Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 489
You know, this isn’t your last contract?
It is the "next time" imho. We have not been in bankruptcy for over 5 years now and are making profits.
I'm no expert on this, but every other major seems to follow this doctrine as well, so I have no reason to think we can change it. Again, it is what it is.
I've asked before and never got a response: to any body that voted yes to outsourcing 50 seat rj's back in the day, did you also look at DC-9-10 flying as somehow "beneath" you? They only had 80-some seats. What was the "excuse" for allowing it to happen?
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,239
Man my sim partners will hate me. At the 3:45 point I'm going to shut down in the sim. LoL. I kid.
Speaking of NewCo: I've been looking through the old "propaganda" sent out during the NW TA and found interesting tidbits:
"In order to provide an incentive for northwest to order 77-110 dc-9 replacement aircraft during this agreement [goes on to talk about narrow-body threshold and larger rj's]....." (we all know how well that worked out)
"The decision to set the threshold one year after emergence from bankruptcy instead of immediately was the result of.......this one year date seemed to pose an acceptable level of risk." (Ratio snapshot not until 2014 anyone?)
"However, all evidence indicates that shrinkage of the mainline narrow-body fleet is not part of management's current business plan. Management has indicated that mainline growth is planned" (again, we all know how well that worked out)
And one of the mitigating factors they listed for anticipated furloughs due to work rule changes: "...and the success of the Pilot Early Retirement Program (PERP)."
Lots of other language and verbage that sounds eerily similar in all of that material..
History folks.
"In order to provide an incentive for northwest to order 77-110 dc-9 replacement aircraft during this agreement [goes on to talk about narrow-body threshold and larger rj's]....." (we all know how well that worked out)
"The decision to set the threshold one year after emergence from bankruptcy instead of immediately was the result of.......this one year date seemed to pose an acceptable level of risk." (Ratio snapshot not until 2014 anyone?)
"However, all evidence indicates that shrinkage of the mainline narrow-body fleet is not part of management's current business plan. Management has indicated that mainline growth is planned" (again, we all know how well that worked out)
And one of the mitigating factors they listed for anticipated furloughs due to work rule changes: "...and the success of the Pilot Early Retirement Program (PERP)."
Lots of other language and verbage that sounds eerily similar in all of that material..
History folks.
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Management over the years has subscribed to the cut costs vs raising prices philosophy in trying to become or remain profitable. The problem with this model is it assumes every employee is required to work as productively and efficiently as possible to make the operation viable with such cost cutting. Pilots thus have bent over backwards to ensure the operation is running smoothly and on time. Which as a result, management, over the years, has been able to cut the rank and file employees down to the minimum that that extra pilot productivity level supports. If pilots were to suddenly pull that support or any group for that matter, the operation would likely grind to a halt. This is the only leverage pilots have left as the years of lobbying the government, gaming the court system, corruption, and a whole other list of factors has pretty much muted the effect of unions.
What becomes obvious on this thread is that many pilots here seem to think WE are running this airline; that we should be calling ALL the shots. Who to hire. What aircraft to buy. What routes we should fly, Etc. I understand we all have a vested interest, but you guys make it sound as if we are in charge here. We aren't and probably never will be. Additionally, it probably wouldn't be a good thing if we were..... .
I don't think that we as pilots are running this airline. The way I look at it, the airline is asking us if we like this proposed contract. In the mean time they can fly whatever routes they want. They can hire whoever they want. If this TA passes, they can pay and work me as they propose. But, until then, it's up to me to tell them if I like what they are proposing. I suggest that if you don't like what they are proposing that you owe it to yourself to vote no now, because if you have complaints later, it won't matter.
Expressing how you feel about this TA is not trying to run the airline, it's letting the airline know how you would like to be "run" as an employee for the next 3-5 years.
Now is the time to do it.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 758
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post