Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? >

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Search

Notices

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-26-2010, 02:49 PM
  #36001  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Originally Posted by hoserpilot



Do I have to bring back the real lizard again????
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
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 04-26-2010, 02:49 PM
  #36002  
Gets Weekends Off
 
buzzpat's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
Default

Originally Posted by satchip
Did someone object to your "Grope" avatar? That was my favorite!
Yep, I'm guilty of an "avatar violation." But, hey, at least it wasn't lizards boinking.
buzzpat is offline  
Old 04-26-2010, 03:09 PM
  #36003  
At home on the maddog!
 
DAL 88 Driver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Default

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
An airline that is not profitable can't pay above industry average wages, regardless of what we deem to be "fair" or what we're "worth". It's never happened yet.
I agree about the unprofitable airline not being able to afford above industry average wages in general. The problem is that the unprofitable airline cannot afford many things. Obviously, it's always better to be profitable.

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.
DAL 88 Driver is offline  
Old 04-26-2010, 03:11 PM
  #36004  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Pineapple Guy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot
PG;
A few questions to further the discussion and a point or to that I am sure you will follow up on:
1) Is it the job of labor to set its limits or goals to guarantee that the company will be able to do what you list above; renew its fleet and product?
NO. It is not our job, nor within our abilities to make the company either profitable or unprofitable. That is their job; having said that, that profitability affects our ability to exert leverage. We got C2K because DAL was making record profits for several years.

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.
To me, we don't set "demands". That's a recipe for failure. Under my terminology, we set our "expectations" on what we think is achievable, and our sights on obtaining something higher, knowing we may or may not be able to achieve that in the end.
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)
Let me caveat this with, I am not a negotiator, nor do I intend to ever become one. Having said that, my thoughts are to set your opener reasonably above your sights, which would be noticeably above your expectations, but not unrealistically so. If you get too far out, the process grinds to a halt. For example, assume you want to buy someone's house. It's listed for $300,000. You think a "fair" price is $280k, and you'd love to get it for $260k. If you offer $200k, they're liable to not even bother with a counter offer. They see you as not being a serious buyer. But if you offer $250k, for example, you'll have a better chance. BTW, I also completely reject the notion that we pick a number such that half way between the company's opener and our opener is where we want to end up. Thus, you game the opener to figure that out, and pick one accordingly. Contract negotiatiors on both sides are a lot sharper than that.

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.
Absolutely agree 100%. DISCLAIMER: All dollar values in this post are for example purposes only, and in no way should be implied to be my view of what's reasonable, achievable, fair or anything else.
Pineapple Guy is offline  
Old 04-26-2010, 03:26 PM
  #36005  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Default

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
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.
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.
slowplay is offline  
Old 04-26-2010, 03:33 PM
  #36006  
Da Hudge
 
80ktsClamp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Default

Originally Posted by forgot to bid
I think this pretty much sums it up...


I think I just pushed back having kids another couple years....
80ktsClamp is offline  
Old 04-26-2010, 03:33 PM
  #36007  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Originally Posted by buzzpat
Yep, I'm guilty of an "avatar violation." But, hey, at least it wasn't lizards boinking.
Until that avatar I didn't know thats what lizards did.

---
Hey, here is Steve Martin teaching us about Delta's financing philosophy:

Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Don't Buy Stuff
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 04-26-2010, 03:47 PM
  #36008  
At home on the maddog!
 
DAL 88 Driver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Default

Originally Posted by slowplay
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.
Good example of how you can customize statistics to make your case. That's the first time I've ever heard of measuring the success of an airline or the industry by comparing its percentage of GDP. Interesting.

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.
DAL 88 Driver is offline  
Old 04-26-2010, 04:10 PM
  #36009  
Happy to be here
 
acl65pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Default

GDP, is interesting indicator to the cash flow of the industry. It aligns with our margins going down, labor costs getting cut etc.
acl65pilot is offline  
Old 04-26-2010, 04:11 PM
  #36010  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Pineapple Guy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Default

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
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.
88,

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 ...
Pineapple Guy is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
On Autopilot
Regional
22594
11-05-2021 07:03 AM
AeroCrewSolut
Delta
153
08-14-2018 12:18 PM
Bill Lumberg
Major
71
06-13-2012 08:36 AM
Quagmire
Major
253
04-16-2011 06:19 AM
JiffyLube
Major
12
03-07-2008 04:27 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices