Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-04-2010, 08:20 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Shiz, I agree completely. Its an apples vs. oranges argument. The fDAL guys will vote for full restoration of C2K plus inflation with the DC in lieu of moving the scope. Because? They want their contract back. The fNWA guys have a new contract and didn't lose that pay nor the retirement/DC. I'm not endorsing either position. But I can see a battle on this. Nobody wants the scope to remain trending as it has. Everybody on the south side wants to regain lost pay and benefits yet regain some scope. The northies want to regain scope. Should be interesting.
I do not think that you can package the positions in a N v S box.
07-04-2010, 08:31 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,858
Nu
07-04-2010, 08:34 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
07-04-2010, 08:38 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,945
So full restoration of C2K plus inflation, with a DC of 19-22% (in lieu of 2% DB) wouldn't convince guys to leave the 51-76 scope section "as-is"?
I'm not advocating this position, but do you really think that 50.1% of the DAL group would pass on that? Not likely. Wish it was different but this is the forums, not the true sentiment of "average line guy"....
I'm not advocating this position, but do you really think that 50.1% of the DAL group would pass on that? Not likely. Wish it was different but this is the forums, not the true sentiment of "average line guy"....
I realize that you are using exaggerated numbers to make a point, but I believe you are missing another even more important point. Yes, I am sure that if the "pot of gold" were big enough the contract would sail through. But, the value of SCOPE to the company is a lot less than it used to be, so I don't think the company would ever come anywhere close to your above example. When NB FO's were making north of $150/hour with commensurate benefits and fuel was $30/barrel, yeah maybe, but not anymore. Why would the company offer us more in contracts plus ups than the value of possible SCOPE concessions?
Besides the whole "quality" issue which is a separate discussion I don't think DCI is that much more economical than mainline, if cheaper at all, when all costs are included. Maybe I am off the farm here but if DCI was so much cheaper where are all the branded RJ operators? With the ease of entry in this business, with airports and politicians bending over backwards trying to lure start-ups, with hundreds of furloughed pilots where are the standalone RJ operators? I keep hearing how expensive mainline is - and yet the only way RJ operations stay in business seem to be the fee for departure route. Why?
A few month ago there was a rumor going around about a 22% pay-raise for 100 seat scope relaxation. Does this even make sense? DAL supposedly offered to pay 12,000 pilots including top pay-scale wide-body Captains 22% more to save a few dollars an hour on a few hundred planes?
Maybe the company would want to open the door, so to speak on SCOPE, thinking, it could get the pay-rates back later, which wouldn't be too far fetched, but that is also another discussion.
Scoop
Last edited by Scoop; 07-04-2010 at 10:20 PM.
07-04-2010, 08:43 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,858
07-05-2010, 03:15 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: 765A
Posts: 98
Shiz, I agree completely. Its an apples vs. oranges argument. The fDAL guys will vote for full restoration of C2K plus inflation with the DC in lieu of moving the scope. Because? They want their contract back. The fNWA guys have a new contract and didn't lose that pay nor the retirement/DC. I'm not endorsing either position. But I can see a battle on this. Nobody wants the scope to remain trending as it has. Everybody on the south side wants to regain lost pay and benefits yet regain some scope. The northies want to regain scope. Should be interesting.
Buzz, are you saying North guys didn't take a pay cut with the "new contract"? I am making $50 less a hr comparing the old NWA contract and the "new contract". Work rules are considerably worse, our frozen pension leaves alot of guys expecting less than if the PBGC took over our plan. I don't know what you were inplying, but former North pilots are not in awe with the "new contract" pay rates and rules.
07-05-2010, 04:14 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: 88B - Loud Pipes Save Lives
Posts: 1,597
07-05-2010, 04:42 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Buzz, are you saying North guys didn't take a pay cut with the "new contract"? I am making $50 less a hr comparing the old NWA contract and the "new contract". Work rules are considerably worse, our frozen pension leaves alot of guys expecting less than if the PBGC took over our plan. I don't know what you were inplying, but former North pilots are not in awe with the "new contract" pay rates and rules.
07-05-2010, 05:15 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: 765A
Posts: 98
I didn't know ALPA national was working towards a common goal? I thought they were trying to serve two plus masters at the same time, hence the mass confusion.
So $50 x 80 hours a month (assuming line holder), you're making roughly $50,000 less a year than before? Or at you making $50 less per hour over 80? or 85, whatever the 1.5x trigger was?
So $50 x 80 hours a month (assuming line holder), you're making roughly $50,000 less a year than before? Or at you making $50 less per hour over 80? or 85, whatever the 1.5x trigger was?
Yes we are making about $50K less a year. $211/ hr down to $161 for A320 Ca. Not even looking at the 1.5 overtime. GS is rarely gonna happen for commuters. Not complaining, just don't want to hear that NW guys are back to our old pay rates with the new DL contract.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
