Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
02-10-2013, 04:32 PM
Doing Nothing
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,316
My solution to the whole lack of revenue was to marry a nurse. My wife is making $67 an hour working three days a week. No need for child care as I never work. That brings in some extra cash and she gets to stick people with needles(she's a bit sadistic).
02-10-2013, 04:37 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Johnso, don't you have any heartburn with what was the world's largest carrier, the number one Asian carrier (at least we were) only having 65 NB FOs at LAX and none at its other gateway in SEA? Language like LAX exception and SEA shall never be a hub regardless of the number days of daily departures doesn't make that defective sense stand out strong?
I'm sorry, but replacing 50-seat, obsolete, cost ineffective RJs for ones in which two can be operated for the price of one -88 and at longer ranges is not a win for anyone under Carl's position. All we did was create another group of pilots who get paid like bottom feeders to operate aircraft that honestly should be my upgrade seat, and now we fight over the last floater in the pot.
You are welcome to digest these facts:
DAL management wanted a fast contract, undisclosed as to why (I have my own theory)
We sign a contract that sustains the DCI model for 15-20 more years and shortly after:
UAL signs a TA allowing their first ever RJs over 70-seats
CAL looses 50-seat scope
AA looses not just control over 70-seat scope, but 50% of their operation can be connection and now their maximum seats are 76, AS and JBLU can also fly an equivalent of 50% of their routes. The "trigger" for all of this was DALPA endorsing and passing a similar TA. It wasn't just industry leading it was industry changing on an epic level.
Lastly, the profit sharing was almost 6% of the net for the year? I guess I'll add my 3% raise in 2014 to that loss as well.
And I'm sick of the "oh, don't worry we will buy them someday," mentality. When after their junior most guy is an 8 year 737 CA or 330 CA?
I'm sorry, but replacing 50-seat, obsolete, cost ineffective RJs for ones in which two can be operated for the price of one -88 and at longer ranges is not a win for anyone under Carl's position. All we did was create another group of pilots who get paid like bottom feeders to operate aircraft that honestly should be my upgrade seat, and now we fight over the last floater in the pot.
You are welcome to digest these facts:
DAL management wanted a fast contract, undisclosed as to why (I have my own theory)
We sign a contract that sustains the DCI model for 15-20 more years and shortly after:
UAL signs a TA allowing their first ever RJs over 70-seats
CAL looses 50-seat scope
AA looses not just control over 70-seat scope, but 50% of their operation can be connection and now their maximum seats are 76, AS and JBLU can also fly an equivalent of 50% of their routes. The "trigger" for all of this was DALPA endorsing and passing a similar TA. It wasn't just industry leading it was industry changing on an epic level.
Lastly, the profit sharing was almost 6% of the net for the year? I guess I'll add my 3% raise in 2014 to that loss as well.
And I'm sick of the "oh, don't worry we will buy them someday," mentality. When after their junior most guy is an 8 year 737 CA or 330 CA?
The regional model is breaking. Regionals are already struggling to fill classes. They won't raise the pay. In fact, many continue to lower it. And DAL just created a new way to drive their costs down even farther. Add to that, we have airline FO mins increasing to 750(military)/1000(accredited university)/1500 for everyone else. The regionals are in big trouble staffing wise. But there is no shortage of legacy applicants. The leverage to bring RJs back to mainline is increasing for pilots.
UAL already allowed 70 seat RJs. CAL already allowed 70 seat turboprops. So really all that changed was UAL allowing 76 seaters & CAL losing 51+ seat jets, which was the only way they would secure a contract considering every other major already allowed 51+ seat jet outsourcing. They also put a cap on outsourced airframes, and tightened up their codeshare language.
As to AA, AMR is in BK and I'm happy they held 76 seats. I was more worried about them losing E190 size aircraft to regionals. AS codeshare with DAL became more restrictive on our previous contract. What APA negotiates is their business, not DALPA's.
I'm not certain who you're referring to in your last comment.
02-10-2013, 04:38 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Position: C560XL/XLS/XLS+
Posts: 1,278
My point exactly, we can have both. Pilots shouldn't be having to run up against the block hour limit. I've flown with many FO's who are strapped with kids now going off to college, etc., who have been in the right seat for a long time. Some have been displaced out of captain positions as well. Except for the 2008 and later hires, most of our pilots are in their late 40's and on up. I checked out as a 727A in less than 8 years and it's not right that the career expectations of those junior to me have been side tracked.
02-10-2013, 04:38 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
Sink,
This is not directed at you personally, but DALPA's whole "Time value of money" line is BS. Here's why:
Let's think about the concept first. The time value of money theory means that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow, or next month, next year, etc.
So the obvious question is how much more is a dollar worth today than a year from now? And the answer is that it's a function of the opportunity cost of that money, but interest rates are commonly used as a proxy for that number. The higher the interest rate the greater the time value of money, and conversely, the lower the interest rate the lower the time value of money.
Right now the interest rate on the 10 year treasury bill is a tad under 2%. That's right... a whopping two percent.
So in this low interest rate environment the time value of money is pretty low, in fact it's at a record low. What that translates to is DALPA was so desperate to sell the T/A that they were touting the time value of money (at 2%) as justification for a "yes" vote.
Pretty pathetic, IMHO...
This is not directed at you personally, but DALPA's whole "Time value of money" line is BS. Here's why:
Let's think about the concept first. The time value of money theory means that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow, or next month, next year, etc.
So the obvious question is how much more is a dollar worth today than a year from now? And the answer is that it's a function of the opportunity cost of that money, but interest rates are commonly used as a proxy for that number. The higher the interest rate the greater the time value of money, and conversely, the lower the interest rate the lower the time value of money.
Right now the interest rate on the 10 year treasury bill is a tad under 2%. That's right... a whopping two percent.
So in this low interest rate environment the time value of money is pretty low, in fact it's at a record low. What that translates to is DALPA was so desperate to sell the T/A that they were touting the time value of money (at 2%) as justification for a "yes" vote.
Pretty pathetic, IMHO...
02-10-2013, 04:40 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
You are welcome to digest these facts:
DAL management wanted a fast contract, undisclosed as to why (I have my own theory)
We sign a contract that sustains the DCI model for 15-20 more years and shortly after:
UAL signs a TA allowing their first ever RJs over 70-seats
CAL looses 50-seat scope
AA looses not just control over 70-seat scope, but 50% of their operation can be connection and now their maximum seats are 76, AS and JBLU can also fly an equivalent of 50% of their routes. The "trigger" for all of this was DALPA endorsing and passing a similar TA. It wasn't just industry leading it was industry changing on an epic level.
ALPA is broken. They don't follow their own policies. A lot of people are sick to death of the ALPA marketing/damage control machine, getting paid FPL defending the indefensible.
02-10-2013, 04:57 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
I would like to marginalize time above 80, not make it more lucrative. I would prefer that we negotiate rates and costs that let all pilots enjoy an acceptable standard of living, at a capped, reasonable number of hours that's likely to result in advancement, longevity, and health for all. In that context, I also want the highest possible multiplier for overtime flying.
The people whining about the GS system dry up the pool of open flying, thereby killing all reasonable chances of true premium flying that circulates through a category. Then they ask to be rewarded for it. They act as if the drying up of GS is the issue, but it is merely a symptom, of which they are the disease.
02-10-2013, 05:00 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Sink,
This is not directed at you personally, but DALPA's whole "Time value of money" line is BS. Here's why:
Let's think about the concept first. The time value of money theory means that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow, or next month, next year, etc.
So the obvious question is how much more is a dollar worth today than a year from now? And the answer is that it's a function of the opportunity cost of that money, but interest rates are commonly used as a proxy for that number. The higher the interest rate the greater the time value of money, and conversely, the lower the interest rate the lower the time value of money.
Right now the interest rate on the 10 year treasury bill is a tad under 2%. That's right... a whopping two percent.
So in this low interest rate environment the time value of money is pretty low, in fact it's at a record low. What that translates to is DALPA was so desperate to sell the T/A that they were touting the time value of money (at 2%) as justification for a "yes" vote.
Pretty pathetic, IMHO...
This is not directed at you personally, but DALPA's whole "Time value of money" line is BS. Here's why:
Let's think about the concept first. The time value of money theory means that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow, or next month, next year, etc.
So the obvious question is how much more is a dollar worth today than a year from now? And the answer is that it's a function of the opportunity cost of that money, but interest rates are commonly used as a proxy for that number. The higher the interest rate the greater the time value of money, and conversely, the lower the interest rate the lower the time value of money.
Right now the interest rate on the 10 year treasury bill is a tad under 2%. That's right... a whopping two percent.
So in this low interest rate environment the time value of money is pretty low, in fact it's at a record low. What that translates to is DALPA was so desperate to sell the T/A that they were touting the time value of money (at 2%) as justification for a "yes" vote.
Pretty pathetic, IMHO...
02-10-2013, 05:00 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
So, the proposal should be time above 80 hours pays half. Not time and a half but just half.
02-10-2013, 05:07 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
My point exactly, we can have both. Pilots shouldn't be having to run up against the block hour limit. I've flown with many FO's who are strapped with kids now going off to college, etc., who have been in the right seat for a long time. Some have been displaced out of captain positions as well. Except for the 2008 and later hires, most of our pilots are in their late 40's and on up. I checked out as a 727A in less than 8 years and it's not right that the career expectations of those junior to me have been side tracked.
In that case, I would be fine with 1.5 for anything above the top of LCV, up to ALV + 15, IOW, up to 7.5 hours @ 1.5 X.
That would be a decent tradeoff, wouldn't it?
02-10-2013, 05:12 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
