Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
01-19-2013, 07:29 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Gloopy, and Bar you ever think:
From what I have been told from a different point of view:
The fine print in both of theses agreements is the DAL PWA still supersedes them. I have heard the argument wrt to these agreements, that though it is a direct relationship/agreement with Delta Air Lines, Inc, they are only guaranteeing their part of the "permitted flying" as defined under our PWA and if our PWA changes its at Delta's knowledge and concurrence of these documents they signed. Delta would be dutifully bound to our PWA and its new limits. They signed it. What many say is neither of these direct DCI agreements bind Delta to flying other than what is currently permitted and if that changes their agreements are subject to the change. (Permitted flying changes these agreements change)The end cap statement is it does not change "permitted flying" to "excess bargaining" and ultimately not scopeable by another carrier(this will still hold true with all other permitted flying in Section1 as well), meaning we are free to recapture and define permitted flying it at our desire.
Talk to your reps and get their take on what they know. What I posted above is what I am hearing as the answer to your concerns.
From what I have been told from a different point of view:
The fine print in both of theses agreements is the DAL PWA still supersedes them. I have heard the argument wrt to these agreements, that though it is a direct relationship/agreement with Delta Air Lines, Inc, they are only guaranteeing their part of the "permitted flying" as defined under our PWA and if our PWA changes its at Delta's knowledge and concurrence of these documents they signed. Delta would be dutifully bound to our PWA and its new limits. They signed it. What many say is neither of these direct DCI agreements bind Delta to flying other than what is currently permitted and if that changes their agreements are subject to the change. (Permitted flying changes these agreements change)The end cap statement is it does not change "permitted flying" to "excess bargaining" and ultimately not scopeable by another carrier(this will still hold true with all other permitted flying in Section1 as well), meaning we are free to recapture and define permitted flying it at our desire.
Talk to your reps and get their take on what they know. What I posted above is what I am hearing as the answer to your concerns.
You and I agree "... if our PWA changes its at Delta's knowledge and concurrence of these documents they signed. Delta would be dutifully bound to our PWA and its new limits." I am asking, what if Pinnacle changes it's agreement, could the converse hold true? If not, why not?
Rather than risk that possibility, I am more comfortable with the Delta MEC first being notified so that:
- Timely objections can be made, if necessary
- We can coordinate with other pilot groups
- MEC / National communications can be coordinated
This notice is what the Admin Manual requires. We see direct evidence that the Admin Manual wasn't followed. I agree there was no great harm. We still have to address the violation to prevent mistakes in the future.
- We can coordinate with other pilot groups
- MEC / National communications can be coordinated
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 01-19-2013 at 07:39 PM.
01-19-2013, 07:31 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
I think we are talking past each other. My response was on why a meeting via conference call would be called, and was not saying that a conference call was had or that the pinnacle questions that the MEC may or may not have would have been dealt with via a special meeting via conference call. As far as I know there was no special meeting, or conference call but it may have occurred, I am just not aware of it.
It is a pretty safe assumption before issuing a communication which states a conclusion the MEC is assured there will not be an objection. The only way to know is to poll the members of the Council in one fashion or another.
But, your pragmatic idea was not bad. I'm just suggesting we formalize its use to promote an open meeting that any member in good standing could virtually attend, if in open session.
01-19-2013, 07:43 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 103
No hiring until 2014???!!!!
HEY DELDA-----EFF OFF!
This pent up angst towards hiring that I am currently experiencing reminds me of the best line I have ever heard from a Delta Captain.
(low, slow southern drawl.....)
"Son.........here at Delta........expectations are just preplanned disappointments."
HEY DELDA-----EFF OFF!
This pent up angst towards hiring that I am currently experiencing reminds me of the best line I have ever heard from a Delta Captain.
(low, slow southern drawl.....)
"Son.........here at Delta........expectations are just preplanned disappointments."
01-19-2013, 07:45 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
... and I was just following up on your hypothetical.
It is a pretty safe assumption before issuing a communication which states a conclusion the MEC is assured there will not be an objection. The only way to know is to poll the members of the Council in one fashion or another.
But, your pragmatic idea was not bad. I'm just suggesting we formalize its use to promote an open meeting that any member in good standing could virtually attend, if in open session.
It is a pretty safe assumption before issuing a communication which states a conclusion the MEC is assured there will not be an objection. The only way to know is to poll the members of the Council in one fashion or another.
But, your pragmatic idea was not bad. I'm just suggesting we formalize its use to promote an open meeting that any member in good standing could virtually attend, if in open session.
01-19-2013, 07:47 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
... and I was just following up on your hypothetical.
It is a pretty safe assumption before issuing a communication which states a conclusion the MEC is assured there will not be an objection. The only way to know is to poll the members of the Council in one fashion or another.
But, your pragmatic idea was not bad. I'm just suggesting we formalize its use to promote an open meeting that any member in good standing could virtually attend, if in open session.
It is a pretty safe assumption before issuing a communication which states a conclusion the MEC is assured there will not be an objection. The only way to know is to poll the members of the Council in one fashion or another.
But, your pragmatic idea was not bad. I'm just suggesting we formalize its use to promote an open meeting that any member in good standing could virtually attend, if in open session.
01-19-2013, 08:20 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
The only place I read about a hint of hiring was when our TA was up for vote. I am done reading these updates. It was always pretty obvious to me that we are still a few years away from hiring. I did not vote for the TA, but when it passed, I was really hoping we would hire because we were told we could hire as early as 4th quarter last year. That never happened. Now these same updates are saying we could hire as early as 2014. I agree with the above post. Nothing changed. We are on about the most predictable path possible. It is obvious there was never any plans for immediate hiring. These updates are political in nature and used to manipulate the pilot group. I am now one less member in the audience. I'd also like to add the one recently mentioned that all Pinnacle pilots with meet our hiring standards in a very politically correct way. I would not be surprised if the so called "vault letter" letting the "Gulfstream pilots of Pinnacle" come over actually exists.
Hockey,
I agree with you - the company really did hint, no not even hint, insinuate that we would hire if the TA was passed. Total BS and shame on anyone if that swayed their vote.
I voted yes and would vote yes again. Not because of BS Press releases by the company. I really cannot fathom that any DAL Pilot would actually vote one way or another based on anything that the company says it "might" do.
I have been on property since early 2000 and will never believe another word the company says about: future aircraft orders, RJs developing a market for Mainline growth, DAL being poised for (anything), or any future goodies that will appear if we will just do _________ .
I am not saying that these things will not happen - they might. But they will happen regardless of what we Pilots do. The company will buy aircraft when it is in its best interest of the company to buy planes. They will enter into codeshares, JVs, outsource, whatever - when it is in the best interest of the company to do so. That is what they are paid to do.
Anyone who votes one way or another because of what DAL management says they "might" do are fools. I don't think many of my fellow Pilots are fools. I think most guys weighed the Pros and Cons and voted accordingly. This is certainly what I did. FWIW the 717s are still coming, we will hire and probably hire more with this new contract. Did the company mislead us on their plans to hire? Only if we were foolish enough to believe them.
Scoop
01-19-2013, 08:29 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Permanently scarred
Posts: 1,707
The only place I read about a hint of hiring was when our TA was up for vote. I am done reading these updates. It was always pretty obvious to me that we are still a few years away from hiring. I did not vote for the TA, but when it passed, I was really hoping we would hire because we were told we could hire as early as 4th quarter last year. That never happened. Now these same updates are saying we could hire as early as 2014. I agree with the above post. Nothing changed. We are on about the most predictable path possible. It is obvious there was never any plans for immediate hiring. These updates are political in nature and used to manipulate the pilot group. I am now one less member in the audience. I'd also like to add the one recently mentioned that all Pinnacle pilots with meet our hiring standards in a very politically correct way. I would not be surprised if the so called "vault letter" letting the "Gulfstream pilots of Pinnacle" come over actually exists.
*But the rest of the TA was lacking enough I still didn't vote for it.
01-20-2013, 03:08 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,596
The military guys are not unhappy and leaving the military in droves. They are dancing in the streets about manageing to get a full military retirement and having a reserved number at Delta to come back to. Getting 50 grand a year from uncle sam plus full medical and then coming back to a growing airline with frontloaded number, a additional lump sum retirement contribution from Delta for the entire time you were gone plus interest is a pretty good deal. A large block of pilots who went out in 2002-04 are hitting the 20 year point right now. They are 100 percent coming back. Of course if they read this forum they must be wondering why.
01-20-2013, 04:03 AM
Senior by choice
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 427
Lets change the subject and get onto the upcoming profit sharing.....
The number that's being floated around is about 6.65% with a profit of 1.6 Billion. Someone explain to me why that would be since in 2010 if my memory serves me we had a 1.2 Billion profit and 6.5% PS...
Why shouldn't the check be more like 8.5% with a 30% higher profit???
The number that's being floated around is about 6.65% with a profit of 1.6 Billion. Someone explain to me why that would be since in 2010 if my memory serves me we had a 1.2 Billion profit and 6.5% PS...
Why shouldn't the check be more like 8.5% with a 30% higher profit???
01-20-2013, 04:21 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
The 3000 pilots ALPA said would be needed in the near term "due to C2012" are now expected to come over the course of a decade. Regardless of the 717's coming online more planes will be parked to offset the need for pilots. Bet on it!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
