Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-16-2010, 11:58 AM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
09-16-2010, 12:01 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I understand that, I just hope the powers that be would decide that way.
I agree that it'd be tremendous power but do you think you would have to draw a line in the sand at some point and say as ALPA National we're going to do everything we can to stop scope errosion and whipsaws. Could ALPA national ever exhort that kind of pressure on individual mainline MECs? Or even set forth what they believe to be minimum pay rates or you don't get to be in ALPA?
I agree that it'd be tremendous power but do you think you would have to draw a line in the sand at some point and say as ALPA National we're going to do everything we can to stop scope errosion and whipsaws. Could ALPA national ever exhort that kind of pressure on individual mainline MECs? Or even set forth what they believe to be minimum pay rates or you don't get to be in ALPA?
Also I do think that a ALPA President that had his head screwed on straight may not sign a PWA that is bad for the group. Question is what is bad for the group? SJS take backs that reduce regionals, or SJS that sells more seats to the regionals? I know the answer I deem to be correct, and for that reason, there are many things that needed to be reworked in the ALPA Constitution and By Laws.
I have to admit, I hadn't heard this. Are they trying to get on with Star? In a way, if that is it, thats a good thing. You've got to mega regionals running out there and you're (as in mainline carriers) funding them turning into real bonafide competition. Its an eye opener.
I'm sure Delta will never enter into some of the DCI contracts its in now, but I'm surprised they don't start up a whipsaw airline somewhere to shift flying and draw down RAH and SKW.
So I'll quiet down, but I think we need to be ready for whats over the horizon that you and I have talked about a lot on here and that is "Ladies and Gentleman, welcome aboard SkyTeam Aliiance brought to you by [Aeroflot, or AeroMexico, or AirEuropa, AirFrance/KLM, Alitalia, China Southern, Delta Air Lines, Czech Airlines- where your Captain wants all of our FA's to come from, Kenya Airways, Korean Air, Tarom Air Transoprt, or Vietnam Airlines].
09-16-2010, 12:01 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: bartender
Posts: 295
You mean like what is happening to the junior pilots currently under the AE system?
I don't think that you can look at just the bidding system separately. There are other things in each of the contracts that allowed the system to work effectively and relatively efficiently. ALV for the entire fleet does not allow the company as much flexibility in creating schedules without as much dh penalty. The NWA system allowed for the monthly maxes to vary by base/category/seat. I really don't care which system we use (I actually prefer the monthly system however), but no matter what system we use, there is no reason that we shouldn't be allowed to have more visibility into what everyone else is bidding (the NWA system was great in that it allowed you to see exactly who was bidding what and where that seat was in there overall preferences).
I don't think that you can look at just the bidding system separately. There are other things in each of the contracts that allowed the system to work effectively and relatively efficiently. ALV for the entire fleet does not allow the company as much flexibility in creating schedules without as much dh penalty. The NWA system allowed for the monthly maxes to vary by base/category/seat. I really don't care which system we use (I actually prefer the monthly system however), but no matter what system we use, there is no reason that we shouldn't be allowed to have more visibility into what everyone else is bidding (the NWA system was great in that it allowed you to see exactly who was bidding what and where that seat was in there overall preferences).
09-16-2010, 12:10 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Well stated. Persuasive argument.
But I think we should be careful about going "all in" with Moak's constructive engagement.
Never forget who we are "engaging". They are not our friends.
The jury is still out on Moak's tenure at DALPA. "Constructive engagement" is a work in progress. Our pension is still gone and our wages are still half what they were. I'll agree Lee has been an effective leader. But to what end? Peace and harmony won't pay my mortgage.
But I think we should be careful about going "all in" with Moak's constructive engagement.
Never forget who we are "engaging". They are not our friends.
The jury is still out on Moak's tenure at DALPA. "Constructive engagement" is a work in progress. Our pension is still gone and our wages are still half what they were. I'll agree Lee has been an effective leader. But to what end? Peace and harmony won't pay my mortgage.
Our next contract will be the true barometer against which to judge the policies of Moak's group. I agree with Alfaromeo that there is a chance we will get something we don't like after Moak. The field will be wide-open for snake-oil salesmen, people who want to export the old "book" disputes from the fNWA, the malcontents from the South side that want poer back just because it is power, etc.
There will be plenty of suckers to line up and buy themselves a little bit of that snake-oil. People will eageraly "buy" lots and lots of cheap promises as a hedge against a bad contract. Prices will go up, yield will go down. The con game will be revealed, and the market for Delta pilots will collapse.
AMR, in reverse.
Maybe.
Maybe not.
09-16-2010, 12:12 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
No it is not a good thing. Places like RJET can sign life agreements with Star, One World, and Skyteam that could very well circumnavigate every mainlines Section One scope previsions. That would be the end game. A carve out of 150 seats and below that these Mega Regionals would slowly take from the Flagship carriers of these alliances.
At some point, whatever savings you might obtain by outsourcing to a regional is completely washed away not only for us and management but for those who own stock- the ones who count the most. And to me, the only proper defense to that is to go back on offense and put worthy small jets and big props back on property and remain in house.
However, there is a lot more bad than good and you spelled it out already.
09-16-2010, 12:17 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
No. And yet, yes.
SKYW's Pearl Harbor on the industry when they chose to willingly "deal management an ace" in an act of agressive predatory bargaining was one such example. Although it was technically done outside Section 6, the cause and effect, the before and the after, remain the same.
Then came the Republix Air Group, and that was Section 6. Throw the FO's under the bus, deal the same "ace" SkyWest did only on steroids (all the way up to 100 seaters they didn't even have for many years, all for cut rate rates) in a specific bid to win current and future RFP's. And they were quite successful, to the detriment of other ALPA regionals both in and out of Sec. 6. Although in Section 6, they were IBT and not ALPA, but to emphasise that point is splitting hairs and missing the broader point.
Other regionals, in Section 6 and in ALPA, have crafted and in many cases ratified CBA/PWA's within the lowest bidder RFP paradigm and along the lines of predatory bargaining (from the perspective of others...although each group probably considers each act more "preservational bargaining"...alas there is a chicken and egg paradigm in all this). In many cases, concessionary ALPA Sec. 6 CBA's were ratified even in the face of profitable companies and in many cases while embedded within a broad and growing regional sector.
The only reason that is possible in the first place, of course, are the (mostly) ALPA Sec. 6 shortcomings of the mainline CBA/PWA's, which not only "allowed" such race to the bottom bidding but set the stage to guarantee it would have to happen.
There is plenty of blame to go around, at the mainline and at the regional levels. Yet it will be up to the mainline MEC's and no one else to identify the core issues and then fix them, as well as deal with the heavy lifting in doing so (i.e. it will not be free).
Not that long ago at all, the vast majority of regionals were either all props, or prop operators with a few jets. Almost all of those jets were 50 seaters. and yet now half of mainline block hours (read: pilot jobs) are outsourced to regionals for perpetually depressed wages and working conditions and most regionals are mostly or all jets, with 70-76 seaters (and up?) rapidly becoming the new norm.
If the next generation of 100-120 seaters (etc) wind up being outsourced at the regionals, will it be "because" the regionals obtain that flying through Section 6? No. The mainline pilot groups will have to allow it first. Yet, yes. Because the regional pilot groups will have to agree to fly it not only cheaper than the mainline, but cheaper than other regionals. It won't matter if a given regional is ALPA, IBT, in-house or non-union, and it really won't even matter if they are in Section 6.
Not claiming I have all the answers or even trying to nit pick at your point. I know you were just pointing out a technicality, and I agree you are technically right. But, as you know, even looking at that technicality mandates a broader evaluation of how it even entered the discussion in the first place.
SKYW's Pearl Harbor on the industry when they chose to willingly "deal management an ace" in an act of agressive predatory bargaining was one such example. Although it was technically done outside Section 6, the cause and effect, the before and the after, remain the same.
Then came the Republix Air Group, and that was Section 6. Throw the FO's under the bus, deal the same "ace" SkyWest did only on steroids (all the way up to 100 seaters they didn't even have for many years, all for cut rate rates) in a specific bid to win current and future RFP's. And they were quite successful, to the detriment of other ALPA regionals both in and out of Sec. 6. Although in Section 6, they were IBT and not ALPA, but to emphasise that point is splitting hairs and missing the broader point.
Other regionals, in Section 6 and in ALPA, have crafted and in many cases ratified CBA/PWA's within the lowest bidder RFP paradigm and along the lines of predatory bargaining (from the perspective of others...although each group probably considers each act more "preservational bargaining"...alas there is a chicken and egg paradigm in all this). In many cases, concessionary ALPA Sec. 6 CBA's were ratified even in the face of profitable companies and in many cases while embedded within a broad and growing regional sector.
The only reason that is possible in the first place, of course, are the (mostly) ALPA Sec. 6 shortcomings of the mainline CBA/PWA's, which not only "allowed" such race to the bottom bidding but set the stage to guarantee it would have to happen.
There is plenty of blame to go around, at the mainline and at the regional levels. Yet it will be up to the mainline MEC's and no one else to identify the core issues and then fix them, as well as deal with the heavy lifting in doing so (i.e. it will not be free).
Not that long ago at all, the vast majority of regionals were either all props, or prop operators with a few jets. Almost all of those jets were 50 seaters. and yet now half of mainline block hours (read: pilot jobs) are outsourced to regionals for perpetually depressed wages and working conditions and most regionals are mostly or all jets, with 70-76 seaters (and up?) rapidly becoming the new norm.
If the next generation of 100-120 seaters (etc) wind up being outsourced at the regionals, will it be "because" the regionals obtain that flying through Section 6? No. The mainline pilot groups will have to allow it first. Yet, yes. Because the regional pilot groups will have to agree to fly it not only cheaper than the mainline, but cheaper than other regionals. It won't matter if a given regional is ALPA, IBT, in-house or non-union, and it really won't even matter if they are in Section 6.
Not claiming I have all the answers or even trying to nit pick at your point. I know you were just pointing out a technicality, and I agree you are technically right. But, as you know, even looking at that technicality mandates a broader evaluation of how it even entered the discussion in the first place.
You actually help argue my point. My main point is that ALPA represented groups are kept in check by the larger National association of pilot groups that are ALPA.
I know what you are getting at with the references above, by the point that you agree with is, that to date, no ALPA regional has gone in forced a holding company then the parent company it turn to the fire to demand and receive larger jets without a prior concession of this flying from a mainline pilot group.
The only place where a judge has ordered more RJ flying to a regional is AMR and AMR Eagle which are two separate Associations. One under ALPA and one not. In fact, I am not even sure you would have see this or the flow fight or RJ case if AMR was ALPA. ALPA National probably would have never allowed a regional unit to go after these sort of issues if both groups were ALPA.
It further illustrates my statement that it is important to keep and not fracture the Regional and Mainline flying represented by the a larger association at the national level.
The problem with IBT or a third Union representing regional interests is that it allows an all out war with the mainline bargaining unit. My point is that splitting off Regionals from Mainline at National may have effects that many did not even envision. The regional would be free to flight with all their might for any and all flying, going after the mainline bargaining unit as well as the mainline carriers.
As you say mainline pilot groups will always have to allow the flying before a regional airline can be awarded it. Being awarded this flying is a lot different than having it protected or won in a section six cycle. It would require a regional pilot group to actually reach though a holding company to the parent company and then it to the mainline carriers structure to force the issue. That cannot happen due to the exclusivity that all mainline carriers pilot groups' enjoy with their carriers. Start dorking with associations that represent a given group and you could quite easily see this dynamic and relationship change. Exclusivity may be lost. That is a true Danger.
09-16-2010, 12:20 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I should have been more specific, in a way, there is something good to come of that and that is that management teams will need to realize that they can no longer ignore the fact that their outsource "partners" are now taking contracts of their own because, ironically, they're cheaper.
At some point, whatever savings you might obtain by outsourcing to a regional is completely washed away not only for us and management but for those who own stock- the ones who count the most. And to me, the only proper defense to that is to go back on offense and put worthy small jets and big props back on property and remain in house.
However, there is a lot more bad than good and you spelled it out already.
At some point, whatever savings you might obtain by outsourcing to a regional is completely washed away not only for us and management but for those who own stock- the ones who count the most. And to me, the only proper defense to that is to go back on offense and put worthy small jets and big props back on property and remain in house.
However, there is a lot more bad than good and you spelled it out already.
We will see what the new rest rules do in regard to the break even and benefits of outsourced flying. I am sure the push will be for more seats and larger airframes. Part of me expects that given the resolve of many of our association's leaders the wave may in fact break.
09-16-2010, 12:20 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
I'm going to be flying tonight for the first time since the book came out. Check your NOTAM's boyz! Coming to an airspace near you!
09-16-2010, 12:25 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Check;
If you have not figured out I am not talking about a man or a single candidate, I am talking about the vision one needs to have to lead this association. I could care less who the man or woman is, I care about the ideas, goals, and resolve.
If a candidate takes a strong position on reforming the ALPA structure (mainline v regional voting powers), states there is a strong benefit of unity and keeping the regionals in our association, understands what this industry has coming, and is willing to communicate these issues and his/her goals to the National group on the national stage, I am more than willing to support that person.
It is the ideas that get the vote not the person.
09-16-2010, 12:38 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
FOX News alert: Neil Cavuto is going to do a piece about drinking, pill popping commercial airline pilots in the next few minutes. No idea what his approach will be...just heard him pitching it, however.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
