Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 224
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Hehehehehehehe, classic
You stay strong brother
When you nudge Lee and whisper his call sign to wake him up tomorrow morning
Don't forget to remind him to trim Johns 'ALPA Stache'
Hero
![RCD73 is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/clear.gif)
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Because they could furlough at will without worrying about the cost of retraining everyone at CZ and then again when they have to recall. CZ, in my opinion, was a major reason many Delta pilots were not furloughed.
![indapit is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Keenster - Sir, that is understood and appreciated. The North guys standing tough on keeping Compass in gives credibility to your position.
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.
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.
One of the guys responsible for the great Scope NWA brought to the table wants to be in OUR next Negotiating Committee. He still thinks he did a great job back then. Contact your reps to make sure he and others responsible for the direct outsourcing of mainline jobs NEVER ever hold ALPA office again.
![DAL330drvr is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,989
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
.
Agree 100%. We are in a service industry - the fact that we actually need to declare 2010 the "Year of the customer" is troubling. What happens in 2011 we go back to being the airline that will keep cutting service until our customers revolt?
Whoever thought up this year of the customer BS should be forced to non rev aroung the system 5 days a week for a couple of months - in coach and on DCI.
I wonder what wonderful name he would have for 2010 after that? {insert witty response here
![Smile](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif)
Scoop
![Scoop is online now](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_online.gif)
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
WHEREAS: The term "mainline flying" has been undefined and a wide variety of different opinions exist on the proper role of scope to provide job security and career advancement.
WHEREAS: Delta pilots are concerned about further outsourcing of their jobs.
WHEREAS: Negotiations are often completed before the membership is even aware that negotiations are taking place.
WHEREAS: Outsourcing diminishes the power of our Association to enjoy exclusivity over Delta flying and has the potential to harm negotiations in the future.
WHEREAS: Communication prior to negotiation helps build consensus, support and unity among Delta pilots.
LET IT BE RESOLVED:
That our Local Executive Council be advised prior to entering into scope negotiations, scope grievance resolutions, or side letters of agreement involving scope and job security provisions of our Pilot Working Agreement, and
That "Negotiator's Notepad" or similar communication be provided to the pilots of Council XX, and
That pilots be provided the opportunity to provide feedback to our LEC, and
The pilots of Council XX request that their LEC ask for the written opinion of any prospective Candidates for Master Chairman as to their specific definition of "mainline flying" , and
The LEC communicate the Candidate's response to this question to the membership in sufficient time for pilots to provide feedback to their Representatives, and
That our LEC consider 76 seat flying and current outsourcing restrictions a minimum requirement for their vote.
That our LEC request of our MEC that opportunities to preserve ALPA's exclusivity over bargaining and preservation of Delta pilots' employment status be given high priority, and
That our LEC request of our MEC research into alternative ownership structures and contract construction which would provide Delta pilot employment to be maintained as "temporary duty" even if that pilot were to be redeployed on a subcontractor's Certificate.
(That's probably two, or three, resolutions. But just tossing it out there for feedback. Lets turn the lights on so we can see what's coming. )
![Bucking Bar is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
What youve stated is exactly what Moak has stated as his goals. However not once have I heard scope restoration in any form as part of what they "want."
ACL- I gotta side with bar on the economics of the 76 seater deal. Everytime it's brought up Slow and the boys start dancing and say "look over here!" without addressing the question at hand.
![Frown](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/smilies/frown.gif)
![Frown](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/smilies/frown.gif)
ACL- I gotta side with bar on the economics of the 76 seater deal. Everytime it's brought up Slow and the boys start dancing and say "look over here!" without addressing the question at hand.
Forget the economics of flying the darn thing, look at the cost to buy it back. What are you, and the other 12000+ pilots willing to wait four more years on to regain that flying. (Sounds a lot like what are you willing to give up?, I know)
Point is that it was taken in 1113C and our wages were taken too. A lot was taken. We all know or should know that the cost to buy it back will cost more that we got to sell it. (we can argue what we sold or if it was taken, in the end that does not matter)
I agree with Bar that we do not need to see or accept scope as a bargaining chip. We actually have to totally stop that practice. It is not for sale. Enough is enough. We all feel that way. What I was identifying in the ROAR article was one statement. It was the statement that the cost would more than likely be too much for this group to swallow.
So Bar? Study it? Lets study it! Publish the findings. I agree with that. Lets do and EA. Let fight for scope. I am 100% in that side of the court. Fight for protections throughout the list. High, low and middle. Every area needs attention. Inclusive Small jets scope. Define DAL pilot flying. Lets do all of it.
As I have said, restoration imo is a two cba offensive. We have talked about this ad nausem.
Scope is the single biggest issue that most do not understand. That in the end is why the one point I have agreed with in the ROAR is fact. I do not know why that is so hard to see. We have post after post on here stating that so and so flew with LCA this and CA that that was willing to sell scope for pay, or did not want to deal with recapturing scope to raise their pay more. Those statements further solidify my statement that what was written in that article will hold true. Why? Because everyone in good standing has a vote, and those votes combined together make up or position. No more no less.
![acl65pilot is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Agreed. We know that eventually we will be electing a MEC Chairman. How about a resolution?
WHEREAS: The term "mainline flying" has been undefined and a wide variety of different opinions exist on the proper role of scope to provide job security and career advancement.
WHEREAS: Delta pilots are concerned about further outsourcing of their jobs.
WHEREAS: Negotiations are often completed before the membership is even aware that negotiations are taking place.
WHEREAS: Outsourcing diminishes the power of our Association to enjoy exclusivity over Delta flying and has the potential to harm negotiations in the future.
WHEREAS: Communication prior to negotiation helps build consensus, support and unity among Delta pilots.
LET IT BE RESOLVED:
That our Local Executive Council be advised prior to entering into scope negotiations, scope grievance resolutions, or side letters of agreement involving scope and job security provisions of our Pilot Working Agreement, and
That "Negotiator's Notepad" or similar communication be provided to the pilots of Council XX, and
That pilots be provided the opportunity to provide feedback to our LEC, and
The pilots of Council XX request that their LEC ask for the written opinion of any prospective Candidates for Master Chairman as to their specific definition of "mainline flying" , and
The LEC communicate the response to this question to the membership in sufficient time for pilots to provide feedback to their Representatives, and
That our LEC consider 76 seat flying and current outsourcing restrictions a minimum requirement for their vote.
That our LEC request of our MEC that opportunities to preserve ALPA's exclusivity over bargaining and preservation of Delta pilots' employment status be given high priority, and
That our LEC request of our MEC research into alternative ownership structures and contract construction which would provide Delta pilot employment to be maintained as "temporary duty" even if that pilot were to be redeployed on a subcontractor's Certificate.
(That's probably two, or three, resolutions. But just tossing it out there for feedback)
WHEREAS: The term "mainline flying" has been undefined and a wide variety of different opinions exist on the proper role of scope to provide job security and career advancement.
WHEREAS: Delta pilots are concerned about further outsourcing of their jobs.
WHEREAS: Negotiations are often completed before the membership is even aware that negotiations are taking place.
WHEREAS: Outsourcing diminishes the power of our Association to enjoy exclusivity over Delta flying and has the potential to harm negotiations in the future.
WHEREAS: Communication prior to negotiation helps build consensus, support and unity among Delta pilots.
LET IT BE RESOLVED:
That our Local Executive Council be advised prior to entering into scope negotiations, scope grievance resolutions, or side letters of agreement involving scope and job security provisions of our Pilot Working Agreement, and
That "Negotiator's Notepad" or similar communication be provided to the pilots of Council XX, and
That pilots be provided the opportunity to provide feedback to our LEC, and
The pilots of Council XX request that their LEC ask for the written opinion of any prospective Candidates for Master Chairman as to their specific definition of "mainline flying" , and
The LEC communicate the response to this question to the membership in sufficient time for pilots to provide feedback to their Representatives, and
That our LEC consider 76 seat flying and current outsourcing restrictions a minimum requirement for their vote.
That our LEC request of our MEC that opportunities to preserve ALPA's exclusivity over bargaining and preservation of Delta pilots' employment status be given high priority, and
That our LEC request of our MEC research into alternative ownership structures and contract construction which would provide Delta pilot employment to be maintained as "temporary duty" even if that pilot were to be redeployed on a subcontractor's Certificate.
(That's probably two, or three, resolutions. But just tossing it out there for feedback)
A great way to change the opinions and minds of our fellow pilots is to provide them with information to change their minds. To do that we need this type of transparency. Until then my statement stands.
![acl65pilot is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
One of the guys responsible for the great Scope NWA brought to the table wants to be in OUR next Negotiating Committee. He still thinks he did a great job back then. Contact your reps to make sure he and others responsible for the direct outsourcing of mainline jobs NEVER ever hold ALPA office again.
![EEK!](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/smilies/eek.gif)
![acl65pilot is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
BTW Bar, I forcefully disagree as I stated 10 posts ago that the flying below my seniority is worthless to the group. That is a load of crap. It is a easy way out, but as I have stated education of the masses changes that. It is that simple.
A resolution like yours that forces the LEC then MEC to confer with its pilots is one way to make the group engaged by mandate.
A resolution like yours that forces the LEC then MEC to confer with its pilots is one way to make the group engaged by mandate.
![acl65pilot is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
As much as I'd like to have DCI airplanes at mainline Delta, I can't see it happening - here's why:
Cost.
While some of the pilot group would like to have the EMB-175s, CRJ-900, CRJ-700, the 50 seater, etc at mainline, the pay rates we would have to accept are far too low. I'm not just talking about the rates that other airlines are currently flying them at.
I'm talking, really low rates to pay for all the other costs that Delta would have to absorb. The DCI airplanes right now are maintained by mechanics being are probably paid less than they are at Delta. The planes are dispatched using dispatchers who are paid less than Delta dispatchers. Cleaned by people making less than Delta cleaners (maybe, they might use the same people). The Flight attendants make less than Delta flight attendants. The gate agents are paid less than Delta gate agents.
Also, each of those employee groups are paid the same whether they are working on a CRJ50 or a CRJ-900 (say, at Pinnacle which fly both I think). Pilots get paid more for a bigger plane - other employee groups don't.
So - let us say Delta said, "let brings over the CRJ-900 to mainline". Pilots will be paid the existing rate that we're paying at Pinnacle. We'd ***** and moan, but in the end, we'd understand that it's the competitive rate. Now other employee groups don't get paid more or less for different sized airplanes. The cost of repairing the CRJ-900 would be at mainline Delta costs - not DCI costs. Same for dispatchers, cleaners, and flight attendants.
So - the cost of dispatching, maintaining, serving drinks, etc on the former DCI plane go up, but the pilot cost would be the same. Well - unless the pilot group can convince the other labor groups to be paid less for flying the CRJ-900, the pilots are going to have to take the cost hit for the airplane to remain profitable.
Who else would take the hit? Management isn't going to operate the plane at a loss just to have more pilots on the payroll. Honestly, people aren't going to pay more to fly a CRJ-900 because it's operated by Delta employees vs DCI employees so we can't raise revenue. Most pax don't even know how the whole code-share system works anyway. The other labor groups aren't going to switch to being paid less to work on a CRJ-900 because it's not in the way their pay system is designed.
So - we might have to work for much less than what current DCI pilots are paid if we want the airplanes at mainline, in order for these sized airplanes to be profitable.
This is what I feel ALPA is saying when they say, "you don't want to work for the pay rates that will bring the plane to mainline."
Cost.
While some of the pilot group would like to have the EMB-175s, CRJ-900, CRJ-700, the 50 seater, etc at mainline, the pay rates we would have to accept are far too low. I'm not just talking about the rates that other airlines are currently flying them at.
I'm talking, really low rates to pay for all the other costs that Delta would have to absorb. The DCI airplanes right now are maintained by mechanics being are probably paid less than they are at Delta. The planes are dispatched using dispatchers who are paid less than Delta dispatchers. Cleaned by people making less than Delta cleaners (maybe, they might use the same people). The Flight attendants make less than Delta flight attendants. The gate agents are paid less than Delta gate agents.
Also, each of those employee groups are paid the same whether they are working on a CRJ50 or a CRJ-900 (say, at Pinnacle which fly both I think). Pilots get paid more for a bigger plane - other employee groups don't.
So - let us say Delta said, "let brings over the CRJ-900 to mainline". Pilots will be paid the existing rate that we're paying at Pinnacle. We'd ***** and moan, but in the end, we'd understand that it's the competitive rate. Now other employee groups don't get paid more or less for different sized airplanes. The cost of repairing the CRJ-900 would be at mainline Delta costs - not DCI costs. Same for dispatchers, cleaners, and flight attendants.
So - the cost of dispatching, maintaining, serving drinks, etc on the former DCI plane go up, but the pilot cost would be the same. Well - unless the pilot group can convince the other labor groups to be paid less for flying the CRJ-900, the pilots are going to have to take the cost hit for the airplane to remain profitable.
Who else would take the hit? Management isn't going to operate the plane at a loss just to have more pilots on the payroll. Honestly, people aren't going to pay more to fly a CRJ-900 because it's operated by Delta employees vs DCI employees so we can't raise revenue. Most pax don't even know how the whole code-share system works anyway. The other labor groups aren't going to switch to being paid less to work on a CRJ-900 because it's not in the way their pay system is designed.
So - we might have to work for much less than what current DCI pilots are paid if we want the airplanes at mainline, in order for these sized airplanes to be profitable.
This is what I feel ALPA is saying when they say, "you don't want to work for the pay rates that will bring the plane to mainline."
![iaflyer is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post