Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
06-07-2012, 05:44 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
You aren't missing anything Denny. The number of hulls at DCI as well as the block hours flown by them will go down under this TA.
06-07-2012, 05:49 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Denny
06-07-2012, 05:50 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
06-07-2012, 05:54 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Eggggggsactly!
06-07-2012, 06:01 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Position: DAL
Posts: 623
06-07-2012, 06:03 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Denny
06-07-2012, 06:09 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Denny
06-07-2012, 06:09 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 496
Reducing the overall block hours at DCI is great. Reducing the number of RJ's is spectacular. I expected that this would happen as the inefficient 50-seaters were retired while we held the line on large RJ scope. I don't consider their early retirement a windfall any more than I do the early outs. They were both going to happen eventually. Now, however, we've found a way to effectively 'pay' for management to do what they want to do by further weakening our long-term position.
As a former DCI guy who did a good amount of flying that used to be done by DAL 737's, I saw the result of that outsourcing firsthand. I never wanted the 76-seaters at my company and chose never to fly them for that reason. This is my first opportunity to vote no on outsourcing more large RJ's. I haven't decided definitively how I'll vote, but this kind of outsourcing matters to me both for the practicality of reduced future leverage and for the principle of the thing. Outsourcing your own job feels, somehow, unwise.
06-07-2012, 06:18 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B737 CA
Posts: 1,518
With the TA, you decrease the number of airframes at DCI, somewhat decrease the ASMs at DCI, decrease number of pilots working at DCI, and shift the balance of flying significantly towards mainline. These are all good things! None of us are arguing against them. The problem is by shifting DCI's fleet to one that is economical, capable, and popular with passengers, you are once again creating economic incentive to outsource. Yes, there are block hour ratios to protect you from the company responding to that incentive. The real money question is: will the company respect the contract? Will ALPA enforce the ratios if tested? Will the language hold up in court? Will the ratios survive the next contract?
These are the real questions because by the end of this contract, if ratified, DCI will be far more attractive than it is now, the company will once again consider them a viable alternative to mainline, there will be 230 76 seaters permanently ensconded at DCI, and a portion of the 102 70 seaters will be getting old. The pressure to allow more outsourcing will be huge, and the precedent will have been set.
Put another way, if there were some way to guarantee that the "hard caps" and ratios remained in place for the next 15 years, they would be a good deal and worth allowing the extra jumbo RJs. With this T/A though, it's only guaranteed for the next three years (if the company respects the contract) and it ensures there will be pressure for additional outsourcing at some point. You're trading decent protections for the next three years for a precarious situation in the years after that.
06-07-2012, 06:19 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A330B
Posts: 102
I was referring to the combination of increasing the number of viable, long-term mainline replacement aircraft and increasing our efficiency which, together, appear to me a poor long-term solution for growth at the mainline.
Reducing the overall block hours at DCI is great. Reducing the number of RJ's is spectacular. I expected that this would happen as the inefficient 50-seaters were retired while we held the line on large RJ scope. I don't consider their early retirement a windfall any more than I do the early outs. They were both going to happen eventually. Now, however, we've found a way to effectively 'pay' for management to do what they want to do by further weakening our long-term position.
As a former DCI guy who did a good amount of flying that used to be done by DAL 737's, I saw the result of that outsourcing firsthand. I never wanted the 76-seaters at my company and chose never to fly them for that reason. This is my first opportunity to vote no on outsourcing more large RJ's. I haven't decided definitively how I'll vote, but this kind of outsourcing matters to me both for the practicality of reduced future leverage and for the principle of the thing. Outsourcing your own job feels, somehow, unwise.
Reducing the overall block hours at DCI is great. Reducing the number of RJ's is spectacular. I expected that this would happen as the inefficient 50-seaters were retired while we held the line on large RJ scope. I don't consider their early retirement a windfall any more than I do the early outs. They were both going to happen eventually. Now, however, we've found a way to effectively 'pay' for management to do what they want to do by further weakening our long-term position.
As a former DCI guy who did a good amount of flying that used to be done by DAL 737's, I saw the result of that outsourcing firsthand. I never wanted the 76-seaters at my company and chose never to fly them for that reason. This is my first opportunity to vote no on outsourcing more large RJ's. I haven't decided definitively how I'll vote, but this kind of outsourcing matters to me both for the practicality of reduced future leverage and for the principle of the thing. Outsourcing your own job feels, somehow, unwise.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
