Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
02-25-2010, 03:55 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Trust me, I have gone hoarse telling guys this and the ins and outs of why. All they see is this is what I have, and I am willing to anything to get it. That includes selling out the pilot group that gave them what they have and still have.
They do not grasp the logic that because they did not save, it is not my problem to deal with. There were and are a great many senior captains that always saved as much as they could in their B fund. Many saved outside of it. They are fine. The ones that do not see gaining a pension again as another win in the lottery. They do not care about the costs or the reality of the situation. Much like someone that plays the lottery they just dream.
Problem is that if they got their pension pack it would more than likely benefit them. That is a fact. There is no way they would get credit for YOS.
The point in this diatribe is to point out that even those that do not understand the score get a vote. That is why communication is key.
One point I agree with in that ROAR article is that given the state of our current contract recapturing the 76 seat flying would just cost to much. The author is dead on when he states this. Pay will come first.
Sometimes people do not like the facts, but those are the facts.
Simply put, we need to get a 100 seat jet on mainline. It needs to be viable for the company, and that means a lot of things. Many of them I have spent considerable time trying to educate people about. None of it is a "B" scale. People that state that do not understand what that means.
They do not grasp the logic that because they did not save, it is not my problem to deal with. There were and are a great many senior captains that always saved as much as they could in their B fund. Many saved outside of it. They are fine. The ones that do not see gaining a pension again as another win in the lottery. They do not care about the costs or the reality of the situation. Much like someone that plays the lottery they just dream.
Problem is that if they got their pension pack it would more than likely benefit them. That is a fact. There is no way they would get credit for YOS.
The point in this diatribe is to point out that even those that do not understand the score get a vote. That is why communication is key.
One point I agree with in that ROAR article is that given the state of our current contract recapturing the 76 seat flying would just cost to much. The author is dead on when he states this. Pay will come first.
Sometimes people do not like the facts, but those are the facts.
Simply put, we need to get a 100 seat jet on mainline. It needs to be viable for the company, and that means a lot of things. Many of them I have spent considerable time trying to educate people about. None of it is a "B" scale. People that state that do not understand what that means.
Hence my reason for starting a PR campaign that calls DCI pay too low to be safe and questioning the quality of the overall service. Say that DCI pilots should be paid in proportion or equal to rates we've negotiated for the same airplane and have the same work rules- anything less is both unsafe and provides our customers (that we benevolent pilots hold dear to our hearts) with a low quality service.
The cost would be too high that they'd never do it because they'd send the flying back to us. But if you make them look bad enough they might have to do some restructing anyways.
But do this on the dovetails of the 3407 investigation and you'll be heard. Doesn't cost a dime out of pocket.
Just trying to think outside of the box. Trying to use vertical speed and not the FMS here. If thats allowed?
02-25-2010, 03:56 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
As an aside, speaking of Shuttle America...while I dig their planes, i constantly worry about what outsourcing does to the Delta brand.
Yes, we often times do ourselves no favors with cabin service, however, a recent shuttle america flight I was on makes me worry.
I was going from MDW to LGA on a 175. It was hands down the worst cabin service I have seen up front. Its nice to be well treated up front when we non-rev, but these observations are not about how I felt, or felt I should be treated. If this is 'the year of the customer' or whatever the hell it is, we should be really concerned about how our premium pax are being treated by our DCI.
I was in first, and half of the passengers had to ask the f/a working f/c to hang up their coats. I had a black wool overcoat...huge...and just kept it on my lap to see if she ever asked to hang it up. Door closed, nope. Pushback, nope. Seatbelt security walkthrough, nope (even though it was covering my seatbelt). So I said screw it, and stuffed it next to my window.
Then as we were getting de-iced, she walked up to every f/c pax and simply said, "what do you want to drink"..not,"i'll be serving drinks after we are airborne what may i get you" and to every pax never said thank you.
So airborne she comes out with food. So I think to myself, "huh, didn't even hear her say there was food on the flight."
So she starts throwing trays at people. I mean walking out, pulling out people's tray tables for them and plopping trays down. Not saying a word.
Oh, and by the way, turns out there were two meals boarded. Didn't ask a single person what they would prefer.
Then another ten minutes go by and the drinks start to come out. That finished, she disappears for another 25 to help with the service in the back....for 40 people?!?!
Paying pax had trays sitting in front of them trying to get back to their work for that entire time. There is more, but you get the idea.
I personally expect very little when I non-rev. But I do expect someone carrying my co's name on their flight to treat OUR pax with a bit of courtesy and actually demonstrate a modicum of service etiquette.
This f/a's attitude, tone and demeanor were all completely inappropriate of someone at McDonald's let alone of someone working in first.
On the flip side, the trip up to MDW from ATL was fantastic and the a-line was really great.
However, if the DCI's aren't training on how to do the service in the front, they damn well need to be. Every 900 and 170/175 has first in it. Yet another reason to reign scope in tighter if we can.
Yes, we often times do ourselves no favors with cabin service, however, a recent shuttle america flight I was on makes me worry.
I was going from MDW to LGA on a 175. It was hands down the worst cabin service I have seen up front. Its nice to be well treated up front when we non-rev, but these observations are not about how I felt, or felt I should be treated. If this is 'the year of the customer' or whatever the hell it is, we should be really concerned about how our premium pax are being treated by our DCI.
I was in first, and half of the passengers had to ask the f/a working f/c to hang up their coats. I had a black wool overcoat...huge...and just kept it on my lap to see if she ever asked to hang it up. Door closed, nope. Pushback, nope. Seatbelt security walkthrough, nope (even though it was covering my seatbelt). So I said screw it, and stuffed it next to my window.
Then as we were getting de-iced, she walked up to every f/c pax and simply said, "what do you want to drink"..not,"i'll be serving drinks after we are airborne what may i get you" and to every pax never said thank you.
So airborne she comes out with food. So I think to myself, "huh, didn't even hear her say there was food on the flight."
So she starts throwing trays at people. I mean walking out, pulling out people's tray tables for them and plopping trays down. Not saying a word.
Oh, and by the way, turns out there were two meals boarded. Didn't ask a single person what they would prefer.
Then another ten minutes go by and the drinks start to come out. That finished, she disappears for another 25 to help with the service in the back....for 40 people?!?!
Paying pax had trays sitting in front of them trying to get back to their work for that entire time. There is more, but you get the idea.
I personally expect very little when I non-rev. But I do expect someone carrying my co's name on their flight to treat OUR pax with a bit of courtesy and actually demonstrate a modicum of service etiquette.
This f/a's attitude, tone and demeanor were all completely inappropriate of someone at McDonald's let alone of someone working in first.
On the flip side, the trip up to MDW from ATL was fantastic and the a-line was really great.
However, if the DCI's aren't training on how to do the service in the front, they damn well need to be. Every 900 and 170/175 has first in it. Yet another reason to reign scope in tighter if we can.
If they want seamless service with a lift provider they need to dictate exactly what they want done and how, when and to what extent. Our service has its issues but it is uniform. Why, because we directly control how they do it. Just like us. How? Simple we are Delta and they are not.
I love the idea that if DAL wants places like SKW to share risk in the financing of aircraft, great. That does not mean that we cannot put our pilots and FA's on these aircraft and operate them. Find a way to have a DAL employee operate and serve our customers on every flight. I really do not care who owns the jet, just who holds operational control over the flight as well as which seniority list operates it.
Republic shows everyone that pilot groups can operate across certificates. Yes, my example shows different owners, but that too is just a hurdle in the process.
02-25-2010, 03:58 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
+1 but man there are a lot of senior folks who really really want it. I must've heard it from a lot of the ER pilots I flew with.
Hell, the solvency of government pensions is starting to become an issue, I cannot imagine leaving my retirement in the hands of an airline.
Hell, the solvency of government pensions is starting to become an issue, I cannot imagine leaving my retirement in the hands of an airline.
The saying:
"Screw me once same on you, screw me twice shame on me." comes to mind
Look at our debt obligations as a corporation and I would do everything in my power to keep as much of my money going directly in to my pocket and not held on by theirs. Why? It is simple, it is economics.
02-25-2010, 04:00 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Hmmm.
Would I fly a Ejet or CRJ700/900 or even an ATR to represent DAL?
Yes, but only on our pay and our work rules and only as a Delta pilot and only for a limited time.
Would I fly a Ejet or CRJ700/900 or even an ATR to represent DAL?
Yes, but only on our pay and our work rules and only as a Delta pilot and only for a limited time.
02-25-2010, 04:01 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,902
This bears repeating: YOUR REPS WILL SOON BE SELECTING A NEW NC.... TELL. THEM. WHAT. YOU. WANT.
Nu
02-25-2010, 04:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Sat;
I get the feeling from the pilots in charge of the boat that scope is not for sale.
Yes, there are many guys that give two hoots about you. That is your problem. They want to get as much as they can from this job. I do not blame them, they have been screwed. I do not care what they get, as along as it does not come in the form of scope sale.
I could say more but I will not. It is pointless. The point is that, I fly when these guys too, and they are uninformed.
The issue is that we need to realize that these jets can be flown here at mainline. It is not using bargaining capital for jets that are below us, it is making sure there are enough seats on property for those senior guys to stay senior. That is how I frame this argument to them! That is fact.
If we keep whittling away the bottom, before too long the top and the bottom will meet. Those with less than 10 years left just want money. I get that, the problem is that selling scope may very well effect them as well. They just do not see it. Thank god our reps see that. I know for fact the guys in 20, 44 and 66 do!
I get the feeling from the pilots in charge of the boat that scope is not for sale.
Yes, there are many guys that give two hoots about you. That is your problem. They want to get as much as they can from this job. I do not blame them, they have been screwed. I do not care what they get, as along as it does not come in the form of scope sale.
I could say more but I will not. It is pointless. The point is that, I fly when these guys too, and they are uninformed.
The issue is that we need to realize that these jets can be flown here at mainline. It is not using bargaining capital for jets that are below us, it is making sure there are enough seats on property for those senior guys to stay senior. That is how I frame this argument to them! That is fact.
If we keep whittling away the bottom, before too long the top and the bottom will meet. Those with less than 10 years left just want money. I get that, the problem is that selling scope may very well effect them as well. They just do not see it. Thank god our reps see that. I know for fact the guys in 20, 44 and 66 do!
02-25-2010, 04:20 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
One point I agree with in that ROAR article is that given the state of our current contract recapturing the 76 seat flying would just cost to much. The author is dead on when he states this. Pay will come first.
Sometimes people do not like the facts, but those are the facts.
Simply put, we need to get a 100 seat jet on mainline. It needs to be viable for the company, and that means a lot of things. Many of them I have spent considerable time trying to educate people about. None of it is a "B" scale. People that state that do not understand what that means.
Sometimes people do not like the facts, but those are the facts.
Simply put, we need to get a 100 seat jet on mainline. It needs to be viable for the company, and that means a lot of things. Many of them I have spent considerable time trying to educate people about. None of it is a "B" scale. People that state that do not understand what that means.
Please provide your numbers, or ALPA's economic analysis of recovery, or even your wild guess as to what the variables involved are. The author is wrong and don't you go floating down the main stream to the septic tank with him.
FIRST: Everyone repeat with me - JOB SECURITY IS NOT BARGAINING CAPITOL. Again, JOB SECURITY IS NOT BARGAINING CAPITOL. Our scope sould not be used to benefit one pilot at the expense of another pilot.
SECOND: D-ALPA has gone out of its way to avoid doing economic analysis on recovery. Even when it is their job to perform economic evaluation prior to entering bargaining, they have failed to do so. They aren't dumb. They avoid economic analysis on issues they do not want to confront. There is no way anyone can know "recovering the 76 seat flying would just cost too much" when no one has seriously studied it and no economic analysis has been done. If I'm wrong then put up the data to shut me up.
THIRD: The article in the ROAR concludes with the assertion that there are "mainline" standard jobs and those that are not. Yet, no one has ever defined that "mainline" standard in objective terms. It changes from administration to administration, pilot to pilot, everyone has an opinion. (in fairness, the writer's opinion seems to be 100 seats) As a LCA you know you made more than your MD88 LCA who did your IOE. Do you think $145,000 a year isn't mainline? Who makes that decision and how is it made? It is a crucial fulcrum in the scale on outsourcing and yet, it remains completely amorphous. How can anyone run an evaluation without that variable filled in?
FOURTH: ALPA is at risk of losing its ability to be the exclusive representative of "Delta Flying" to Delta Air Lines. Not only do we risk our exclusivity by outsourcing so many jobs, by failing to understand and exert our rights under the Railway Labor Act and how important the position of ALPA President is.
FIFTH: Because we fail to understand our tools, we don't know how to use them.
As you point out, Delta could staff jets in their operation across Certificates and across ownership structures. I don't particularly care who buys the jet as long as Delta pilots exclusively fly the the thing. If we pursued unity, from a pure labor standpoint, we could fly across Certificates and cost the Company very nearly nothing.
What is the cost differential of a flow through agreement compared to a "Temporary Duty Assignment" ? Probably nothing. But, rather than flowing down to Mesaba, or Compass, or Republic, wouldn't you MUCH rather be a Delta pilot on temporary assignment who still was an ALPA member, who still voted, wearing a Delta uniform and pulling for the Delta team? Most importantly one option preserves unity, increases our power, protects our pilots' jobs and one option does not.
How much money to we **** away on stupid outsourcing contracts which constrain our corporate flexibility and add billions in contract liabilities to our balance sheet?
You just can't say it costs too much when no one has studied it. That's quitting without even trying.
Sorry to bust your nuts, but you of all people know better.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 02-25-2010 at 04:45 PM.
02-25-2010, 04:25 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: FO forever
Posts: 413
I have had two separate CAs, one a LCA, tell me point blank that they would sell scope for retirement or big pay raises. The argument was they have only so many years left to make up for the lost DB. They are the ones honest enough to spell it out. There are others. That is why I want to read that ROAR issue.
For what it is worth the north guys are all about scope in a huge way and that goes for the senior guys as well. I can not speak for the senior south guys but you can bank on the north guys to put up a fight for scope. It has been very high on the list in contract negoiations. Being here for 25 years I have seen a lot and am somewhat senior and I want the RJ'S gone and would like to see great scope clauses. I would be more careful about blanket statements about your senior guys....
02-25-2010, 04:40 PM
Underboob King
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Guppy Commander
Posts: 4,412
Sat,
For what it is worth the north guys are all about scope in a huge way and that goes for the senior guys as well. I can not speak for the senior south guys but you can bank on the north guys to put up a fight for scope. It has been very high on the list in contract negoiations. Being here for 25 years I have seen a lot and am somewhat senior and I want the RJ'S gone and would like to see great scope clauses. I would be more careful about blanket statements about your senior guys....
For what it is worth the north guys are all about scope in a huge way and that goes for the senior guys as well. I can not speak for the senior south guys but you can bank on the north guys to put up a fight for scope. It has been very high on the list in contract negoiations. Being here for 25 years I have seen a lot and am somewhat senior and I want the RJ'S gone and would like to see great scope clauses. I would be more careful about blanket statements about your senior guys....
The entire contract is POINTLESS without scope!! If our jobs can be outsourced then your payrate doesn't mean squat!!
BAR I agree with you! Using anyones job, current or future. As a barganing chip is rediculous. A union should never be able to justify outsourcing those jobs that they represent, ever!
02-25-2010, 04:41 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Sat,
For what it is worth the north guys are all about scope in a huge way and that goes for the senior guys as well. I can not speak for the senior south guys but you can bank on the north guys to put up a fight for scope. It has been very high on the list in contract negoiations. Being here for 25 years I have seen a lot and am somewhat senior and I want the RJ'S gone and would like to see great scope clauses. I would be more careful about blanket statements about your senior guys....
For what it is worth the north guys are all about scope in a huge way and that goes for the senior guys as well. I can not speak for the senior south guys but you can bank on the north guys to put up a fight for scope. It has been very high on the list in contract negoiations. Being here for 25 years I have seen a lot and am somewhat senior and I want the RJ'S gone and would like to see great scope clauses. I would be more careful about blanket statements about your senior guys....
But, the scope NWA brought to the table had some serious problems, including the creation of Compass which was the direct outsourcing of DC9 jobs. Worse the scope provisions which forced outsourcing to non owned (and mostly non ALPA) pilots. Also there is the issue of Alaska under a Delta Air Lines management team. Northwest liked doing its own flying. Delta has not indicated a lot of preference for who makes the widgets and if Alaska can back fill our 757's, they'll do it.
We have to be honest about the historical record and NWA ziplines touted NWA's leadership in getting credits for job security concessions over a year prior to bankruptcy. Respectfully, nobody's hands are clean. But all hands are needed to ensure we get this ship turned around.
Thank you for your support of job protection and scope.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
