Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-22-2012, 02:29 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,902
Company announced pay raises for non-contract employees.
Guess enough money was left on the table for that to happen.
Nu
Guess enough money was left on the table for that to happen.
Nu
05-22-2012, 02:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: New Hire
Posts: 255
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
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
05-22-2012, 02:51 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: west coast wannabe
Posts: 815
If i am to sell this TA, i will make sure to let the 50+ group knows the significance of the term "time value", threatening them if we dont sign right now, it will be dragged out.
To the bottom guys, they will show us the carrots of new aircraft orders, saying the board wont authorize any deal until we have a TA. Again, if they want to buy crj900, we have the payscale to fly them.
To me, i think they kinda miss the mark in offering anything worth considering for the 40-50 group, the new Captain or senior FO range.
Its very dangerous for our group to present a vote that shows division. If this TA fails, it has to be by a big margin. Mgmt cannot be shown how the votes are tallied, so that they can target a specific audience to get to the magic 50%+1 votes needed.
To the bottom guys, they will show us the carrots of new aircraft orders, saying the board wont authorize any deal until we have a TA. Again, if they want to buy crj900, we have the payscale to fly them.
To me, i think they kinda miss the mark in offering anything worth considering for the 40-50 group, the new Captain or senior FO range.
Its very dangerous for our group to present a vote that shows division. If this TA fails, it has to be by a big margin. Mgmt cannot be shown how the votes are tallied, so that they can target a specific audience to get to the magic 50%+1 votes needed.
05-22-2012, 03:18 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
05-22-2012, 03:19 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 403
Not exactly...it's an aircraft delivery (event based) as well as time based ratio. If management never buys another 76 seater, then the ratio doesn't come into play. If they buy all 70 allowable, then they have to have 88 small narrowbody aircraft on the property, 125 50 seaters left, and a max of 450 total DCI left. Then they do the ratio and ensure that for every block hour DCI flies mainline has at least 1.56. It's planned to be over 1.7.
05-22-2012, 03:41 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
It's almost comical the way this is unrolling. Bar called it, 717s if you sign off on bigger lower casm 76 seaters.
But the problem with the carrot is everyone looks around and says won't the 717s come anyways? And if not, are we better off? A giant order of 76 seaters sure makes you scratch your head wondering if we're supposed to say yes to 76 seaters that replace mainline jets and 717s that just replacement jets. Is it best just to say no and stick to 255 and the current fleet?
Sailing, is there a wb order on the way? That's been rumored before too.
But the problem with the carrot is everyone looks around and says won't the 717s come anyways? And if not, are we better off? A giant order of 76 seaters sure makes you scratch your head wondering if we're supposed to say yes to 76 seaters that replace mainline jets and 717s that just replacement jets. Is it best just to say no and stick to 255 and the current fleet?
Sailing, is there a wb order on the way? That's been rumored before too.
Don't get me started on 777-300's once we get our balance sheet fixed by flipping leases and capacity purchase contract modifications. I have not finished that homework yet.
05-22-2012, 03:43 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Thank you. Bar's source is himself, DOT data and a calculator. Figure out the numbers and you know where management's looking. In any defense play, watch the eyes.
Don't get me started on 777-300's once we get our balance sheet fixed by flipping leases and capacity purchase contract modifications. I have not finished that homework yet.
Don't get me started on 777-300's once we get our balance sheet fixed by flipping leases and capacity purchase contract modifications. I have not finished that homework yet.
05-22-2012, 04:06 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Bill,
Something is happening in that space (120 seats) with, or without, passage of this TA. The difference is whether we want to go forward under our current contract with 3 to 1 language. The addition of 88 jets if done tomorrow would be close to a wash on new CRJ900's. The TA makes it less painful to restructure DCI, but it will happen regardless... perhaps slower and with more debt which stalls financing of other needed replacements for mainline.
Today's announcement should have been last Thursday at the Bank America presentation. Do not know why the timing has been so awkward.
Something is happening in that space (120 seats) with, or without, passage of this TA. The difference is whether we want to go forward under our current contract with 3 to 1 language. The addition of 88 jets if done tomorrow would be close to a wash on new CRJ900's. The TA makes it less painful to restructure DCI, but it will happen regardless... perhaps slower and with more debt which stalls financing of other needed replacements for mainline.
Today's announcement should have been last Thursday at the Bank America presentation. Do not know why the timing has been so awkward.
05-22-2012, 04:12 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
Posts: 1,898
Just some thoughts about scope-- that by allowing more 76 seat jets on the property, we are doing several detrimental things to ourselves.
#1. We are giving away our jobs, and once they are gone, they aren't ever coming back.
#2. We are permitting the creation and perpetuation of a sub-class of professionals who will do the same job for much less compensation and contractual protections.
#3. We are allowing, once again, the line to be drawn further down the field, keeping momentum on the side of outsourcing.
#4. We are permitting to exist an airline within an airline that is possibly going to be over half the size of SWA-- flying our pax.
#5. We are telling the company, the other airlines, and the world that we will sell our own jobs for a few bucks today, that we are for sale, and we can be had.
#6. We are turning our backs on what is very likely the only chance we will ever collectively have industry wide to put the scope genie back in the bottle.
#1. We are giving away our jobs, and once they are gone, they aren't ever coming back.
#2. We are permitting the creation and perpetuation of a sub-class of professionals who will do the same job for much less compensation and contractual protections.
#3. We are allowing, once again, the line to be drawn further down the field, keeping momentum on the side of outsourcing.
#4. We are permitting to exist an airline within an airline that is possibly going to be over half the size of SWA-- flying our pax.
#5. We are telling the company, the other airlines, and the world that we will sell our own jobs for a few bucks today, that we are for sale, and we can be had.
#6. We are turning our backs on what is very likely the only chance we will ever collectively have industry wide to put the scope genie back in the bottle.
05-22-2012, 04:17 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Just some thoughts about scope-- that by allowing more 76 seat jets on the property, we are doing several detrimental things to ourselves.
#1. We are giving away our jobs, and once they are gone, they aren't ever coming back.
#2. We are permitting the creation and perpetuation of a sub-class of professionals who will do the same job for much less compensation and contractual protections.
#3. We are allowing, once again, the line to be drawn further down the field, keeping momentum on the side of outsourcing.
#4. We are permitting to exist an airline within an airline that is possibly going to be over half the size of SWA-- flying our pax.
#5. We are telling the company, the other airlines, and the world that we will sell our own jobs for a few bucks today, that we are for sale, and we can be had.
#6. We are turning our backs on what is very likely the only chance we will ever collectively have industry wide to put the scope genie back in the bottle.
#1. We are giving away our jobs, and once they are gone, they aren't ever coming back.
#2. We are permitting the creation and perpetuation of a sub-class of professionals who will do the same job for much less compensation and contractual protections.
#3. We are allowing, once again, the line to be drawn further down the field, keeping momentum on the side of outsourcing.
#4. We are permitting to exist an airline within an airline that is possibly going to be over half the size of SWA-- flying our pax.
#5. We are telling the company, the other airlines, and the world that we will sell our own jobs for a few bucks today, that we are for sale, and we can be had.
#6. We are turning our backs on what is very likely the only chance we will ever collectively have industry wide to put the scope genie back in the bottle.
Well said. The whole thing, but the last two points are so important.
Folks are talking about positives and tiny miniscule changes that might make this pass.
It should NEVER NEVER EVER pass. It should NEVER HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED BY DALPA!!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
