Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
look at the expression on Godzilla... funny.
---
so did anyone see this from the uk daily mail? What if it is true?
Remember that ash cloud? It didn't exist, says new evidence | Mail Online
---
so did anyone see this from the uk daily mail? What if it is true?
Remember that ash cloud? It didn't exist, says new evidence | Mail Online
Now, over many decades, there have been airlines that went through periods where they were very profitable and very unprofitable. If you look at pilot compensation during that time (adjusted for inflation), it was relatively constant. A few ups and downs, but nothing like what we've seen in recent years. The only time our profession has ever seen anything like a 40%+ cut in pay, massive cuts in benefits and outsourcing of jobs was after 9/11. Granted, this was a particularly bad time for the airlines. But was it many times as bad as any other down cycle in the industry? I don't think so. I know it's easier said than done... but the industry needs to recognize that having quality pilots requires paying for them. The current situation cannot go on forever without a significant loss of quality and the resultant impact on safety. The profession is going to have to get back to where it's a fairly high paid profession. Us making excuses for why it shouldn't be that way just hurts our case, IMO.
2) I know you stated sights, but does that also include expectations and or demands? They are different. Sights leads me to beleive that is where you would "expect" the new PWA to fall, not where our expectations should be set.
I agree that as we always to it is wise to do an E FA on the company and what we see as realistic going in to any talks. Whether it be a LOA or section six, it is prudent to make sure we are getting the most bang for the buck. What I wonder out of this comment is if we are looking at Delta and taking our EFA to the table with a proposal that we assume is well with in the acceptable range. If that is the case maybe it is wise to start a lot higer than this to allow for wiggle room. (Fluff is you will in case we are actually off on the conservative side. I am not stating a C2K+ etc. I am just stating a position without a numerical value)
Similarly, and take these as only an example, if our expectations in the next contract are $250/hr on the 777A, and we'd like to really get $275/hr if we open for $500/hour on the 777A, it will take us LONGER, imo, to get to either of these, than if we open at $300/hr. In one case, DAL sees you as being reasonable and may be willing to negotiate - in the other, not so much. Just look at APA. Neither side has budged off their initial position as far as I know, because the APA opener is deemed by management to be unreasonable. Furthermore, is it better to get $250/hr (again just an example), effective on 1/1/13, or hold out for $300/hr but ultimately get $260/hr on 1/1/15?
Knowing where we will end up is a wise decision. In the end it is a good guess. We do not know what the actions of the company leadership will be in terms of new debt, future debt retirement, projected revenue etc. It is their job to explain their limits to us and their reasoning for the dollar value attached to their proposal. Then we get to fact or crap it. Doing the EFA allows us to sharp shoot their range, but we should not be self limiting for the sake thereof.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
The only time our profession has ever seen anything like a 40%+ cut in pay, massive cuts in benefits and outsourcing of jobs was after 9/11. Granted, this was a particularly bad time for the airlines. But was it many times as bad as any other down cycle in the industry? I don't think so.
From deregulation in 1978 through 2001, about 1% of GDP was spent on airlines. There were minor fluctuations, but in general airlines were tied directly to the economy. Since 2001, however, the airlines only made up about 0.75% of GDP, with 2009 being a particularly bad year and airlines only getting about 0.65% of GDP. That's over 3 times as bad as other downturns.
---
Hey, here is Steve Martin teaching us about Delta's financing philosophy:
Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Don't Buy Stuff
Actually it was many times as bad as any other down cycle in the industry.
From deregulation in 1978 through 2001, about 1% of GDP was spent on airlines. There were minor fluctuations, but in general airlines were tied directly to the economy. Since 2001, however, the airlines only made up about 0.75% of GDP, with 2009 being a particularly bad year and airlines only getting about 0.65% of GDP. That's over 3 times as bad as other downturns.
From deregulation in 1978 through 2001, about 1% of GDP was spent on airlines. There were minor fluctuations, but in general airlines were tied directly to the economy. Since 2001, however, the airlines only made up about 0.75% of GDP, with 2009 being a particularly bad year and airlines only getting about 0.65% of GDP. That's over 3 times as bad as other downturns.
Of course, what I was referring to was profitability of the industry. I guess it just depends on how you want to look at it... and maybe to an extent who's case you're trying to make.
GDP, is interesting indicator to the cash flow of the industry. It aligns with our margins going down, labor costs getting cut etc.
I know it's easier said than done... but the industry needs to recognize that having quality pilots requires paying for them. The current situation cannot go on forever without a significant loss of quality and the resultant impact on safety. The profession is going to have to get back to where it's a fairly high paid profession. Us making excuses for why it shouldn't be that way just hurts our case, IMO.
The country can't even agree that its worth keeping pilots alert, much less well paid... I don't hold out much hope for your "pay more or safety will suffer" argument. I believe you, I just don't think the average American (or apparently members of the Obama Administration) does.
Exhibit A:
Dispute Over Cost Delays Pilot Rules
more in Politics »
BY ANDY PASZTOR
Reducing pilot fatigue is a top priority for U.S. airline regulators. But new rules are being delayed by disagreements within the Obama administration over whether the anticipated safety improvements would justify the cost to airlines.
When U.S. Federal Aviation Administration chief Randy Babbitt last summer launched a drive to update decades-old rules covering how many hours a day U.S. airline pilots can fly or remain on duty, the agency hoped to release draft regulations by early 2010.
That date later slipped by several months, but Mr. Babbitt and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood continued to say that keeping sleepy pilots away ...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post