Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-26-2012, 11:04 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Not exactly. You are a master of taking words out of context, building strawmen and running in full tilt mode, Don Quixote.
Delta has other options. They are slower and have more risk. But Delta is doing a math problem. When the math doesn't work on this path, they move to another one.
I've copied this for posterity. I like it when you guarantee me things.
When is the renegotiation guarantee redeemable? And I'm sure the renegotiated deal (including time value) will be far better in all respects than this one, right? You're going to put that in writing and have some personal accountability for that too...?
Delta has other options. They are slower and have more risk. But Delta is doing a math problem. When the math doesn't work on this path, they move to another one.
I've copied this for posterity. I like it when you guarantee me things.
When is the renegotiation guarantee redeemable? And I'm sure the renegotiated deal (including time value) will be far better in all respects than this one, right? You're going to put that in writing and have some personal accountability for that too...?
What's the time value of "cost neutral" for three more years?
05-26-2012, 11:06 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
05-26-2012, 11:06 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
I will admit that I do not know what the policy is regarding negotiations and TA's, but I guess that I really don't understand the complaint that the negotiators reach a TA before MEC approval. Wouldn't that always be the case. At some point the negotiating committee has a deal that they think is finished and will then present it to the MEC for their approval. At some point both sides say that they are finished negotiating pending approval form their bosses (MEC/exec). What am I missing?
Mr. O'Malley has some very hard questions to answer about how this process was handled. It's HIS administration. The buck stops with him. IMO, it was classic Lee Moak behavior and an epic fail on his part.
Carl
05-26-2012, 11:06 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Our CURRENT contract puts them in a hell of a position. With our hard 255 cap on large RJ's, their only alternative is to invest (via maintenance, re-engining) in a money losing and dying airframe. Again, who has the leverage?
Despite what our MEC salesman are saying, Delta WILL renegotiate this deal if we say NO. Guaranteed. The SEA S/T has it right however when he states how personally and professionally invested our MEC is in THIS product. It is impossible for them to be objective now. Understand that with the road shows, etc.
Then let them. And let them explain that to the board and shareholders. I'll wait.
Carl
05-26-2012, 11:15 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
I realize you weren't around when AMR Eagle or Mesa (flying as USAirways Express) operated as DCI carriers, but here's some history. Both of those airlines were owned by companies that had other subsidiaries that operated non-permitted aircraft. None of those subsidiaries with non-permitted aircraft could carry Delta passengers, code or revenue. That's exactly the same with RAH and Frontier. No Delta passengers or revenue can fly on Frontier. As I pointed out in another thread, Delta used RAH operated DCI carriers to compete directly with Frontier. Bedford said his 50 seat DCI flying wasn't profitable, and DCI made Frontier less profitable. Sucks to be Bedford.
Now Bedford's in a circumstance where he can't dump Frontier and he has large debt payments due. What's his path out? What plans has Bedford successfully executed on since he started his branded strategy?
Why would Delta (a founding SkyTeam and its largest member) allow Bedford to take money out of Delta's pockets by flying SkyTeam member code under the SkyTeam banner on its RAH's own branded operation? There's no logic to that position as I see it. Bedford certainly can't fly Delta or Atlantaic JV code with his branded carrier certificate using other than permitted aicraft under our current arrangements.
What am I missing that is causing you concern?
Now Bedford's in a circumstance where he can't dump Frontier and he has large debt payments due. What's his path out? What plans has Bedford successfully executed on since he started his branded strategy?
Why would Delta (a founding SkyTeam and its largest member) allow Bedford to take money out of Delta's pockets by flying SkyTeam member code under the SkyTeam banner on its RAH's own branded operation? There's no logic to that position as I see it. Bedford certainly can't fly Delta or Atlantaic JV code with his branded carrier certificate using other than permitted aicraft under our current arrangements.
What am I missing that is causing you concern?
Carl
05-26-2012, 11:22 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 589
If I recall correctly, Trans States ordered 100 Mitsubishi RJ's last year with nobody to operate them for. I wonder if this is in play here somehow. They have something like a 1800nm range too. Anyone know if these are still on order?
here's the link: http://www.mrj-japan.com/press_relea...ws_110201.html
here's the link: http://www.mrj-japan.com/press_relea...ws_110201.html
05-26-2012, 11:23 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Not exactly. You are a master of taking words out of context, building strawmen and running in full tilt mode, Don Quixote.
Delta has other options. They are slower and have more risk. But Delta is doing a math problem. When the math doesn't work on this path, they move to another one.
Delta has other options. They are slower and have more risk. But Delta is doing a math problem. When the math doesn't work on this path, they move to another one.
The second this pilot group votes this TA down.
Carl
05-26-2012, 11:24 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I will admit that I do not know what the policy is regarding negotiations and TA's, but I guess that I really don't understand the complaint that the negotiators reach a TA before MEC approval. Wouldn't that always be the case. At some point the negotiating committee has a deal that they think is finished and will then present it to the MEC for their approval. At some point both sides say that they are finished negotiating pending approval form their bosses (MEC/exec). What am I missing?
When you are below the direction in an area or out of the direction box from the Reps, I have always seen it as standard practice to go back to the bosses; the reps, and see if the TA can be signed, we need to keep talking, or absent an agreement with the new direction on acomprehensive package, a TA will not be reached.
It falls along the words in the chairman's letter. The stuff about no sacrificing the product for expediency. Its also what I took out of many of their letters as their reasoning for voting no. The TA failed to reach the valuation of their direction or their pilots.
Also if this is the case in DTW, where TT admits that their pilots asked for lower money and valuation, What does it say about other bases that voted yes on the deal? Did they follow the will of their pilots? Did they provide direction that matched the survey? Were they OK when the TA(product) came back below the acceptable level? Honest questions that need to be asked. No more no less.
05-26-2012, 11:26 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: 320B
Posts: 781
That's a great question, and here's the answer. If negotiations are on track to meet the MEC's direction, then there isn't necessarily a need to brief the MEC...althought it's always done anyway from my experience. But in THIS case, it was very clear to the negotiators that management was playing hardball and would not meet the directives of the MEC. At THAT point, it was incumbent upon the NC to ask for a meeting of the full MEC to discuss what should be done. Our DTW LEC chairman said quite clearly that was NOT done. The NC just shook hands on the TA, leaviing the heavy lifting to the full MEC after the handshake. It was an amateurish mistake...unless the MEC chairman knew it all along and WANTED to put the LEC members in a no-win situation.
Mr. O'Malley has some very hard questions to answer about how this process was handled. It's HIS administration. The buck stops with him. IMO, it was classic Lee Moak behavior and an epic fail on his part.
Carl
Mr. O'Malley has some very hard questions to answer about how this process was handled. It's HIS administration. The buck stops with him. IMO, it was classic Lee Moak behavior and an epic fail on his part.
Carl
Thanks for the answer. One more question:
After we ratify a PWA, what are the ramifications of voting for different representation and removing ALPA. Would we continue to keep the exact same contract and working rules or is the agreement null and void with a union representation change? I am not advocating this, just asking the question.
Thanks,
05-26-2012, 11:29 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Thanks for the answer. One more question:
After we ratify a PWA, what are the ramifications of voting for different representation and removing ALPA. Would we continue to keep the exact same contract and working rules or is the agreement null and void with a union representation change? I am not advocating this, just asking the question.
Thanks,
After we ratify a PWA, what are the ramifications of voting for different representation and removing ALPA. Would we continue to keep the exact same contract and working rules or is the agreement null and void with a union representation change? I am not advocating this, just asking the question.
Thanks,
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
