we get rid of something which shouldn't have been there in the first place. Not a big fan of showing preference of one group over another, extra sick pay after your 19th year. Definitely a better section in this agreement.
Section 23. Such a detailed section that I want to attend a roadshow just for this. Most notably what stuck out to me was the LACK of reroute penalties. This company wants to be on time. That's fine. Then pay me for changing the layover I bid when I am running 10 minutes late for "circumstances beyond my control"
Reserve definitely better. No question. However, offsets in productivity nullify some of the benefit.
I reserve further comment and judgement for when I am better educated-especially scheduling, r&i.
Just the first of many read throughs on a 1:40 minute flight.
05-22-2012, 07:11 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
I am in agreement with Sailing.
Could this TA be salvaged?
Count the 70 seaters in the hard cap. Tighten the production balance date. Eliminate the force manure clause of section one. Restore the profit sharing from tier one. Make it 6/10/4/4 and add another percent to the DC, and that's to start.
Nu
Could this TA be salvaged?
Count the 70 seaters in the hard cap. Tighten the production balance date. Eliminate the force manure clause of section one. Restore the profit sharing from tier one. Make it 6/10/4/4 and add another percent to the DC, and that's to start.
Nu
See, you have already fallen into the 2 step negotiation trap. Your expectations are down just because this TA was sent out.
Can this TA be salvaged?
sec 1:
No RJs tied to mainline fleet planning. Buy RJs, DAL pilots will fly them.
No promises to pilots not on the seniority list.
No plugs for ALPA the corporation to get more DCI members.
No carvout for RAH
No special consideration for AK
sec 3:
35% DOS, 8%, 8%
Other
No ALV+15
Vac paid at min day
min day 5+30
And there's more!
And for me, this is managed expectations!
05-22-2012, 07:13 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,902
Fair enough Scambo.
Thanks for providing the attitude adjustment.
Nu
Thanks for providing the attitude adjustment.
Nu
05-22-2012, 07:17 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,590
I still can’t get past section one. The fifty seaters are inefficient and are going to be parked one way or another. So we are going to help them do this by allowing a bunch more 76 seaters to replace them. Oh but the company is going to commit to getting a narrowbody aircraft. Guess what, they were already going to get these anyway. They needed to fill the gap between the MD-88 and 76 seaters anyways. So we are helping them park planes that will be parked anyway in exchange for planes that they were going to be bought anyways plus selling out on scope. WTH!! Offering early outs now and not with the rest of the company. Reducing capacity, no movement, and backward career progression the last few years hoping to leverage all that now. Guys I feel we are being played like a fiddle here and I am ****ed. So how much would it cost to cancel the 50 seat contracts and park them. That amount should be subtracted from the total cost they say this contract is worth. I bet it would end up showing a concessionary contract. Just saying with the amount of cooperation we are giving here we sure didn’t get much in return.
05-22-2012, 07:18 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
05-22-2012, 07:21 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,590
You have not read section 1. The total number of jets is dramatically reduced not increased.
05-22-2012, 07:21 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 403
Good summation brake... You must have gone to Evlyn Wood Speed Reading.
05-22-2012, 07:33 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Right Seat 744
Posts: 946
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
