Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-25-2012, 11:24 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
btw if anyone has numbers to help that worst case table, I'll take em!
and i still standby the worse fear, what if dci 450 is the number network wants anyways?
such they could live with 255 large jets + 195 small jets but are hoping that in exchange for 717s they'd get anyways if we would be so kind as to give them an awesome giveaway of 325 large and 125 small?
are we being suckered?
and i still standby the worse fear, what if dci 450 is the number network wants anyways?
such they could live with 255 large jets + 195 small jets but are hoping that in exchange for 717s they'd get anyways if we would be so kind as to give them an awesome giveaway of 325 large and 125 small?
are we being suckered?
Did I call the TA scary? I might have.
I don't remember. I don't think it's scary. I think it's unacceptable. Tsquare I appreciate your enthusiasm. And coffee this morning.
But I must say I have done by DYODD on Section 1.
And there is no way in you know where that I will vote yes.
It is a bad deal. And I know there are some pinky promises out there on this thing, but I won't give up things in writing for pinky promises.
So I am voting no as soon as they open this thing up for vote.
But I must say I have done by DYODD on Section 1.
And there is no way in you know where that I will vote yes.
It is a bad deal. And I know there are some pinky promises out there on this thing, but I won't give up things in writing for pinky promises.
So I am voting no as soon as they open this thing up for vote.
Lots of rumors, none of them on paper. We can't give up things on paper for pinky promises. That's my concern.
05-25-2012, 11:27 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
growth could be a hundred dudes/chicas...does that sound good? all I want to have out there is that 88 717's doesn't necessarily mean 1000 newhires...cause it ain't in the contract. the number of people added due to this potential scope sale isn't probably going to be linear. the company makes out like a bandit by smoothing out the hiring flow. It's even better when they don't have to do as much of it in total.
05-25-2012, 11:28 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
I cannot think of one occasion where management held an A/C order over the pilots heads IF a T/A is voted it, the pilots balked, and the management then followed thru with the threat. Can anyone else cite an example? The 50 seat a/c are loosing money every single departure. I think management wants this deal a lot worse than we do.
05-25-2012, 11:31 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
05-25-2012, 11:34 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Perspective of SEA Sec Treas.
Ron Morrell—Secretary-Treasurer’s Perspective
Just as a reminder, when elected in October 2010 to serve as the secretary-treasurer for the Seattle pilots, I specifically told the pilots who nominated me that I would be their voice, regardless of the fact that I did not have a vote within this body. I also stated that I would give you my honest perspective on the actions of the MEC and my opinion of how they were representing the will of the pilots. Even though I did not have a vote in whether or not this TA would be sent to the pilots for ratification, I attended every meeting, was involved in every MEC-level conversation, and was not shy about making my opinion known. This is my perspective of where we are and how we got here. I will also give you the reasons behind why I will vote no on this TA.
Where are we?
Everyone has had the opportunity to see the e-mails from the chairman and the negotiators. There will be plenty more communication pieces from the MEC Administration and the negotiators over the next 40 days. I recommend you read all of them! Just keep in mind that these communications come from the MEC Administration and the negotiators that brought this TA to the MEC with an enthusiastic “. . . fulfilled the fundamental aspirations of the 12,000 Delta line pilots that we represent.” I have no problem with them touting the accomplishments of an unprecedented early TA. I also understand the contention that this is the best deal management would give us from those who negotiated the transaction. No negotiators I have ever met would ever tell their constituents that the “best deal possible” may be improved if you say no! Our negotiators and the MEC Administration are fully invested in the agreement they brought to the MEC for consideration. You also need to consider that there are many members of the MEC that stated during deliberations that this agreement must stand on its own without any “selling” to the pilots . . . it should stand on its own! This will be a difficult standard to meet when the MEC Administration and the negotiators have staked their reputations and credibility on their statement that this was the best deal they could bring to the MEC! I hope there is no “selling” involved.
The rest of “where are we,” has to do with the guts of this agreement. This would be a long soliloquy if I went line-by-line or section-by-section, so I will let you judge for yourself. You will be given all that is fit to print by the MEC Administration and the negotiators. After reading this TA and listening to the negotiators and the other “experts” that were involved, I consider this agreement an improvement over our present contract. But, the MEC was not tasked with bringing you “an improvement;” they are tasked with bringing you the best agreement. My conclusion is that the present opportunity, as directed by management, should have resulted in a much better agreement. You must make your own decision by comparing what you put in the contract survey with the results! We are not in bankruptcy or the middle of a merger which each has their own unique time pressures; the only time pressure we have now is the one artificially created by management. It is a fact that, in accordance with the pilot survey, e-mails, phone calls, and other input I have received, the direction of the pilots’ number-one priority was NOT met! I could have felt comfortable supporting this agreement if even 80 percent of the number-one concern and request of our pilots was met! This was not the case.
How did we get here?
This past January, the MEC was floated a huge “trial balloon” concerning a business plan direction that the management team wanted to pursue. The MEC, in conjunction with the MEC Administration and the Negotiating Committee developed an opening position based on a full Section 6 contract opener with the intention to extract the best, most comprehensive and expedited agreement possible. Two months later, the MEC was handed a TA. Unfortunately for me, something is missing.
At this point, I believe the pilots must vote based on the content of the TA as you see it. There are no other alternatives except yes or no. I consider this a mistake due to the fact that the MEC was not given the opportunity to give further direction to the negotiators before they made a final decision. With the support of the MEC Administration, the negotiators announced a Tentative Agreement without meeting the direction of the MEC on the number-one priority, as stated by our pilots. The MEC had only one meeting and two conference calls during the duration of this negotiation. Conference calls are not official MEC meetings, and thus the MEC members are not in a position to give official direction to the MEC Administration or to the negotiators. There was never any request for further direction.
To quote our MEC chairman, who also stated that he was in full support of this agreement, “The TA should not be judged compared to the pilots’ aspirations as reflected in the contract survey . . . there is no context to their wishes.” I found this rather pretentious and out of touch with the direction that our pilots gave to our MEC. To be fair, the negotiators and the MEC Administration who declared to the MEC that this was the best deal possible must defend their decision—that is their only political choice. I have already heard a common phrase bantered about, which is used by some to justify just this type of situation, “I voted yes in order to let the pilots have a chance to vote on this agreement.” The problem with this is that your representatives were not elected to “pass the buck;” they are supposed to do the job of representing your direction and to get you the best possible agreement, then vote to send the agreement to you. I consider that statement a copout from those looking for political cover.
My final synopsis: I want our pilots to have the best possible background in order to consider this TA in context. The pilots gave the MEC their direction through a comprehensive survey, e-mails, phone calls, and face-to-face discussions; the MEC gave the negotiators their direction; and the TA does not meet these directions (with no convening redirection requested). After careful consideration, I would have voted against sending this TA to the pilots; I do not believe it meets the direction that the pilots gave us, nor do I believe it is the best product in this negotiating environment. I will back up that opinion by voting no when the polls open.
Epilogue
You and I will be receiving a great deal of information from the MEC Administration and the negotiators over the next 40 days. I encourage you to read, listen, and attend a road show if possible. Keep an open mind and create your own balance sheet to help you decide which way to vote. Remember, a vote against this TA will create a delay but the risk may be worth the reward. You will see very little “balanced” information that points out the downsides to the agreement or possible alternate paths if this is voted down. You will only hear about worst case scenarios. You need to ask yourself a pertinent question—does the management team want a long summer with an open contract and the financial uncertainty it creates over the next year when they are looking to “leap ahead of the competition”? Maybe the worst case scenario of three years of wrangling is not in their best interests.
I look forward to talking to as many of you as possible in the SEATAC pilot lounge over the next weeks. Feel free to call me for more in depth discussions. Whatever your decision—vote!
Ron Morrell—Secretary-Treasurer’s Perspective
Just as a reminder, when elected in October 2010 to serve as the secretary-treasurer for the Seattle pilots, I specifically told the pilots who nominated me that I would be their voice, regardless of the fact that I did not have a vote within this body. I also stated that I would give you my honest perspective on the actions of the MEC and my opinion of how they were representing the will of the pilots. Even though I did not have a vote in whether or not this TA would be sent to the pilots for ratification, I attended every meeting, was involved in every MEC-level conversation, and was not shy about making my opinion known. This is my perspective of where we are and how we got here. I will also give you the reasons behind why I will vote no on this TA.
Where are we?
Everyone has had the opportunity to see the e-mails from the chairman and the negotiators. There will be plenty more communication pieces from the MEC Administration and the negotiators over the next 40 days. I recommend you read all of them! Just keep in mind that these communications come from the MEC Administration and the negotiators that brought this TA to the MEC with an enthusiastic “. . . fulfilled the fundamental aspirations of the 12,000 Delta line pilots that we represent.” I have no problem with them touting the accomplishments of an unprecedented early TA. I also understand the contention that this is the best deal management would give us from those who negotiated the transaction. No negotiators I have ever met would ever tell their constituents that the “best deal possible” may be improved if you say no! Our negotiators and the MEC Administration are fully invested in the agreement they brought to the MEC for consideration. You also need to consider that there are many members of the MEC that stated during deliberations that this agreement must stand on its own without any “selling” to the pilots . . . it should stand on its own! This will be a difficult standard to meet when the MEC Administration and the negotiators have staked their reputations and credibility on their statement that this was the best deal they could bring to the MEC! I hope there is no “selling” involved.
The rest of “where are we,” has to do with the guts of this agreement. This would be a long soliloquy if I went line-by-line or section-by-section, so I will let you judge for yourself. You will be given all that is fit to print by the MEC Administration and the negotiators. After reading this TA and listening to the negotiators and the other “experts” that were involved, I consider this agreement an improvement over our present contract. But, the MEC was not tasked with bringing you “an improvement;” they are tasked with bringing you the best agreement. My conclusion is that the present opportunity, as directed by management, should have resulted in a much better agreement. You must make your own decision by comparing what you put in the contract survey with the results! We are not in bankruptcy or the middle of a merger which each has their own unique time pressures; the only time pressure we have now is the one artificially created by management. It is a fact that, in accordance with the pilot survey, e-mails, phone calls, and other input I have received, the direction of the pilots’ number-one priority was NOT met! I could have felt comfortable supporting this agreement if even 80 percent of the number-one concern and request of our pilots was met! This was not the case.
How did we get here?
This past January, the MEC was floated a huge “trial balloon” concerning a business plan direction that the management team wanted to pursue. The MEC, in conjunction with the MEC Administration and the Negotiating Committee developed an opening position based on a full Section 6 contract opener with the intention to extract the best, most comprehensive and expedited agreement possible. Two months later, the MEC was handed a TA. Unfortunately for me, something is missing.
At this point, I believe the pilots must vote based on the content of the TA as you see it. There are no other alternatives except yes or no. I consider this a mistake due to the fact that the MEC was not given the opportunity to give further direction to the negotiators before they made a final decision. With the support of the MEC Administration, the negotiators announced a Tentative Agreement without meeting the direction of the MEC on the number-one priority, as stated by our pilots. The MEC had only one meeting and two conference calls during the duration of this negotiation. Conference calls are not official MEC meetings, and thus the MEC members are not in a position to give official direction to the MEC Administration or to the negotiators. There was never any request for further direction.
To quote our MEC chairman, who also stated that he was in full support of this agreement, “The TA should not be judged compared to the pilots’ aspirations as reflected in the contract survey . . . there is no context to their wishes.” I found this rather pretentious and out of touch with the direction that our pilots gave to our MEC. To be fair, the negotiators and the MEC Administration who declared to the MEC that this was the best deal possible must defend their decision—that is their only political choice. I have already heard a common phrase bantered about, which is used by some to justify just this type of situation, “I voted yes in order to let the pilots have a chance to vote on this agreement.” The problem with this is that your representatives were not elected to “pass the buck;” they are supposed to do the job of representing your direction and to get you the best possible agreement, then vote to send the agreement to you. I consider that statement a copout from those looking for political cover.
My final synopsis: I want our pilots to have the best possible background in order to consider this TA in context. The pilots gave the MEC their direction through a comprehensive survey, e-mails, phone calls, and face-to-face discussions; the MEC gave the negotiators their direction; and the TA does not meet these directions (with no convening redirection requested). After careful consideration, I would have voted against sending this TA to the pilots; I do not believe it meets the direction that the pilots gave us, nor do I believe it is the best product in this negotiating environment. I will back up that opinion by voting no when the polls open.
Epilogue
You and I will be receiving a great deal of information from the MEC Administration and the negotiators over the next 40 days. I encourage you to read, listen, and attend a road show if possible. Keep an open mind and create your own balance sheet to help you decide which way to vote. Remember, a vote against this TA will create a delay but the risk may be worth the reward. You will see very little “balanced” information that points out the downsides to the agreement or possible alternate paths if this is voted down. You will only hear about worst case scenarios. You need to ask yourself a pertinent question—does the management team want a long summer with an open contract and the financial uncertainty it creates over the next year when they are looking to “leap ahead of the competition”? Maybe the worst case scenario of three years of wrangling is not in their best interests.
I look forward to talking to as many of you as possible in the SEATAC pilot lounge over the next weeks. Feel free to call me for more in depth discussions. Whatever your decision—vote!
Even if we may disagree about the actual content of the TA, this letter points out some very troubling issues with the process.
Kudos to the S/T and the SEA rep who voted NO. I hope someone also posts the SEA rep's letter who voted YES.
Carl
05-25-2012, 11:57 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,903
Not quite a "smoking gun", but probably as close as you will see.
Nu
Nu
05-25-2012, 12:03 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Here's something off of Alpha's Highlights Math Fun.
3.6M consolidated block hours, mainline has 1.9M and DCI has 1.7M. It averages, not including the 752ER, about 3450 hours for a mainline aircraft and 2800 hours for a DCI aircaft. Seems plausible.
If you go to DCI 450, given that average you get about 1.2M block hours. Multiply 1.2M block hours by the required ratio of 1.56 and you get 1.9M block hours.
Seems kind of a convienient number of 1.56. If the number crunching is correct then it's perfect. Shrink DCI, hold Mainline where it is, strategically refleet (MD90s, 717s, 739s) and you can keep the ASMs capacity neutral without ever increasing the size or number of pilots at mainline.
Kind of trimming the fat in the consolidated system. As much as outsourcing is or was a cornerstone of modern business, trimming the fat is the foundation of manufacturing now in the United States. Notice when you run into an American manufacturing plant it kicks butt in efficiency? Maybe that's the new mantra?
3.6M consolidated block hours, mainline has 1.9M and DCI has 1.7M. It averages, not including the 752ER, about 3450 hours for a mainline aircraft and 2800 hours for a DCI aircaft. Seems plausible.
If you go to DCI 450, given that average you get about 1.2M block hours. Multiply 1.2M block hours by the required ratio of 1.56 and you get 1.9M block hours.
Seems kind of a convienient number of 1.56. If the number crunching is correct then it's perfect. Shrink DCI, hold Mainline where it is, strategically refleet (MD90s, 717s, 739s) and you can keep the ASMs capacity neutral without ever increasing the size or number of pilots at mainline.
Kind of trimming the fat in the consolidated system. As much as outsourcing is or was a cornerstone of modern business, trimming the fat is the foundation of manufacturing now in the United States. Notice when you run into an American manufacturing plant it kicks butt in efficiency? Maybe that's the new mantra?
Last edited by forgot to bid; 05-25-2012 at 12:43 PM.
05-25-2012, 12:03 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl
05-25-2012, 12:16 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Delta Airlines Fleet of B777 (Active) | Airfleets aviation
^^^ There were 7 made in 1999 and then another in 2002, so 8 there. The rest didn't come until after 2008.
News about the fight:
Gainesville Sun - Google News Archive Search
Airliners.net forum: Delta Defers 777 Deliveries
btw, this is interesting:
Fleet age Delta Airlines | Airfleets aviation
look what's old and think about refleeting with 90s, 717s, 739s and... wait for it... pinky promises 773s!!! but what would those replace eventually?
05-25-2012, 12:17 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 351
Here's something off of Alpha's Highlights Math Fun.
3.6M consolidated block hours, mainline has 1.9M and DCI has 1.7M. It averages, not including the 752ER, about 3450 hours for a mainline aircraft and 2800 hours for a DCI aircaft. Seems plausible.
If you go to DCI 450, given that average you get about 1.2M block hours. Multiply 1.2M block hours by the required ratio of 1.56 and you get 1.9M block hours.
Seems kind of a convienient number of 1.56. If the number crunching is correct then it's perfect. Shrink DCI, hold Mainline where it is, strategically refleet (MD90s, 717s, 739s) and you can keep the ASMs capacity neutral without ever increasing the size or number of pilots at mainline.
Kind of trimming the fat in the consolidated system. As much as outsourcing is or was a cornerstone of modern business, trimming the fat is the foundation of manufacturing.
3.6M consolidated block hours, mainline has 1.9M and DCI has 1.7M. It averages, not including the 752ER, about 3450 hours for a mainline aircraft and 2800 hours for a DCI aircaft. Seems plausible.
If you go to DCI 450, given that average you get about 1.2M block hours. Multiply 1.2M block hours by the required ratio of 1.56 and you get 1.9M block hours.
Seems kind of a convienient number of 1.56. If the number crunching is correct then it's perfect. Shrink DCI, hold Mainline where it is, strategically refleet (MD90s, 717s, 739s) and you can keep the ASMs capacity neutral without ever increasing the size or number of pilots at mainline.
Kind of trimming the fat in the consolidated system. As much as outsourcing is or was a cornerstone of modern business, trimming the fat is the foundation of manufacturing.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
