Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
What does "Use PF Keys" mean when trying to swap with pot?
Good post. The regional guys will never forget the lessons learned.
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Curious Ques.
I am not a finance guy by any means, after all I went to state college and we know that is like going to high school twice!! But looking back at our relatively short history since BK, (not a TA debate at all) DAL pilots had a leg up on other legacies as far as pay and we did see progressive gains even before we signed the last TA. My question is, (when looking at current financials and assuming some static market conditions and economic principles) how will the financials look at AA and UAL when those new pilot costs kick in over the next few years? End term contracts do have some significant raises for those pilots, some as high as 40%. Given the fact that 2012 year end had us all very similar in terms of over all profit, the fact that UAL and AA have some pretty big making up to do compared to DAL (because of post BK and current TA pay raises) would it would be safe to say UAL and AA will be squeezed much harder than DAL as far as pilot costs?.......
Just askin!
Just askin!
Fiig
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,014
I am not a finance guy by any means, after all I went to state college and we know that is like going to high school twice!! But looking back at our relatively short history since BK, (not a TA debate at all) DAL pilots had a leg up on other legacies as far as pay and we did see progressive gains even before we signed the last TA. My question is, (when looking at current financials and assuming some static market conditions and economic principles) how will the financials look at AA and UAL when those new pilot costs kick in over the next few years? End term contracts do have some significant raises for those pilots, some as high as 40%. Given the fact that 2012 year end had us all very similar in terms of over all profit, the fact that UAL and AA have some pretty big making up to do compared to DAL (because of post BK and current TA pay raises) would it would be safe to say UAL and AA will be squeezed much harder than DAL as far as pilot costs?.......
Just askin!
Just askin!
Also, in comparison, we have a better network. We should be able to continue a revenue premium and hopefully add to it.
For the first time in a long time it appears management is far enough out in front of our immediate problems to focus on longer term strategy.
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,014
I have come to the conclusion that the only way these deals will work out is if the penalty for non-compliance is spelled out ahead of time.
A good example is pulling 6 seats out of the RJs is the company does XXXXX. It is spelled out in black and white and the company knows what will trigger it and they have avoided triggering it.
Saying that we will play ball (whatever the issue is) now and in the future the company will do XXXXX seems to be a big failure. Because the company eventually may not do XXXX and we are left to ponder the consequences on a Web board.
Now this issue is a lot more complicated than this - for instance a lot of what the company does, they can do without DALPA's blessing even though they would like to have the Pilots on-board. I get that - All I am asking for is that when we come to the agreements spell out the terms and consequences of non-compliance ahead of time.
I have said DALPA does not have a great track record on this issue but at times they have fought hard and won - fighting the Force-Majeure and winning the no furlough clause fight after the Gulf War comes to mind. At other times they have been very unimpressive - Scope related issues comes to mind here.
Scoop
A good example is pulling 6 seats out of the RJs is the company does XXXXX. It is spelled out in black and white and the company knows what will trigger it and they have avoided triggering it.
Saying that we will play ball (whatever the issue is) now and in the future the company will do XXXXX seems to be a big failure. Because the company eventually may not do XXXX and we are left to ponder the consequences on a Web board.
Now this issue is a lot more complicated than this - for instance a lot of what the company does, they can do without DALPA's blessing even though they would like to have the Pilots on-board. I get that - All I am asking for is that when we come to the agreements spell out the terms and consequences of non-compliance ahead of time.
I have said DALPA does not have a great track record on this issue but at times they have fought hard and won - fighting the Force-Majeure and winning the no furlough clause fight after the Gulf War comes to mind. At other times they have been very unimpressive - Scope related issues comes to mind here.
Scoop
Yours is a solid idea. But, you have to look at history. Have we enforced scope, or traded it?
Trading one pilot's job to benefit other pilots is an ugly business for a union to be in, so it is not something done in the light of day. But, when I have brought forward multiple violations of our scope the ONLY actionable response I've EVER received is, "what kind of bargaining leverage does that give us?"
Now when faced with a Constitutional issue on scope (who bargains with Delta management) the Delta MEC prefers to redefine the terms to avoid a conflict over what is "Delta flying."
IMHO, we Delta pilots have great jobs. In large part we are happy with our Company and to some extent by extension, our representation. We are peace loving pacifists and we are represented as such. Until the politics change to the extent that the majority of pilots are willing to recall those who don't desire a fight ... we are wasting our time even thinking about putting non compliance penalties in the contract. (IMHO, our Reps might be right, if they fought and lost they might be unpopular and popularity is the basis for election ... that's just reality)
While few politicians would say they desire non compliance, almost all are willing to trade in it.
I have suggested a requirement that the Company be forced to staff for our share of flying, regardless of whether we do it. If that model is accepted, it would give us the benefit of scope compliance without as great a potential for extended non compliance and the trading that typically resolves the so called problem of noncompliance.
P.S. I still wonder if Contract 2000 was written with expected non compliance. The RJ triggers were exceeded on management's schedule, even though the aircraft orders were negotiated BEFORE C2K negotiations were complete.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post