Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
08-31-2014, 07:12 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
I love the wild numbers like 50 million being posted as the cost to park a handful of aircraft. Some here should take a look at the entire training departments yearly budget.
Speaking of parking the jets anyone know what the high profile diverts were about on the whale?
Speaking of parking the jets anyone know what the high profile diverts were about on the whale?
Its just a guess, but I am going with "armrest fight."
Scoop
08-31-2014, 07:14 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
For money. Plain and simple.
ALPA needs to realize that constructive engagement has ceased to yield benefits for the pilots and is being used by management to neutralize our bargaining power. Its exactly what Richard Anderson candidly admitted, "labor risk has been completely taken off the table".
Every time we sign one of these LOAs that helps management we are sacrificing the opportunity for a little "self help" that doesn't require authorization from the NMB. A little "mini-strike".
Delta isn't bankrupt anymore. They are making money hand over fist while we are still trying to get back to our pre-bankruptcy compensation levels. We need to monetize these deals and take 90% of the savings for ourselves.
This 747 surplus is a perfect example. There is a reason that Dickson said he looks forward to engaging the association to talk about mitigating displacements. Its because they are expensive and he wants to reduce that cost.
Let's say its going to cost the company $50 million to follow the contract. They figure they can "engage" their DALPA friends and push through an ER program that solves the surpluses and only costs the company $20 million. They save $30 million. Management and the union sell it as a win for the pilots because we've avoided the dreaded displacements.
My view is that we should demand roughly $29.9 million to accept the deal. We should avoid the displacements AND take the savings. But DALPA never does. They always use uncertainty and fear of the future to rationalize helping the company in exchange for far too little in return.
I am tired of hearing how little bargaining power we have. It simply isn't true. This corporation is wildly profitable and its largely due to our sacrifices. No more "engaging" until we get paid.
ALPA needs to realize that constructive engagement has ceased to yield benefits for the pilots and is being used by management to neutralize our bargaining power. Its exactly what Richard Anderson candidly admitted, "labor risk has been completely taken off the table".
Every time we sign one of these LOAs that helps management we are sacrificing the opportunity for a little "self help" that doesn't require authorization from the NMB. A little "mini-strike".
Delta isn't bankrupt anymore. They are making money hand over fist while we are still trying to get back to our pre-bankruptcy compensation levels. We need to monetize these deals and take 90% of the savings for ourselves.
This 747 surplus is a perfect example. There is a reason that Dickson said he looks forward to engaging the association to talk about mitigating displacements. Its because they are expensive and he wants to reduce that cost.
Let's say its going to cost the company $50 million to follow the contract. They figure they can "engage" their DALPA friends and push through an ER program that solves the surpluses and only costs the company $20 million. They save $30 million. Management and the union sell it as a win for the pilots because we've avoided the dreaded displacements.
My view is that we should demand roughly $29.9 million to accept the deal. We should avoid the displacements AND take the savings. But DALPA never does. They always use uncertainty and fear of the future to rationalize helping the company in exchange for far too little in return.
I am tired of hearing how little bargaining power we have. It simply isn't true. This corporation is wildly profitable and its largely due to our sacrifices. No more "engaging" until we get paid.
Because of constructive engagement, we will get that and more. I bet the company is willing to put up more than the cost savings into the early out plan. In fact, it's almost a given that this will cost the company more than it will save.
The fundamental problem you have is overestimating the cost savings and therefore trying to over-leverage those savings into some broad based expansive program. You want to get $50 million in benefits for $10 million in cost savings. The company is more than willing to give the $10 million and probably a significant percentage beyond that. The problem is that they have a limit on how high they will go. They will go above some proven demonstrable savings level, but they will not match your unproven, invented targets. The primary savings to the company is quickly reducing the 747 staffing overages. Letting 7ER or A330 or 73N or A320 crews retire does nothing for them, it only increases costs and provides them with no benefits. Any plan must have some degree of targeting applied or it is just all gravy for pilots and the company gets even more costs applied. Sounds good to you and me, but this is a consensual negotiation and the company can walk away at any time with no harm no foul. The question is do you push as hard as you can and take what you can get, or do you put on some stupid show of being a hard liner and get nothing?
You think you need to crack heads to get to 100% tradeoff and in fact we are probably already beyond 100%. You are not going to get 300% or 500% no matter how many heads you crack. The company simply has the option to do nothing and absorb the $10 million and then move on. So Googles has it right, take what you can get and then move on to the next deal.
08-31-2014, 07:32 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
08-31-2014, 07:33 AM
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
I believe we should see $1 billion more in C2015 given Delta's profitability and our contribution.
Granting even more permanent concessions is unacceptable and not necessary.
Sadly we will accept longer freezes and fund our hourly increases with reduced profit sharing.
Your mindset that we must give to get no longer applies. RA has promised labor peace. That is the price.
I hope this MEC does not cave.
Granting even more permanent concessions is unacceptable and not necessary.
Sadly we will accept longer freezes and fund our hourly increases with reduced profit sharing.
Your mindset that we must give to get no longer applies. RA has promised labor peace. That is the price.
I hope this MEC does not cave.
Moving on, you want a billion dollar improvement in our contract. Is that a yearly increase in value of a billion effective on the amendable date, date of signing, or throughout the duration of the contract?
What would the duration of the contract be?
It's easy to say what it is that you want, the tougher part is getting it.
So how would you get Delta to sign that deal? What leverage would you use besides your offer to trade months of flexing up the ALV for increased pay?
08-31-2014, 07:36 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
the training pipeline is already approaching capacity, especially on the 717. I just saw something from crew resources that every single 717 sim period will be used to prepare for the Summer 15 schedule.
Displacements from the top only make the situation worse by removing folks from the line, and rendering an already staffing-limited schedule unworkable.
In other words...absent us bailing them out, the company may not be in a position to displace anyone. They can't afford to from a manning perspective. Why aren't the DALPA regulars mentioning this limfac? Why are they pushing the company's narrative?
I believe that is why the company is asking for relief, and why we have more leverage than you think.
Displacements from the top only make the situation worse by removing folks from the line, and rendering an already staffing-limited schedule unworkable.
In other words...absent us bailing them out, the company may not be in a position to displace anyone. They can't afford to from a manning perspective. Why aren't the DALPA regulars mentioning this limfac? Why are they pushing the company's narrative?
I believe that is why the company is asking for relief, and why we have more leverage than you think.
08-31-2014, 07:38 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 364
I believe we should see $1 billion more in C2015 given Delta's profitability and our contribution.
Granting even more permanent concessions is unacceptable and not necessary.
Sadly we will accept longer freezes and fund our hourly increases with reduced profit sharing.
Your mindset that we must give to get no longer applies. RA has promised labor peace. That is the price.
I hope this MEC does not cave.
Granting even more permanent concessions is unacceptable and not necessary.
Sadly we will accept longer freezes and fund our hourly increases with reduced profit sharing.
Your mindset that we must give to get no longer applies. RA has promised labor peace. That is the price.
I hope this MEC does not cave.
What about a 3 year freeze? What raise percentage would it take?
Personally I am open to banding with no increase or maybe a 1 year increase in freezes depending on raises. I am in agreement that PS should be off the table.
08-31-2014, 07:39 AM
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
Displacements from the top only make the situation worse by removing folks from the line, and rendering an already staffing-limited schedule unworkable.
In other words...absent us bailing them out, the company may not be in a position to displace anyone. They can't afford to from a manning perspective.
In other words...absent us bailing them out, the company may not be in a position to displace anyone. They can't afford to from a manning perspective.
Would staffing the A330 with displacing 744 pilots create stagnation for those who would want an AE to those training slots?
08-31-2014, 07:59 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
ATL Airport Traffic
Guys,
Does traffic back up approaching the airport from the south? How is it coming in on I-75 or I-85?
Thanks Scoop
Does traffic back up approaching the airport from the south? How is it coming in on I-75 or I-85?
Thanks Scoop
08-31-2014, 08:03 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Nothing like it does from the north side. I drive in on 85 from Alabama and the only slow down is right around Newnan and then when 85 meets 285. Going south is the same story. Slowdown is relative too. from 80 to 50.
08-31-2014, 08:03 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Position: C560XL/XLS/XLS+
Posts: 1,278
I'm back living in LGC, the traffic hardly ever backs up on I-85 NB. Easy 50 minute drive from my driveway. Now tomorrow will be a different story, with all the traffic headed NB from the last big beach weekend in the Panhandle.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
