Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-13-2010, 04:48 AM
Weekend and Holiday Pilot
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Sippin' at the Troubadour
Posts: 1,142
04-13-2010, 04:48 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: LAX 350 A
Posts: 564
04-13-2010, 04:56 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
04-13-2010, 05:07 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Now that we are in the era of code shares, joint ventures and world partners, we need to look at this differently.
As RA pointed out yesterday the airlines are debt owned anyway. This is the reason why most airlines have gone towards these types of agreements. It allows a funnel to your branded flying, it allows profit to be gained from a "shared" flights, and it allows a presence in a market that would require excess service and no ROI an the CapEx of the jets needed to fly these routes. (AS North-South service in LAX)
Because of this we are seeing more and more of these on a global scale.
It is easy to track the revenue generated from the AS code share, the AF/KLM JV, the Virgin Blue JV and probably the China Eastern JV. As publicly stated, the AF deal alone is worth 12 billion a year. Do we see any increased financial benefit to this deal? Maybe if DAL is profitable and we see a profit sharing check. My point was and is, we negotiate with DAL management for a percentage of their side of the deal. 2-5% per year. Do the math of the AF deal alone. It is a years worth of 744/777 salary over 10 years per pilot.
I personally think that since in effect we are "allowing or agreeing" to these agreements we should get a percentage base annual compensation off the deals. Nothing huge, but a percentage that makes the venture worth while to us.
Some may think that is crazy, but it is a way to gain a some compensation for each of these agreements.
04-13-2010, 05:36 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
Last edited by Waves; 04-13-2010 at 07:09 AM.
04-13-2010, 05:41 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
Well, we could get even less pay when we are flying 400 people across the pond for 12 hrs and each one tips $1.00. How do the tips get split between captain and fo? I certainly wouldn't want to fly during the slow winter months with only a handful of passengers on board.
Oh, and yes you look fat in those pants
Oh, and yes you look fat in those pants
04-13-2010, 05:42 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
So you are saying all N issues are just self created? Your hubris is amazing...
Divisions yes, but not near what you try to portray. You are using this as a red herring to shift any possibility that perhaps the deals offered by the former DAL MEC were not as beneficent and benevolent as you'd like us to believe.
Sure, we just dreamed it all up, everything is just hunky dory in Pleasentville and we have an attitude problem. I feel all better now. Do I have to believe in a higher power too?
Psssst. It's 2010. No one from the 2008 fNW MEC administration is around any more.
Utter bovine scatology. I believe it's up to the voting Reps to decide how they want to move on these and whether they have merit or not. Please educate us as to why they are without merit in your opinion?
Divisions yes, but not near what you try to portray. You are using this as a red herring to shift any possibility that perhaps the deals offered by the former DAL MEC were not as beneficent and benevolent as you'd like us to believe.
Sure, we just dreamed it all up, everything is just hunky dory in Pleasentville and we have an attitude problem. I feel all better now. Do I have to believe in a higher power too?
Psssst. It's 2010. No one from the 2008 fNW MEC administration is around any more.
Utter bovine scatology. I believe it's up to the voting Reps to decide how they want to move on these and whether they have merit or not. Please educate us as to why they are without merit in your opinion?
As for the duty rigs grievance, I believe I asked the Reps to decide. It has no merit because the plain language of the contract says it is without merit.
Here is the actual grievance language (emphasis added):
The grievance is based upon the Company's violation of Sections 12 H., I., J., K.1.b., L. and related Sections of the PWA in failing and refusing to implement on CBAID for former Northwest pilots the pay and credit provisions of the above‑cited sections (rotation credit, duty period average, duty period minimum and duty period credit).
This is what the contract says:
5. Rotations for former NWA pilots that originate on or after the first day of Bid Period 5 will comply with all hours of service limitations in Section 12.
Maybe you could explain why you feel it has merit. Your grievance says you want the Section 12 provisions on CBAID and the contract clearly states they begin on Bid Period 5. Why would that provision be in the contract if it wasn't meant to delay the implementation of the duty rigs?
What possible reason could you give why "the first day of Bid Period 5" means "CBAID" which was 10-12 months earlier than BP5? This isn't some fine print loophole, it is clear as daylight. You need to have a really good reason why the plain language of the contract does not mean exactly what it says.
04-13-2010, 05:45 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 309
Thanks to all the note takers! That was some good intel!
04-13-2010, 06:16 AM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Delta is actually very profitable right now. It just doesn't show up on Delta's books. We generate enormous profits for bondholders, banks, Boeing, American Express, vendors, hotels, cruise ships, airports, governments, etc. etc. etc. and of course, executives.
04-13-2010, 06:20 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Okay, could you please tell me all of the things the DAL MEC did to you to make you so angry? I already said that both sides fought for their visions of what the seniority list should look like and that is over. Why is it that you have such a chip on your shoulder? I never said the Delta MEC was beneficent, benevolent, or Pleasantville, those are your words. The Delta MEC stood up for their pilots which is their job. I am just wondering exactly what the offenses were that makes us so evil in your eyes.
As for the duty rigs grievance, I believe I asked the Reps to decide. It has no merit because the plain language of the contract says it is without merit.
Here is the actual grievance language (emphasis added):
The grievance is based upon the Company's violation of Sections 12 H., I., J., K.1.b., L. and related Sections of the PWA in failing and refusing to implement on CBAID for former Northwest pilots the pay and credit provisions of the above‑cited sections (rotation credit, duty period average, duty period minimum and duty period credit).
This is what the contract says:
5. Rotations for former NWA pilots that originate on or after the first day of Bid Period 5 will comply with all hours of service limitations in Section 12.
Maybe you could explain why you feel it has merit. Your grievance says you want the Section 12 provisions on CBAID and the contract clearly states they begin on Bid Period 5. Why would that provision be in the contract if it wasn't meant to delay the implementation of the duty rigs?
What possible reason could you give why "the first day of Bid Period 5" means "CBAID" which was 10-12 months earlier than BP5? This isn't some fine print loophole, it is clear as daylight. You need to have a really good reason why the plain language of the contract does not mean exactly what it says.
As for the duty rigs grievance, I believe I asked the Reps to decide. It has no merit because the plain language of the contract says it is without merit.
Here is the actual grievance language (emphasis added):
The grievance is based upon the Company's violation of Sections 12 H., I., J., K.1.b., L. and related Sections of the PWA in failing and refusing to implement on CBAID for former Northwest pilots the pay and credit provisions of the above‑cited sections (rotation credit, duty period average, duty period minimum and duty period credit).
This is what the contract says:
5. Rotations for former NWA pilots that originate on or after the first day of Bid Period 5 will comply with all hours of service limitations in Section 12.
Maybe you could explain why you feel it has merit. Your grievance says you want the Section 12 provisions on CBAID and the contract clearly states they begin on Bid Period 5. Why would that provision be in the contract if it wasn't meant to delay the implementation of the duty rigs?
What possible reason could you give why "the first day of Bid Period 5" means "CBAID" which was 10-12 months earlier than BP5? This isn't some fine print loophole, it is clear as daylight. You need to have a really good reason why the plain language of the contract does not mean exactly what it says.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
