Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
02-25-2010, 07:22 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Bar, they're taking seats OUT of 70 seat jets to put a First Class section in. The 76 seaters are being fully utilized according to Delta's plan, and management seems to think they'll get more revenue out of fewer seats.
02-25-2010, 07:29 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
02-25-2010, 07:30 PM
Underboob King
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Guppy Commander
Posts: 4,412
Don Quixote, didn't we go through this last year? And the year before?
Your base statement is wrong. There have been multiple economic analyses done. They've been done by ALPA E&FA, by the Collective Bargaining committee, and by an outside financial advisor. The data isn't public, as I'm sure that you'd prefer we not solidly make management's points for them. But you're flat out wrong.
You talk of job security. How many DCI pilots are on furlough? How many mainline pilots are on furlough? How many 76 seat jets can be added? How many greater than 50 seat jets can be added?
Your base statement is wrong. There have been multiple economic analyses done. They've been done by ALPA E&FA, by the Collective Bargaining committee, and by an outside financial advisor. The data isn't public, as I'm sure that you'd prefer we not solidly make management's points for them. But you're flat out wrong.
You talk of job security. How many DCI pilots are on furlough? How many mainline pilots are on furlough? How many 76 seat jets can be added? How many greater than 50 seat jets can be added?
Can we put a permanent CAP on the number of current "RJ's? We're all just concerned about future negotiations and carrots being used to get us to give more scope away. The company needs a replacement for the DC-9s and eventually the -88's and we want to make sure that anything larger than the current "RJ's" are only flown here with Delta pilots at the controls. We need to put an official declaration put out by the MEC that SCOPE giveaways are done and are non-negotiable going forward. Do that and you wouldnt see so many people storming every time something like this pops up in the news. As far as the 50 seaters go, they're getting cut for the economics not because of our scope.
Last edited by Superpilot92; 02-25-2010 at 07:51 PM.
02-25-2010, 07:31 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,902
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 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. )
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. )
I LIKE your resolution. But to be fair, we can't even get a resolution passed that says something to the effect of "Gee, DAL pilots would like to see some restoration coming our way".
Even if it passes, SO WHAT? This MEC has been more than happy to table,
"receive", discuss into oblivion or just simply ignore past resolutions (scope report card, anyone?).
You need the moxie AND the muscle to pull it off.
Nu
02-25-2010, 07:41 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Heyas Bar,
I LIKE your resolution. But to be fair, we can't even get a resolution passed that says something to the effect of "Gee, DAL pilots would like to see some restoration coming our way".
Even if it passes, SO WHAT? This MEC has been more than happy to table,
"receive", discuss into oblivion or just simply ignore past resolutions (scope report card, anyone?).
You need the moxie AND the muscle to pull it off.
Nu
I LIKE your resolution. But to be fair, we can't even get a resolution passed that says something to the effect of "Gee, DAL pilots would like to see some restoration coming our way".
Even if it passes, SO WHAT? This MEC has been more than happy to table,
"receive", discuss into oblivion or just simply ignore past resolutions (scope report card, anyone?).
You need the moxie AND the muscle to pull it off.
Nu
02-25-2010, 07:47 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I think we might have a lead up to contract 2012 that has more to do with section 1 then 3. Thats if, sadly, we see widebody flying threatened. Otherwise, as a pilot group it'll be section 3, 26, 25, 23 maybe and then maybe 1. 
02-25-2010, 08:53 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
That's a very dangerous thing to do, speak for other people. Are you sure you can see into each and every senior pilot's psyche and know how they will vote?
People will vote their pocketbooks every time. Tell me how far down the list do the full pensions run on the North side? What about the guys just below that? How will they vote when presented with a large increase in pay and DC in return for 120 seats?
I don't deign to know what's in people's hearts or minds, but I do recognize where their self interests lie. It's very hard to be altruistic when faced with only 10 years left to make enough to live on for the rest of your life.
Maybe the inverted seniority of the Roberts Award will save us. Maybe there are enough senior Green guys on narrow bodies to realize how shortsighted trading pay for jobs would be. Watch how many bids we have between now and contract time and see if that anomaly is rectified.
Bar for Chairman.
People will vote their pocketbooks every time. Tell me how far down the list do the full pensions run on the North side? What about the guys just below that? How will they vote when presented with a large increase in pay and DC in return for 120 seats?
I don't deign to know what's in people's hearts or minds, but I do recognize where their self interests lie. It's very hard to be altruistic when faced with only 10 years left to make enough to live on for the rest of your life.
Maybe the inverted seniority of the Roberts Award will save us. Maybe there are enough senior Green guys on narrow bodies to realize how shortsighted trading pay for jobs would be. Watch how many bids we have between now and contract time and see if that anomaly is rectified.
Bar for Chairman.
You need to follow your own advice.Denny
02-25-2010, 09:10 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 710
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."
Most regional feed operates at a loss. From Delta or American's perspective regional feed is an onboard loss. This is very similar to a telephone company maintaining phone lines, installing fiber optic networks and the other plethora of expenditures associated with providing the entire service. What regional flying does provide is feed. Therefore regional feed in conjunction with larger transcon routes and international routes will typically operate at a profit. I once took a course that analyzed the costs of an American 767 conducting a transcon flight from LGA to LAX. After all things considered, the flight operated at a profit of just under $200, or about $40 an hour for each hour of the flight. Had it not been for cargo below deck the flight would've lost several thousand dollars.
From our perspective the overall operation has to stay profitable, not necessarily the feed. Typically the only people that generate a profit from regional flying are the actual companies providing such flying as they operate under a fee for departure. Therefore, when contrasting a contract feed partner in which Delta must guarantee a profit for their operation vs an owned subsidiary, the owned subsidiary can actually operate at a loss and in the larger picture, provide a savings to Delta. Either guarantee someone else a profit or take a smaller financial hit and record the loss on your own books.
For the most part Delta has contracted out most of the support infrastructure associated with flying. Whether the cleaners in DTW are cleaning a DC-9 vs an E-175, the costs are likely similar. Furthermore, rolling such feed into a larger operation would allow existing dispatchers and schedulers to pick up the existing equipment types without having to mirror an entire operation because it's operated under another certificate.
When considering all the factors associated with regional feed, mainline pilots are not operating the aircraft because of our hourly wages, DCI is operating the equipment as a future insurance policy against labor unions. It's all about divide and conquer. In my humble opinion, ALPA is way off on their approach to recovering this flying.
02-26-2010, 04:00 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Don Quixote, didn't we go through this last year? And the year before?
Your base statement is wrong. There have been multiple economic analyses done. They've been done by ALPA E&FA, by the Collective Bargaining committee, and by an outside financial advisor. The data isn't public, as I'm sure that you'd prefer we not solidly make management's points for them. But you're flat out wrong.
You talk of job security. How many DCI pilots are on furlough? How many mainline pilots are on furlough? How many 76 seat jets can be added? How many greater than 50 seat jets can be added?
Your base statement is wrong. There have been multiple economic analyses done. They've been done by ALPA E&FA, by the Collective Bargaining committee, and by an outside financial advisor. The data isn't public, as I'm sure that you'd prefer we not solidly make management's points for them. But you're flat out wrong.
You talk of job security. How many DCI pilots are on furlough? How many mainline pilots are on furlough? How many 76 seat jets can be added? How many greater than 50 seat jets can be added?
I told you Slow would jump on here and tell you they had been done.
I would love to see the data too. My point will remain that what management will want from us will to big given the other sections of the PWA. In a few years probably not, but right now with the paycuts and loss of pension and other work rules, the majority wins.
02-26-2010, 04:02 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
IMHO, based on how our airlines desires to fly, there is no way they would even entertain a city pairs clause in section one. I would like to see the number of 76 seat jets allowed capped at 153. They state that they do not want any more, so lets make them commit to that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
