Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-13-2009, 06:25 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
07-13-2009, 06:28 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
I also know there are a lot of DAL-N guys that are ready to bail out once they hit 53. Apparently hitting 53 has to do with some protection if DAL were to file BK. I don't know the details. Some will wait until 55-57, but I and my classmates have flown with many CAs that stated this.
07-13-2009, 06:50 PM
Underboob King
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Guppy Commander
Posts: 4,412
Slow,
You say that YOU will act on this if brought proof. That is an interesting statement. Just WHO are YOU? Do you speak as the collective conscience of our MEC? If so, communications involves more than speaking, it involves listening. Those on this board are your best friends, they are active and they care about the good of the pilot group, just as you do. These motivated individuals can be a great asset in contract negotiations, or gadfly detractors.
Do we not agree that scope is the most important part of any contract, that without scope the company does not have to be in compliance with any other section? After all, they can set up an alter ego and run it however they want without scope.
If scope is important, why is it written in such a way that it is difficult to properly administer? ALL E-175's are Certified to weights higher than allowed by our scope, but, the operator can restrict the airplane to a more conservative limitation and Embraer will issue a Certificate per the customer's request. This is not an OBJECTIVE scope limit, it is a an easily manipulated paperwork shuffle that requires inspection of an aircraft's maintenance records to determine compliance and which can be changed with a pen in the middle of the night on a daily basis.
Delta's MEC should know this, since our own airplanes are operated at weights less than they are "Certified" for.
The fact that line pilots have to ferret out scope violations suggests that at the very least many pilots do not have confidence that the MEC is effectively doing its job in this area. Right or wrong, this perception exists. I think our history gives them legitimate reasons for concern.
Every scope renegotiation is a FAILURE. The 2001 scope did not last 90 days before massive furloughs were announced. Then we saw repeated FAILURES in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2009 as scope was again relaxed and more Delta jobs outsourced. To this day management can both furlough and hire from within the Delta "family" and has at least nine alter ego airlines performing domestic and international "Delta" flying. While we scope "chickens," as you call us, have sounded the alarm the flying performed by Delta pilots has decreased from 90% to around 50% of system block.
Now we are faced with a pilot surplus and the unanswered question of a DC9 replacement. If YOU speak for our MEC, PLEASE THEN LISTEN FOR OUR MEC and take them the message that your repeated failures to ensure Delta pilots are performing Delta flying has your junior pilots concerned.
Rather than throwing around third grade taunts like "Chicken," my request to you is more reasoned. We want a statement from our MEC Chairman to restore our confidence. I want to hear that they sent someone to inspect Republic's maintenance records, that they did the right thing to proactively protect the Delta pilots they serve.
When I ask about waivers sent from Captain O'Malley to the Comair and ASA pilots releasing them from our Contract's scope (specifically LOA 2006-10) we expect the truth, not a denial of any knowledge of those negotiations. It gives me no satisfaction that the "proof" is in my inbox, it just leaves me a little sick to my stomach and worried about my future here at Delta Air Lines.
Of course such a release leads me to question Exception two: "In the event the flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 and LOA 2006-14 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of jet aircraft configured with 71-76 passenger seats specified in Section 1 B. 40. d. will revert to 85." Well? We waived one of the triggers already.
Call me a "Chicken." I think we have legitimate reasons to be concerned that our scope will effectively protect jobs in the coming downturn and realignment. In fact, it appears to me someone knew what they were doing when they set many protections to expire in December of 2010.
Frankly, calling me, or anyone else a "Chicken" is the worst case scenario. We are your First Officers telling you we saw something that makes us uncomfortable. When your FO tells you he has a concern about airworthiness do you respond, "what, you a Chicken, bwak bwak?" Of course you don't. I humbly suggest the same CRM used on the line works online too.
You say that YOU will act on this if brought proof. That is an interesting statement. Just WHO are YOU? Do you speak as the collective conscience of our MEC? If so, communications involves more than speaking, it involves listening. Those on this board are your best friends, they are active and they care about the good of the pilot group, just as you do. These motivated individuals can be a great asset in contract negotiations, or gadfly detractors.
Do we not agree that scope is the most important part of any contract, that without scope the company does not have to be in compliance with any other section? After all, they can set up an alter ego and run it however they want without scope.
If scope is important, why is it written in such a way that it is difficult to properly administer? ALL E-175's are Certified to weights higher than allowed by our scope, but, the operator can restrict the airplane to a more conservative limitation and Embraer will issue a Certificate per the customer's request. This is not an OBJECTIVE scope limit, it is a an easily manipulated paperwork shuffle that requires inspection of an aircraft's maintenance records to determine compliance and which can be changed with a pen in the middle of the night on a daily basis.
Delta's MEC should know this, since our own airplanes are operated at weights less than they are "Certified" for.
The fact that line pilots have to ferret out scope violations suggests that at the very least many pilots do not have confidence that the MEC is effectively doing its job in this area. Right or wrong, this perception exists. I think our history gives them legitimate reasons for concern.
Every scope renegotiation is a FAILURE. The 2001 scope did not last 90 days before massive furloughs were announced. Then we saw repeated FAILURES in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2009 as scope was again relaxed and more Delta jobs outsourced. To this day management can both furlough and hire from within the Delta "family" and has at least nine alter ego airlines performing domestic and international "Delta" flying. While we scope "chickens," as you call us, have sounded the alarm the flying performed by Delta pilots has decreased from 90% to around 50% of system block.
Now we are faced with a pilot surplus and the unanswered question of a DC9 replacement. If YOU speak for our MEC, PLEASE THEN LISTEN FOR OUR MEC and take them the message that your repeated failures to ensure Delta pilots are performing Delta flying has your junior pilots concerned.
Rather than throwing around third grade taunts like "Chicken," my request to you is more reasoned. We want a statement from our MEC Chairman to restore our confidence. I want to hear that they sent someone to inspect Republic's maintenance records, that they did the right thing to proactively protect the Delta pilots they serve.
When I ask about waivers sent from Captain O'Malley to the Comair and ASA pilots releasing them from our Contract's scope (specifically LOA 2006-10) we expect the truth, not a denial of any knowledge of those negotiations. It gives me no satisfaction that the "proof" is in my inbox, it just leaves me a little sick to my stomach and worried about my future here at Delta Air Lines.
Of course such a release leads me to question Exception two: "In the event the flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 and LOA 2006-14 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of jet aircraft configured with 71-76 passenger seats specified in Section 1 B. 40. d. will revert to 85." Well? We waived one of the triggers already.
Call me a "Chicken." I think we have legitimate reasons to be concerned that our scope will effectively protect jobs in the coming downturn and realignment. In fact, it appears to me someone knew what they were doing when they set many protections to expire in December of 2010.
Frankly, calling me, or anyone else a "Chicken" is the worst case scenario. We are your First Officers telling you we saw something that makes us uncomfortable. When your FO tells you he has a concern about airworthiness do you respond, "what, you a Chicken, bwak bwak?" Of course you don't. I humbly suggest the same CRM used on the line works online too.
Hear, Hear, Bar!! I thought a union was to protect its members jobs. IF Delta announces furloughs, shouldn't the union's position be that there should be not one furlough as long as ANY Delta routes are being flown by subcontractors? Shouldn't the stated position of the union be that all work done by the Company should be performed by it's employees?
I understand and agree with the philosophy and tenor of our relationship with management, ie only a profitable company produces gains for the employees. Outsourcing jobs to produce profits is counter productive to said employees, though.
I hate to ascribe motives to people I don't know. However, the evidence of a lack of scope diligence points to a money grab for the top at the expense of the bottom. Slow, Alfa, et al, please convince me I am wrong.
I am not one of those DALPA haters that blames every misfortune on the current MEC leadership. On every issue but this I am happy and think they are doing a bang up job. But the scope fight goes to the heart of representation. Not aggressively fighting to gain jobs on the bottom by recapturing outsourced flying is one thing. I can see maintaining the status quo. But acquiescing to or negotiating to further reduce scope protection for any benefit to a part of the whole is a direct contradiction of the stated mission of ALPA.
Slow, the burden of proof should not be on the rank and file. Talk us down from the ledge. Convince us to put our tin foil hats away. The condescending attitude that we get will only foster more resentment and wilder speculation. Our minds remain open, convince us!
I understand and agree with the philosophy and tenor of our relationship with management, ie only a profitable company produces gains for the employees. Outsourcing jobs to produce profits is counter productive to said employees, though.
I hate to ascribe motives to people I don't know. However, the evidence of a lack of scope diligence points to a money grab for the top at the expense of the bottom. Slow, Alfa, et al, please convince me I am wrong.
I am not one of those DALPA haters that blames every misfortune on the current MEC leadership. On every issue but this I am happy and think they are doing a bang up job. But the scope fight goes to the heart of representation. Not aggressively fighting to gain jobs on the bottom by recapturing outsourced flying is one thing. I can see maintaining the status quo. But acquiescing to or negotiating to further reduce scope protection for any benefit to a part of the whole is a direct contradiction of the stated mission of ALPA.
Slow, the burden of proof should not be on the rank and file. Talk us down from the ledge. Convince us to put our tin foil hats away. The condescending attitude that we get will only foster more resentment and wilder speculation. Our minds remain open, convince us!
+100 Great Posts!! Dead on
07-13-2009, 06:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Guys, I didn't mean to be a drive by hit and run poster. I had to spend the day shopping with the wife. Now I have to go kill Nazi Zombies with my 13yro. Just a few lines before I go.
I'm sorry if a few lines in my previous posts gave the impression that I was blaming the senior members for the junior woes. I was a little fired up this morning. Slow, it was written by the same person. I am not a DALPA hater. I think Carl and the Capn are wrong. ALPA has "issues" but IMHO a new in house union would be less effective. All I wanted was someone to explain some stuff rationally and intelligently. Slow and Alfa and stepped up and provided just that. The $64,000 question is why our elected reps don't provide the same responses.
The who lost more argument is very counter productive. It divides us when the purpose of The Association is Unity. That only serves management's purpose, not ours. I'm sorry if i got that started, it was not my intention.
Have to go shoot zombies now, cya
I'm sorry if a few lines in my previous posts gave the impression that I was blaming the senior members for the junior woes. I was a little fired up this morning. Slow, it was written by the same person. I am not a DALPA hater. I think Carl and the Capn are wrong. ALPA has "issues" but IMHO a new in house union would be less effective. All I wanted was someone to explain some stuff rationally and intelligently. Slow and Alfa and stepped up and provided just that. The $64,000 question is why our elected reps don't provide the same responses.
The who lost more argument is very counter productive. It divides us when the purpose of The Association is Unity. That only serves management's purpose, not ours. I'm sorry if i got that started, it was not my intention.
Have to go shoot zombies now, cya
07-13-2009, 07:04 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I do not speak for the MEC. I speak for me, an anonymous webboard pseudonym. Oh, and I won't be running for anything this fall...
As far as acting on proof if it was brought to me, I do have a lot of contacts in this company and ALPA. I also read the tea leaves and connect the dots....wait, that's ACL! Sorry, I guess I'll just tell him!
He's running(maybe) and that's a good thing!
Seriously, we have guys on here that fearfully assert what management says about 100 seaters who can't figure out a way to deliver proof of a scope violation? Right.....
Look at all the hyperbole around this issue posted on this board. I still think that Chicken Little is the appropriate analogy. You disagree. I see three different futures:
1. There are no furloughs. We renegotiate our scope clause in contract 2012 or whenever the opportunity presents itself to size "tighten." It has been done before here at Delta (86 and 96).
2. There are 475 or less furloughs. 26 jets have 6 seats pulled out of them and are flown as 70 seaters. 344 Delta pilots flow back to Compass and Mesaba. Up to 131 Delta pilots could be truly out of work depending on MLOA, PLOA, etc.
3. There are 476 or more furloughs. All 153 jets have 6 seats pulled out and are operated as 70 seaters. Our scope permanently resets to 70 seats with the total number of allowed 70 seat jets unchanged. 344 of the furloughed pilots flow down, and the rest are out of work.
Last time I checked almost all the DCI carriers have pilots on furlough, with more to come. They aren't taking your flying. DCI is shrinking, and fairly rapidly in total airframes and pilot jobs. Last time I checked there isn't a legacy carrier that doesn't have pilots furloughed...except Delta. That doesn't mean it won't happen. It does mean that we're better positioned than anybody else, that we've got effective scope and contract provisions that make it difficult (expensive) for management to furlough. All those provisions were brought to you by the same organization that the chickens are squawking about now.
You call it offensive. Others say I show hubris. I believe that many here are the Fox news version of "fair and balanced" and they're offended when shown a different point of view. To each his own.
As far as acting on proof if it was brought to me, I do have a lot of contacts in this company and ALPA. I also read the tea leaves and connect the dots....wait, that's ACL! Sorry, I guess I'll just tell him!
He's running(maybe) and that's a good thing!Seriously, we have guys on here that fearfully assert what management says about 100 seaters who can't figure out a way to deliver proof of a scope violation? Right.....
Look at all the hyperbole around this issue posted on this board. I still think that Chicken Little is the appropriate analogy. You disagree. I see three different futures:
1. There are no furloughs. We renegotiate our scope clause in contract 2012 or whenever the opportunity presents itself to size "tighten." It has been done before here at Delta (86 and 96).
2. There are 475 or less furloughs. 26 jets have 6 seats pulled out of them and are flown as 70 seaters. 344 Delta pilots flow back to Compass and Mesaba. Up to 131 Delta pilots could be truly out of work depending on MLOA, PLOA, etc.
3. There are 476 or more furloughs. All 153 jets have 6 seats pulled out and are operated as 70 seaters. Our scope permanently resets to 70 seats with the total number of allowed 70 seat jets unchanged. 344 of the furloughed pilots flow down, and the rest are out of work.
Last time I checked almost all the DCI carriers have pilots on furlough, with more to come. They aren't taking your flying. DCI is shrinking, and fairly rapidly in total airframes and pilot jobs. Last time I checked there isn't a legacy carrier that doesn't have pilots furloughed...except Delta. That doesn't mean it won't happen. It does mean that we're better positioned than anybody else, that we've got effective scope and contract provisions that make it difficult (expensive) for management to furlough. All those provisions were brought to you by the same organization that the chickens are squawking about now.
You call it offensive. Others say I show hubris. I believe that many here are the Fox news version of "fair and balanced" and they're offended when shown a different point of view. To each his own.
A few things after reading all of this and doing a little thinking.
1) It is true that DCI is shrinking. I give you that. Why? Well the CURRENT leadership team does not necessarily like all of theses RJ's. I personally think it may be prudent to protect ourselves against the next team that likes them again.
2) If the current management team does not like these jets and the costs associated with them, which we all know, it is a lot easier to get more of our flying back from the DCI carriers. IE, management will be more willing to agree to tighter section one language when they do not care about it! Now is that time. Just because they are shrinking it does not mean that we do not have to worry about it. IMHO quite the opposite. The 100 seat RJ that those manufacturers want to go on the regional tickets is just around the corner.
3) We all know that the 50 is a dead bird. Fact is that the 70 and 76 seat jets are not much better, but the 76 seat jet allows two classes of service to medium markets. Best case scenario they can only have 255 of those. The way I see it, they are going to need jets for these DCI contracts that do not expire until 2012-2020. If the 76 seat jet is marginal, where do you think they can go? Higher, that is correct. A scope battle is coming and we need to be yelling about it now. We cannot try to educate the guys that punch the clock and are not informed when the army crests the ridge!
4) I truly believe that a unions job is to promote and protect its members' occupation and livelihood. To do that we need to grow the group not shrink it. Adding numbers by recapturing our flying is the best way to make this pilot group stronger. Strength in numbers. With larger numbers controlling 70, 80, 90% of it branded flying, you have a group that really can demand change in a section six negotiation. Currently we fly 38% of our block hrs. We have squandered the best bargaining strength we have. That is the percentage of flying we perform. Bring that number back to where it was in 2005 much less 2000, and you can ask for and receive some good things for all pilots.
Block hrs add jobs, not ASM's. I am worried about departures. Departures equal Delta pilot jobs. We better have more ASM's, we fly jets that are eight times the size of an RJ. That does not mean that it adds jobs. Making sure that Delta puts Delta seniority listed pilots in the flight decks of the jets performing Delta branded flying is our job.
I do not care if it is a 50 seat or a 400 seat, I would love to see the day that we fly all of it. I am also a realist. Fact is that it is Delta's job to determine the size of aircraft that flies a city pair. It is the Delta Pilot's union, DALPA's, job to make sure we put a Delta pilot in it. It is not rocket science.
In reference to the Chicken Little comment. I find it funny. But I echo Bar's comments. We are stating what pilots for said company have told us. Actually not just line pilots either. We as pilots cannot just go to IND knock on Brian Bedford's door and ask to see the maintenance records for said jets. That would be the unions job. The union has the authority granted to it under federal law to police its contract. Not acting upon that for whatever reason, causes the little chickens to cluck louder. It is the perception of no action that makes many believe that there is no action. The actions that we have seen by individuals that are very close to the MEC give us grave concern. Voting against a resolution makes people like me scratch our heads and really wonder; Is there fire where I see smoke.
I am not a single issue guy. But I am a firm believer that without section 1 we do not have a contract. I hope that our Section 1 does not get put to the test with our new JV with Virgin Blue. Honestly I am concerned.
(I may run, I really am turning that way. I am also happy to hear that someone else is running to. He will do a great job!)
07-13-2009, 07:48 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Howdy,
Longtime lurker, 1st time poster. You folks do have a pretty civil board over here. Just wanted to chime in on something.
"Slow and Alfa and stepped up and provided just that."
They both had excellent posts, but until those same posts are written in official DALPA publications, they carry no legal weight and are intended to placate.
Keep up the good work guys.
Scambo
Longtime lurker, 1st time poster. You folks do have a pretty civil board over here. Just wanted to chime in on something.
"Slow and Alfa and stepped up and provided just that."
They both had excellent posts, but until those same posts are written in official DALPA publications, they carry no legal weight and are intended to placate.
Keep up the good work guys.
Scambo
07-13-2009, 07:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
The furlough situation at DCI, its shrinking aircraft base, and the furlough situation at other carriers is public record.
That's not placating. That's fact.
07-13-2009, 08:58 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Slow, you're right, the PWA and the grievance letter were spelled out quite well. I agreed with the rationale for the grievance settlement. What we are lacking is communication from the elected leadership that reassures their constituents concerning the scope issue.
The DALPA magazine, resistance to a scope report card, and the generally condescending attitude towards equal members of the Association who have legitimate fears adds to the fear and paranoia that you call Chicken Little. Slow and Alfa have said more about this issue today than I have heard from official channels in over a year. Good on em' but we need to hear it from the elected reps.
The DALPA magazine, resistance to a scope report card, and the generally condescending attitude towards equal members of the Association who have legitimate fears adds to the fear and paranoia that you call Chicken Little. Slow and Alfa have said more about this issue today than I have heard from official channels in over a year. Good on em' but we need to hear it from the elected reps.
07-13-2009, 10:03 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Slow, you're right, the PWA and the grievance letter were spelled out quite well. I agreed with the rationale for the grievance settlement. What we are lacking is communication from the elected leadership that reassures their constituents concerning the scope issue.
The DALPA magazine, resistance to a scope report card, and the generally condescending attitude towards equal members of the Association who have legitimate fears adds to the fear and paranoia that you call Chicken Little. Slow and Alfa have said more about this issue today than I have heard from official channels in over a year. Good on em' but we need to hear it from the elected reps.
The DALPA magazine, resistance to a scope report card, and the generally condescending attitude towards equal members of the Association who have legitimate fears adds to the fear and paranoia that you call Chicken Little. Slow and Alfa have said more about this issue today than I have heard from official channels in over a year. Good on em' but we need to hear it from the elected reps.
07-14-2009, 02:25 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,596
Scope has not helped Delta pilots. The E170/175 are mainline aircraft and belong at the mainline period. We should work to accomplish that goal. It will not happen overnight or in the next contract but we can use the next contract to start reclaiming that flying.
What is left out of many of these posts is a dose of reality. As a example one poster stated that massive furloughs started 90 days after the 2001 contract and he implies it was all the fault of the scope give backs. Lets get real here. In the summer of 2001 they had the biggest drop in business yield in the history of the airline industry. Then we had 911. All in that 90 day window. Furloughs are going to happen every time under those conditions.
Scope is far more complex then what is posted here. Virtually every pilot posting here seems to make the assumption that if we took back all the RJ flying tomorrow the network would look the same and we would have a 1 for 1 increase in pilot jobs at Delta. This is not true. I had a long talk with someone very involved in past negotiations. The simply fact is that we can't do the flying many of the regionals do and get within a country mile of their cost structure on that flying. If all the flying belonged to the mainline we would have to cede many markets to other airlines with lower cost feed. Lose feed and you lose flights on the larger aircraft.
Dalpa's job is to provide the best quality of life and career earnings for pilots on the seniority list. The round of pilots wanting to throw out the current MEC and replace them is a never ending cycle. I have seen at least 3 of them in my career. When the new guys get in and see the real numbers and face the real facts guess what happens. They become just like the old guys and the same thing will happen this time. Reality sucks but its still reality.
Do we need scope improvements. Without questions. As mentioned I think the cut line should fall around the E170. I think that flying should come back to the mainline period. Scope was lost for many reasons but mostly because of events most could never imagine such as 911, multiple wars and chapter 11 filings. We have taken scope back before and we can take it back again. We have to be smart about how we do it.
I tend to be a results oriented guy. When I look around the industry I see virtually every major airline with pilots on furlough except Delta! Many of these airlines have much tighter scope then Delta. We just had a announcement from flight ops that no furloughs are planned for the future based on current fleet projections. There is one reason that we don't have pilots furloughed at the moment. We have a very well written contract with multiple small incremental costs that kick in if there is a furlough. These costs layers however small as individual parts come together to provide perhaps the best furlough protection in the industry. The strategy to shift furlough protection from straight numbers and clauses to a many layered structure based on economics was a deliberate one and very successful yet not once bit of credit is given to those who brought about this change. Can DALPA do better, without question. Is scope huge, no question. Is the sky falling and DALPA has failed evey pilot. Not even close!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!
What is left out of many of these posts is a dose of reality. As a example one poster stated that massive furloughs started 90 days after the 2001 contract and he implies it was all the fault of the scope give backs. Lets get real here. In the summer of 2001 they had the biggest drop in business yield in the history of the airline industry. Then we had 911. All in that 90 day window. Furloughs are going to happen every time under those conditions.
Scope is far more complex then what is posted here. Virtually every pilot posting here seems to make the assumption that if we took back all the RJ flying tomorrow the network would look the same and we would have a 1 for 1 increase in pilot jobs at Delta. This is not true. I had a long talk with someone very involved in past negotiations. The simply fact is that we can't do the flying many of the regionals do and get within a country mile of their cost structure on that flying. If all the flying belonged to the mainline we would have to cede many markets to other airlines with lower cost feed. Lose feed and you lose flights on the larger aircraft.
Dalpa's job is to provide the best quality of life and career earnings for pilots on the seniority list. The round of pilots wanting to throw out the current MEC and replace them is a never ending cycle. I have seen at least 3 of them in my career. When the new guys get in and see the real numbers and face the real facts guess what happens. They become just like the old guys and the same thing will happen this time. Reality sucks but its still reality.
Do we need scope improvements. Without questions. As mentioned I think the cut line should fall around the E170. I think that flying should come back to the mainline period. Scope was lost for many reasons but mostly because of events most could never imagine such as 911, multiple wars and chapter 11 filings. We have taken scope back before and we can take it back again. We have to be smart about how we do it.
I tend to be a results oriented guy. When I look around the industry I see virtually every major airline with pilots on furlough except Delta! Many of these airlines have much tighter scope then Delta. We just had a announcement from flight ops that no furloughs are planned for the future based on current fleet projections. There is one reason that we don't have pilots furloughed at the moment. We have a very well written contract with multiple small incremental costs that kick in if there is a furlough. These costs layers however small as individual parts come together to provide perhaps the best furlough protection in the industry. The strategy to shift furlough protection from straight numbers and clauses to a many layered structure based on economics was a deliberate one and very successful yet not once bit of credit is given to those who brought about this change. Can DALPA do better, without question. Is scope huge, no question. Is the sky falling and DALPA has failed evey pilot. Not even close!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!
Last edited by sailingfun; 07-14-2009 at 02:39 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
