Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
08-02-2014, 10:38 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
It does no such thing. It would not in any way prevent Delta from the commerece in which they choose to engage. It would only require them to use Delta pilots, and that's what Delta management cannot tolerate. They need to spread the labor risk around. JV's allow them to do that. It helps them keep the promise to shareholders that labor risk has been taken completely off the table at Delta.
That would be Delta's decision...exactly as it is now.
It would be a grievance heard in front of an arbitrator...not negotiations. It wouldn't make a bit of difference what management would willingly give up. It's contract law and as of April 1, 2015 management will have not only violated the contract, but actively worked to make the violation worse during the contractual "cure period." Arbitrators do not take kindly to such flagrant violations of contract law.
That "something" would never have been agreed to without the balance of flying percentages as the bedrock principle. The company now wants to keep the JV without the bedrock principle. An arbitrator doesn't consider "grenading", only compliance and remedy. The remedy will be what we demand and the arbitrator agrees to. Management will have no role in deciding what their remedy will be once they've been found in violation. But we'd have to demand it, and this MEC Administration won't do that. They're completely owned by Delta management.
Carl
Carl
08-02-2014, 10:46 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Again, I don't know when we pilots will wake up.
Carl
08-02-2014, 10:47 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
I think a lot of people that want to transition to LBP somehow think it will be a raise (at least for them). Usually the scheme includes a dramatic increase in the pay steps (perhaps unlimited). That only serves to back load compensation which is the last thing we need to be doing. Most LPB schemes also neglect the reality of bigger pays more and think it will decouple us from that. But it will still be there because that "one rate to rule them all" has to come from somewhere.
Once locked in, then it gets more interesting. If we have one rate and the company wants to replace 50 A330's with 20 A380's (pretty much all we're flying across the pond anyway is high frequency to "partner" hubs anyway) then they cut lots of jobs and no one makes more. Meanwhile its a huge disincentive on bottom end scope. The cost of 88 717's goes way up if they all pay ER or greater pay in today's pay table.
I see further banding happening (50 cents to a dollar extra for 737-900? Really?) Not to mention the unreasonable difference between M88/90 and A319/320.
Then there is the relative integration poison pill. There are several examples of our pilot group getting absolutely slaughtered with a relative integration (Hawaiian, JB, VX, etc) even if it was status only relative. Imagine a full relative. No thanks.
Once locked in, then it gets more interesting. If we have one rate and the company wants to replace 50 A330's with 20 A380's (pretty much all we're flying across the pond anyway is high frequency to "partner" hubs anyway) then they cut lots of jobs and no one makes more. Meanwhile its a huge disincentive on bottom end scope. The cost of 88 717's goes way up if they all pay ER or greater pay in today's pay table.
I see further banding happening (50 cents to a dollar extra for 737-900? Really?) Not to mention the unreasonable difference between M88/90 and A319/320.
Then there is the relative integration poison pill. There are several examples of our pilot group getting absolutely slaughtered with a relative integration (Hawaiian, JB, VX, etc) even if it was status only relative. Imagine a full relative. No thanks.
Carl
08-02-2014, 11:03 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
I don't know... when will you?
08-02-2014, 11:08 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
08-02-2014, 11:08 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
The RJ argument was valid at the time, but it isn't anymore. Now it's supply and demand. Times have changed. We are an globlal corporation, a central player in an oligopoly, but DAL cannot do it all alone, as much as you think we can. If you want to be a regional carrier, with "iron clad scope" (rotflmao) I suggest going to Alaska or SWA. A scope clause like theirs would cost us dearly, as I suspect it is going to cost them in the coming contract.
08-02-2014, 11:09 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
February 15, 2008
John McCain and the pilots
Sen. John McCain may have the Republican party nomination wrapped up, but he still has some convincing to do with one group of traditionally Republican voters. No, I'm not talking about evangelical Christians - I'm talking about commercial airline pilots.
McCain co-sponsored legislation in 2003 that would have changed the Railway Labor Act to include mandatory "baseball-style" arbitration in airline contract negotiations. That's a method whereby a mediator makes the final decision on disputed issues, and there is no appeal. Unions have long opposed any attempts to force that type of arbitration, because it removes their greatest form of leverage - the ability to strike.
McCain's 2003 effort failed, but lots of pilots still remember it. One told me recently that he will never vote for the Arizona senator, and he believes many of his colleagues feel the same way.
"Look, most pilots are ex-military, they're professionals, most of them vote Republican and have all their lives," the pilot said. "But when it comes to McCain, most of us all remember how he backed airline management and tried to screw the pilots. That's going to cost him some votes."
- Trebor
John McCain and the pilots
Sen. John McCain may have the Republican party nomination wrapped up, but he still has some convincing to do with one group of traditionally Republican voters. No, I'm not talking about evangelical Christians - I'm talking about commercial airline pilots.McCain co-sponsored legislation in 2003 that would have changed the Railway Labor Act to include mandatory "baseball-style" arbitration in airline contract negotiations. That's a method whereby a mediator makes the final decision on disputed issues, and there is no appeal. Unions have long opposed any attempts to force that type of arbitration, because it removes their greatest form of leverage - the ability to strike.
McCain's 2003 effort failed, but lots of pilots still remember it. One told me recently that he will never vote for the Arizona senator, and he believes many of his colleagues feel the same way.
"Look, most pilots are ex-military, they're professionals, most of them vote Republican and have all their lives," the pilot said. "But when it comes to McCain, most of us all remember how he backed airline management and tried to screw the pilots. That's going to cost him some votes."
- Trebor
But in the grand scheme of things, he would have been a much better choice (ok, "much" maybe too much). Present company in the WH excepted, Presidents don't get to just make up laws. The chances of the bill you quoted becoming law would have been slim to none. But we would not have had the anemic, pathetic semi recovery we are seeing now. A robust economy is the best pilot friendly policy.
08-02-2014, 11:10 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Again, you're doing nothing but parroting what you've been told to believe by senior management attending your Line Check Airman meetings. Why do you think they attend tsquare? Do you think they attend because they're interested in line pilot training?
See above. You do damage to our profession when you just parrot without thinking.
See above.
Carl
See above. You do damage to our profession when you just parrot without thinking.
See above.
Carl
08-02-2014, 11:43 AM
Sho me da money!
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: B25, Left
Posts: 947
I get that. McCain's constituency is McCain and the Media. He is a traitorous ass. (not talking about Vietnam or POW stuff. His current actions vis a vis retirees is just appalling.)
But in the grand scheme of things, he would have been a much better choice (ok, "much" maybe too much). Present company in the WH excepted, Presidents don't get to just make up laws. The chances of the bill you quoted becoming law would have been slim to none. But we would not have had the anemic, pathetic semi recovery we are seeing now. A robust economy is the best pilot friendly policy.
But in the grand scheme of things, he would have been a much better choice (ok, "much" maybe too much). Present company in the WH excepted, Presidents don't get to just make up laws. The chances of the bill you quoted becoming law would have been slim to none. But we would not have had the anemic, pathetic semi recovery we are seeing now. A robust economy is the best pilot friendly policy.
Last edited by FIIGMO; 08-02-2014 at 12:19 PM. Reason: Protecting free speech
08-02-2014, 11:45 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Taxi Driver
Posts: 413
Can we stop with the political stuff unless it's specifically germane to our chosen profession? No one is going to convince another person their side is right or wrong on this site. Let's get back to worrying about the whales being parked and C2015 please.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
