Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? >

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Search

Notices

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-22-2012, 11:01 AM
  #100571  
No longer cares
 
tsquare's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Default

Originally Posted by slowplay
Our current contract allows for a much higher portion of profit sharing by pilots. Our very meager pay increases are actually being “funded” (the MEC’s words not mine) by the reduction in our profit sharing. By keeping our current contract, we will be very close to a wash on pay given the enormous profits that are in Delta’s future.

... Once they tire of sending out HUGE checks for profit sharing (that are indexed for inflation where multi-year pay raises are not), [/QUOTE]

Hey Carl, can you do that math problem for me?

Show me what our February 2014 pay and profit sharing would look like under 3 scenarios:

1. 3 billion PTIX (very profitable)
2. 1.5 billion PTIX ( just like last year)
3. No profit.

Thanks!
Hey slow. Section 1.D.9 has block hour ratios based on the 767-300 (non ER) aircraft. Since management has already stated that those airplanes are destined for the scrap heap, why is this even in the contract. I think this could be a GREAT thing, since a ratio based on zero is zero. Or is there another loophole that I don't see?

Oh, and the answer to your question # 1 would be a lot less than it is under the current agreement. Since the 20% applies to the earnings ABOVE 2.5 billion, and with the monies less than $2.5 billion being cut in half, that to me would seem to mean it is less money than under current conditions. Under question 2.. 50% of what it is now Question 3, N/A

Last edited by johnso29; 05-22-2012 at 12:25 PM.
tsquare is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 11:04 AM
  #100572  
Gets Weekends Off
 
exeagle's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: DL
Posts: 154
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Lots of great analysis here folks and I really appreciate it. Special shout out to tsquare who has had some great thoughts on this. I know, I know, hell just froze over.

I've been hesitant to post this because I didn’t want to jinx what I was really hoping would happen. But now what I was really hoping for has happened so here goes:

Negotiations that lead to an actual agreement (tentative or not) unmasks both sides’ real agendas. That is one of the vulnerabilities that both sides understand going in. Management has completely unmasked themselves by agreeing to this TA, and as such has provided us with tremendous leverage going forward. It is quite clear now that the “opportunity” that management sees is not a new aircraft order (that will be done based on the economics of the hull in question). It is also not a merger or asset acquisition, again because nothing in our current contract would prevent that. The “opportunity” that management is so desperate to grab ASAP is the removal of our current contract. And for once, the RLA and the NMB will work hugely to our advantage if we vote this TA down. Allow me to explain:

Our current contract has a hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. Management says they can only get rid of those leases by getting more 76 seat RJ’s. This is of course wrong, because they can also be rid by bankruptcy…which will happen to the RJ airlines who continue to fly these 50 seaters. Bankruptcy will only be prevented if we increase our hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. If we keep our current contract, the hard cap of 255 remains and RJ airlines go bankrupt allowing Delta to get out of the 50 seat leases that they were dumb enough to sign. What happens to that lift then? Delta will be forced to put over 50 seat RJ’s on those routes they still want flown. But what will replace those over 50 seat RJ’s? – mainline aircraft IF we keep our 255 hard cap. If we sign off on this new TA, there will be no incentive whatsoever by management to use mainline aircraft.

Our current contract allows for a much higher portion of profit sharing by pilots. Our very meager pay increases are actually being “funded” (the MEC’s words not mine) by the reduction in our profit sharing. By keeping our current contract, we will be very close to a wash on pay given the enormous profits that are in Delta’s future.

Keeping our current contract forces outsourcing to be reduced due to the reality of 50 seat RJ’s vanishing and our hard cap of 255 remaining. Keeping our current contract allows us to gain more in pay (my bet) through profit sharing. Keeping our current contract does not insert into our scope language the ridiculous new provision of the company being excused for damn near everything for things that are “out of their control”. We are the ones that need to drag our feet until management screams for relief…and they will scream for relief. Once they tire of sending out HUGE checks for profit sharing (that are indexed for inflation where multi-year pay raises are not), and paying for leases of parked 50 seat RJ’s, they will come begging. That’s when we can sit down and bargain.

Absolutely none of this is possible if we vote this TA in.

Carl
Great post, Carl.
exeagle is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 11:09 AM
  #100573  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B737 CA
Posts: 1,518
Default

This is so spot on that it'd be a shame if it was only read on this board, where most guys seem to get it. Perhaps an edited-for-mass-consumption version could be printed & everyone here leave copies in each airplane they fly?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Lots of great analysis here folks and I really appreciate it. Special shout out to tsquare who has had some great thoughts on this. I know, I know, hell just froze over.

I've been hesitant to post this because I didn’t want to jinx what I was really hoping would happen. But now what I was really hoping for has happened so here goes:

Negotiations that lead to an actual agreement (tentative or not) unmasks both sides’ real agendas. That is one of the vulnerabilities that both sides understand going in. Management has completely unmasked themselves by agreeing to this TA, and as such has provided us with tremendous leverage going forward. It is quite clear now that the “opportunity” that management sees is not a new aircraft order (that will be done based on the economics of the hull in question). It is also not a merger or asset acquisition, again because nothing in our current contract would prevent that. The “opportunity” that management is so desperate to grab ASAP is the removal of our current contract. And for once, the RLA and the NMB will work hugely to our advantage if we vote this TA down. Allow me to explain:

Our current contract has a hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. Management says they can only get rid of those leases by getting more 76 seat RJ’s. This is of course wrong, because they can also be rid by bankruptcy…which will happen to the RJ airlines who continue to fly these 50 seaters. Bankruptcy will only be prevented if we increase our hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. If we keep our current contract, the hard cap of 255 remains and RJ airlines go bankrupt allowing Delta to get out of the 50 seat leases that they were dumb enough to sign. What happens to that lift then? Delta will be forced to put over 50 seat RJ’s on those routes they still want flown. But what will replace those over 50 seat RJ’s? – mainline aircraft IF we keep our 255 hard cap. If we sign off on this new TA, there will be no incentive whatsoever by management to use mainline aircraft.

Our current contract allows for a much higher portion of profit sharing by pilots. Our very meager pay increases are actually being “funded” (the MEC’s words not mine) by the reduction in our profit sharing. By keeping our current contract, we will be very close to a wash on pay given the enormous profits that are in Delta’s future.

Keeping our current contract forces outsourcing to be reduced due to the reality of 50 seat RJ’s vanishing and our hard cap of 255 remaining. Keeping our current contract allows us to gain more in pay (my bet) through profit sharing. Keeping our current contract does not insert into our scope language the ridiculous new provision of the company being excused for damn near everything for things that are “out of their control”. We are the ones that need to drag our feet until management screams for relief…and they will scream for relief. Once they tire of sending out HUGE checks for profit sharing (that are indexed for inflation where multi-year pay raises are not), and paying for leases of parked 50 seat RJ’s, they will come begging. That’s when we can sit down and bargain.

Absolutely none of this is possible if we vote this TA in.

Carl
JungleBus is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 11:12 AM
  #100574  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TheManager's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Lots of great analysis here folks and I really appreciate it. Special shout out to tsquare who has had some great thoughts on this. I know, I know, hell just froze over.

I've been hesitant to post this because I didn’t want to jinx what I was really hoping would happen. But now what I was really hoping for has happened so here goes:

Negotiations that lead to an actual agreement (tentative or not) unmasks both sides’ real agendas. That is one of the vulnerabilities that both sides understand going in. Management has completely unmasked themselves by agreeing to this TA, and as such has provided us with tremendous leverage going forward. It is quite clear now that the “opportunity” that management sees is not a new aircraft order (that will be done based on the economics of the hull in question). It is also not a merger or asset acquisition, again because nothing in our current contract would prevent that. The “opportunity” that management is so desperate to grab ASAP is the removal of our current contract. And for once, the RLA and the NMB will work hugely to our advantage if we vote this TA down. Allow me to explain:

Our current contract has a hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. Management says they can only get rid of those leases by getting more 76 seat RJ’s. This is of course wrong, because they can also be rid by bankruptcy…which will happen to the RJ airlines who continue to fly these 50 seaters. Bankruptcy will only be prevented if we increase our hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. If we keep our current contract, the hard cap of 255 remains and RJ airlines go bankrupt allowing Delta to get out of the 50 seat leases that they were dumb enough to sign. What happens to that lift then? Delta will be forced to put over 50 seat RJ’s on those routes they still want flown. But what will replace those over 50 seat RJ’s? – mainline aircraft IF we keep our 255 hard cap. If we sign off on this new TA, there will be no incentive whatsoever by management to use mainline aircraft.

Our current contract allows for a much higher portion of profit sharing by pilots. Our very meager pay increases are actually being “funded” (the MEC’s words not mine) by the reduction in our profit sharing. By keeping our current contract, we will be very close to a wash on pay given the enormous profits that are in Delta’s future.

Keeping our current contract forces outsourcing to be reduced due to the reality of 50 seat RJ’s vanishing and our hard cap of 255 remaining. Keeping our current contract allows us to gain more in pay (my bet) through profit sharing. Keeping our current contract does not insert into our scope language the ridiculous new provision of the company being excused for damn near everything for things that are “out of their control”. We are the ones that need to drag our feet until management screams for relief…and they will scream for relief. Once they tire of sending out HUGE checks for profit sharing (that are indexed for inflation where multi-year pay raises are not), and paying for leases of parked 50 seat RJ’s, they will come begging. That’s when we can sit down and bargain.

Absolutely none of this is possible if we vote this TA in.

Carl
Best post on APC, EVER! I logged on to state pretty much the same. But Carl, you nailed it and laid it out very concisely. Better than I ever could do.

We can now see the leverage we have and it's significant. How the MEC and NC failed to capitalize on this astounds me.

LET THEM EAT LEASES!

We vote it down, they'll be Baaaaaaccckk.

Carl, this needs to be on the DALPA board.
TheManager is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 11:18 AM
  #100575  
No longer cares
 
tsquare's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Our current contract has a hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. Management says they can only get rid of those leases by getting more 76 seat RJ’s. This is of course wrong, because they can also be rid by bankruptcy…which will happen to the RJ airlines who continue to fly these 50 seaters. Bankruptcy will only be prevented if we increase our hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. If we keep our current contract, the hard cap of 255 remains and RJ airlines go bankrupt allowing Delta to get out of the 50 seat leases that they were dumb enough to sign. What happens to that lift then? Delta will be forced to put over 50 seat RJ’s on those routes they still want flown. But what will replace those over 50 seat RJ’s? – mainline aircraft IF we keep our 255 hard cap. If we sign off on this new TA, there will be no incentive whatsoever by management to use mainline aircraft.
Good post Carl. There is one part that I have a little disagreement with, and that is the only part I have highlighted. The company can pour more money into those operations to keep them afloat, and they have already demonstrated a willingness to do just that for the past hundred years. (Pay for performance anyone?) Why would the do that? It allows them to keep the lift, and whether it is inefficient or not, it still is lift that is farmed out. I don't really know if it would play out that way, but it is a workaround for the Company. Other than that, I like your post. Especially the shout out.
tsquare is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 11:18 AM
  #100576  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TheManager's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Default

Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
I fixed #2 for you. This is where our leverage exists. Again, sins of omition from an ALPA guy. Never seen that before

++++ 1. The fine art of spin selling.



Straight from the "bible"

During my furlough, I became intimately familar with this book. It was required reading by my employer. It worked for me then and the same principals are being used today.... by both DALPA and Delta. Sad.
TheManager is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 11:21 AM
  #100577  
Gets Weekends Off
 
newKnow's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Default

Can someone please do some thoughtful analysis of the TA's reserve pilot section (23.S.2)?
From what I'm seeing, it's another case of a little bit of good being way overshadowed by a lot of bad.

Or, am I wrong in thinking that allowing a reserve pilot to fly 15 hours over ALV is a bad thing whereas as of today he can't be assigned anything over the ALV?

My thoughts are more work fit reserve pilots and less staffing required. (less jobs)

Help me. Because, I know we would never negotiate something like that. Right?
newKnow is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 11:21 AM
  #100578  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,590
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Lots of great analysis here folks and I really appreciate it. Special shout out to tsquare who has had some great thoughts on this. I know, I know, hell just froze over.

I've been hesitant to post this because I didn’t want to jinx what I was really hoping would happen. But now what I was really hoping for has happened so here goes:

Negotiations that lead to an actual agreement (tentative or not) unmasks both sides’ real agendas. That is one of the vulnerabilities that both sides understand going in. Management has completely unmasked themselves by agreeing to this TA, and as such has provided us with tremendous leverage going forward. It is quite clear now that the “opportunity” that management sees is not a new aircraft order (that will be done based on the economics of the hull in question). It is also not a merger or asset acquisition, again because nothing in our current contract would prevent that. The “opportunity” that management is so desperate to grab ASAP is the removal of our current contract. And for once, the RLA and the NMB will work hugely to our advantage if we vote this TA down. Allow me to explain:

Our current contract has a hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. Management says they can only get rid of those leases by getting more 76 seat RJ’s. This is of course wrong, because they can also be rid by bankruptcy…which will happen to the RJ airlines who continue to fly these 50 seaters. Bankruptcy will only be prevented if we increase our hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. If we keep our current contract, the hard cap of 255 remains and RJ airlines go bankrupt allowing Delta to get out of the 50 seat leases that they were dumb enough to sign. What happens to that lift then? Delta will be forced to put over 50 seat RJ’s on those routes they still want flown. But what will replace those over 50 seat RJ’s? – mainline aircraft IF we keep our 255 hard cap. If we sign off on this new TA, there will be no incentive whatsoever by management to use mainline aircraft.

Our current contract allows for a much higher portion of profit sharing by pilots. Our very meager pay increases are actually being “funded” (the MEC’s words not mine) by the reduction in our profit sharing. By keeping our current contract, we will be very close to a wash on pay given the enormous profits that are in Delta’s future.

Keeping our current contract forces outsourcing to be reduced due to the reality of 50 seat RJ’s vanishing and our hard cap of 255 remaining. Keeping our current contract allows us to gain more in pay (my bet) through profit sharing. Keeping our current contract does not insert into our scope language the ridiculous new provision of the company being excused for damn near everything for things that are “out of their control”. We are the ones that need to drag our feet until management screams for relief…and they will scream for relief. Once they tire of sending out HUGE checks for profit sharing (that are indexed for inflation where multi-year pay raises are not), and paying for leases of parked 50 seat RJ’s, they will come begging. That’s when we can sit down and bargain.

Absolutely none of this is possible if we vote this TA in.

Carl
Carl, The 50 seater don't go away if the airline files bankruptcy. They would only go away if the airline liquidates. To get out of the leases Delta would have to file chapter 11 again. Not likely given what has happened to AMR. Even if a airline liquidates the leases and aircraft are assets that could be assumed by another company in the chapter 7 process and Delta would have to honor those leases. How fast do you assume all these DCI airlines will liquidate? Skywest is a large percentage of our overall DCI fleet and they are sitting on a ton of cash. I see little if any change in the next 4 years in Delta's DCI fleet and the only airline that even remotely looks like it might liquidate is Pinnacle and even that is unlikely.
sailingfun is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 11:25 AM
  #100579  
No longer cares
 
tsquare's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun
Carl, The 50 seater don't go away if the airline files bankruptcy. They would only go away if the airline liquidates. To get out of the leases Delta would have to file chapter 11 again. Not likely given what has happened to AMR. Even if a airline liquidates the leases and aircraft are assets that could be assumed by another company in the chapter 7 process and Delta would have to honor those leases. How fast do you assume all these DCI airlines will liquidate? Skywest is a large percentage of our overall DCI fleet and they are sitting on a ton of cash. I see little if any change in the next 4 years in Delta's DCI fleet and the only airline that even remotely looks like it might liquidate is Pinnacle and even that is unlikely.
Which leads me to think all the more that the company really needs our help in doing that deal. Is this enough? Not from what I have read so far.. but I am still studying.

And just how does Skywest play into that Category B flying? Can they take all the Barbies and fly them under the AS umbrella with their code yet our passengers? I would really like to see some clarification on this.
tsquare is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 11:26 AM
  #100580  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Waves's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
Default

Big wide body order soon. Yeah whatever! I've been hearing this one for over twenty years. Don't count on it, and don't let let it affect your vote. I think if there were going to be an order, now would be the time to tell us.
Waves is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
On Autopilot
Regional
22594
11-05-2021 07:03 AM
AeroCrewSolut
Delta
153
08-14-2018 12:18 PM
Bill Lumberg
Major
71
06-13-2012 08:36 AM
Quagmire
Major
253
04-16-2011 06:19 AM
JiffyLube
Major
12
03-07-2008 04:27 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices