Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
01-06-2011, 05:15 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Airport Steaming Over Strip Club Neighbor CBS Dallas / Fort Worth – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of DFW
It's time to reopen the DFW base...
It's time to reopen the DFW base...
01-06-2011, 05:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,412
You must have received a different letter from the Chairman then the one I got via email. In the letter I received he did not have any list of priorities. He only stated one thing and that was that in the lec meetings and lounge visits he heard loud and clear from the pilots that compensation was the primary issue. Having been at one of the lounge visits I can tell you that that is exactly what the pilots stated over and over again. In fact I sadly I did not hear scope mentioned.
Here are his comments.
/////
Our sacrifices in bankruptcy were instrumental in allowing both pre‐merger companies to survive and, despite incremental improvements, you continue to feel the burden of those sacrifices every month.
The union and the pilots banded together to facilitate a historic merger, whose success may never be duplicated, yet our bankruptcy sacrifices have, for the most part, gone unrewarded.
Our sacrifices and efforts have contributed to an industry powerhouse that is now thriving, which was a primary intent of the significant investment in our company. Yet, our compensation has not dramatically improved.
You expect to prosper as our company prospers.
You expect this prosperity to come sooner rather than later in the way of significant contractual gains.
While several sections of our contract need improvement, direct compensation is by far the primary issue.//////
Show me his list of priorities in the letter and where scope was omitted from that list.
Here is another portion of the letter.
////We have a lot of work to do, and I ask that you do your part. Read the material provided and then talk to your elected LEC reps or find a P2P volunteer to provide your feedback about what you like and dont like about these communications, about the issues or about the direction of your union.
In short, we want your input and we are listening./////
As it should be his list of priorities for the contract is not even formed yet. He is asking for your input to form that list. There will be numerous chances for you to do so with the biggest being the contract survey. He should not have a list or priorities at this point. He is doing exactly what should be done. Gather input from the pilots to form a basis for a contract opener that reflects the wishes and desires of the pilot group.
01-06-2011, 05:44 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Bebe Bus De L'Air Assistant Aerial Conveyance Facilitator
Posts: 351
01-06-2011, 05:48 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I do agree it was not a C2012 list of priorities, but the reality is good scope and good pay go hand in had.
01-06-2011, 05:50 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
You must have received a different letter from the Chairman then the one I got via email. In the letter I received he did not have any list of priorities. He only stated one thing and that was that in the lec meetings and lounge visits he heard loud and clear from the pilots that compensation was the primary issue. Having been at one of the lounge visits I can tell you that that is exactly what the pilots stated over and over again. In fact I sadly I did not hear scope mentioned.
Here are his comments.
/////
Our sacrifices in bankruptcy were instrumental in allowing both pre‐merger companies to survive and, despite incremental improvements, you continue to feel the burden of those sacrifices every month.
The union and the pilots banded together to facilitate a historic merger, whose success may never be duplicated, yet our bankruptcy sacrifices have, for the most part, gone unrewarded.
Our sacrifices and efforts have contributed to an industry powerhouse that is now thriving, which was a primary intent of the significant investment in our company. Yet, our compensation has not dramatically improved.
You expect to prosper as our company prospers.
You expect this prosperity to come sooner rather than later in the way of significant contractual gains.
While several sections of our contract need improvement, direct compensation is by far the primary issue.//////
Show me his list of priorities in the letter and where scope was omitted from that list.
Here is another portion of the letter.
////We have a lot of work to do, and I ask that you do your part. Read the material provided and then talk to your elected LEC reps or find a P2P volunteer to provide your feedback about what you like and dont like about these communications, about the issues or about the direction of your union.
In short, we want your input and we are listening./////
As it should be his list of priorities for the contract is not even formed yet. He is asking for your input to form that list. There will be numerous chances for you to do so with the biggest being the contract survey. He should not have a list or priorities at this point. He is doing exactly what should be done. Gather input from the pilots to form a basis for a contract opener that reflects the wishes and desires of the pilot group.
Here are his comments.
/////
Our sacrifices in bankruptcy were instrumental in allowing both pre‐merger companies to survive and, despite incremental improvements, you continue to feel the burden of those sacrifices every month.
The union and the pilots banded together to facilitate a historic merger, whose success may never be duplicated, yet our bankruptcy sacrifices have, for the most part, gone unrewarded.
Our sacrifices and efforts have contributed to an industry powerhouse that is now thriving, which was a primary intent of the significant investment in our company. Yet, our compensation has not dramatically improved.
You expect to prosper as our company prospers.
You expect this prosperity to come sooner rather than later in the way of significant contractual gains.
While several sections of our contract need improvement, direct compensation is by far the primary issue.//////
Show me his list of priorities in the letter and where scope was omitted from that list.
Here is another portion of the letter.
////We have a lot of work to do, and I ask that you do your part. Read the material provided and then talk to your elected LEC reps or find a P2P volunteer to provide your feedback about what you like and dont like about these communications, about the issues or about the direction of your union.
In short, we want your input and we are listening./////
As it should be his list of priorities for the contract is not even formed yet. He is asking for your input to form that list. There will be numerous chances for you to do so with the biggest being the contract survey. He should not have a list or priorities at this point. He is doing exactly what should be done. Gather input from the pilots to form a basis for a contract opener that reflects the wishes and desires of the pilot group.
The new MEC Chairman states clearly that we are way short of what we should be getting, is setting up ways to communicate better and gather from the membership as much info as possible so that a clear set of member driven goals can be set.
This same "vocal opposition" then complains that the new MEC Chairman isn't setting the priorities. WE were supposed to give our LEC and MEC our input and the LEC's and MEC get together and decide the priorities, then tell the MEC Chairman to execute those priorities.
T.O. is collecting information in order to allow the will of the pilots/LEC's be his guide.
Are we truly going to continue to b!tch and complain no matter what is done?
The first letter was a huge helping of: "I'm hearing you, I want to hear more from you, I'm ****ed that we're underpaid too! I'll use all the tools that I can to go get what the pilots want (and more), so I'm going to give you avenues to let us know exactly what you want!"
I guess some people just aren't happy until they aren't happy.
01-06-2011, 05:51 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Shiz that is correct, and I do expect this MEC to take its direction from the pilots. T.O. hears the pilots and will engage every resource at his disposal to further their agenda.
01-06-2011, 05:56 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
I have a lot of respect for ALPA's EF&A department WRT many things, but they are not infallible either. While I bet they have some very accurate cost numbers on some static things, I believe those numbers do not nearly take into consideration the multitude of unintended consequences. Sure they can show how outsourcing to DCI carrier #8 compares to DCi carriers #1 though 7 and how they all compare to mainline. However I do not believe that ALPA's EF&A department, and certainlly not the company's esteemed and accredited geniuses come anywhere close to calculating the full ramifications and unintended consequences of their outsourcing schemes.
When DCI #3 cancells a flight because they don't have a flight attendant even though DCI carriers #4, 6 and 8 do, does that make EF&A's initial analysys? I doubt it. When DCI #2 needs a tire but doesn't have one, but DCI #4 right next door has spares but its a different type of aircraft, does EF&A calculate that? You mentioned the lost customer issue which is valid, but the unintended cost creep of numbers that may look solid under EF&A's microscope, but based on a low ball bid that even a cut throat underbidder can't honor because they bid below costs to get the work and then the operation gets trashed, suddenly the numbers move. Many DCI carriers go through the binge and purge cycle of crisis hiring only to furlough only to recall only to have no idea how to plan and there is a cost to that and I don't think ALPA's EF&A has a clue because no one does until it happens. DCI litigation and injunctions were never in the initial cost out either, but they are very much real. And what about the cost when a megalomanic in charge of a large portion of DCI doesn't get his way one day and pulls an IndyAir with a Billion dollars in the bank? Even if its not successful, how much revenue will it bleed us before its put down? EF&A numbers have been proven comically invalid on all those glorious 50 seaters that the business travel supposedly was in love with and overnight became massive liabilities but the company had long term binding agreements with ACMI carriers to fly them.
Can someone do simple math like mainline would cost X$ to fly the EMB170 and RAH will cost Y$ to fly it. The deal is inked, the bonuses fly, and all the sudden we are subsidizing a competitor who best case is only a nominal negative pressure on yields in certain markets, and worst case a lot more than that some day. Ditto for all the outsourcing schemes we're in bed with.
I bet Boeing's EF&A geniuses got pats on the back from all their white papers about how glorious their cost saving outsourcing for the 787 was going to be. Real numbers, real dollars! Whoops.
Sorry but I will never be convinced that an airline that outsources half its flights is correct in doing so. I think its a pee poor business practice and the company and ALPA need to both come up with a better formula to predict its disasterous costs and inintended consequences. Not just operationally either. Watch as outsourcing present and future negatively effects our section 6 dynamics in the not too distant future. Even if we get a "big raise" it may be less than what we would have gotten had we not outsourced, and/or we may be asked or even severely pressured to outsource more to get a sizeable fraction of the restoration we are owed, which will, of course, create even more negative pressure years down the road. And I very much doubt ALPA's EF&A takes that fully into account. They haven't so far, that's for sure.
When DCI #3 cancells a flight because they don't have a flight attendant even though DCI carriers #4, 6 and 8 do, does that make EF&A's initial analysys? I doubt it. When DCI #2 needs a tire but doesn't have one, but DCI #4 right next door has spares but its a different type of aircraft, does EF&A calculate that? You mentioned the lost customer issue which is valid, but the unintended cost creep of numbers that may look solid under EF&A's microscope, but based on a low ball bid that even a cut throat underbidder can't honor because they bid below costs to get the work and then the operation gets trashed, suddenly the numbers move. Many DCI carriers go through the binge and purge cycle of crisis hiring only to furlough only to recall only to have no idea how to plan and there is a cost to that and I don't think ALPA's EF&A has a clue because no one does until it happens. DCI litigation and injunctions were never in the initial cost out either, but they are very much real. And what about the cost when a megalomanic in charge of a large portion of DCI doesn't get his way one day and pulls an IndyAir with a Billion dollars in the bank? Even if its not successful, how much revenue will it bleed us before its put down? EF&A numbers have been proven comically invalid on all those glorious 50 seaters that the business travel supposedly was in love with and overnight became massive liabilities but the company had long term binding agreements with ACMI carriers to fly them.
Can someone do simple math like mainline would cost X$ to fly the EMB170 and RAH will cost Y$ to fly it. The deal is inked, the bonuses fly, and all the sudden we are subsidizing a competitor who best case is only a nominal negative pressure on yields in certain markets, and worst case a lot more than that some day. Ditto for all the outsourcing schemes we're in bed with.
I bet Boeing's EF&A geniuses got pats on the back from all their white papers about how glorious their cost saving outsourcing for the 787 was going to be. Real numbers, real dollars! Whoops.
Sorry but I will never be convinced that an airline that outsources half its flights is correct in doing so. I think its a pee poor business practice and the company and ALPA need to both come up with a better formula to predict its disasterous costs and inintended consequences. Not just operationally either. Watch as outsourcing present and future negatively effects our section 6 dynamics in the not too distant future. Even if we get a "big raise" it may be less than what we would have gotten had we not outsourced, and/or we may be asked or even severely pressured to outsource more to get a sizeable fraction of the restoration we are owed, which will, of course, create even more negative pressure years down the road. And I very much doubt ALPA's EF&A takes that fully into account. They haven't so far, that's for sure.
01-06-2011, 06:27 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Speaking of the 9, let's talk about the 9. Guys flying it want to share some insight and thoughts about the bird in case there is an ATL base? A friend and I were talking about it today and it'd be nice to hear some thoughts of the transition back to non-FMS, trip QOL and other pertinent line pilot stuff. Thinking about it, maybe on this AE maybe on the next.
Since you've flown the 88 (and I also flew it for a really long time), here is the downside from my perspective. Delta has done a really poor job of standardizing the DC-9 operation with Delta's way of doing things... especially in terms of standardizing it with the MD-88. Because the two airplanes are almost identical in many ways, it would have been really easy to standardize things like preflight flow patterns and certain procedures. They have not done this. If you have been flying the 88 and are going to the 9 (or vice versa), you will have to "unlearn" quite a few things and learn a completely different way of doing some things.
I think going back to steam gauges really comes down to a personal decision. I flew the 9 at TWA and the only FMS aircraft I've ever flown is the 88. While I love having the map and all the automation, I never really let my mindset get away from basic instrument flying when I was on the 88. It was very easy for me to go back to the DC-9 (except for the "different" way of doing some things). If it's been a long time since you've flown basic "six pack" steam gauges and you are really used to all the automation on something like the 88, it might be very painful to go back to that. I had a friend of mine who went through the transition from 88 Captain to DC-9 Captain last year. He went back to the 88 as soon as he could. During his DC-9 training, I remember one text message he sent me. It said something to the effect of "make it stop... I hate this airplane!" Again, I like the airplane and am enjoying flying it. Your mileage may vary.
The trips are very similar to 88 trips. A lot of hub and spoke, mostly out of ATL. It seems like the turn times are a little shorter on a lot of the legs on the -9. But I haven't looked at the 88 trips lately. Maybe they have shorter turn times now too? Anyway, the short turn times can be frustrating at times because we tend to change airplanes every time we come through a hub (usually ATL).
Now... here's the worst part, IMO. The heat in the summer! Holy cow... I've never sweated so much in an airplane in my life! (It does serve as a pretty good weight loss program, though.
) Most of the stations will not hook up conditioned air. Most of the gates in ATL don't even have hoses that will reach the air hookup on the tail. The APU is much weaker than the APU on the 88. You can generally only run one pack off the APU... or two packs if you use the AIR COND COLDER switch. The air flow is minimal (even with both engines AND the APU)... and on a hot day, there is just no way to keep the cabin from getting warm or even hot. I'm really big on fuel savings, efficiency, single-engine taxi, etc. But I found that, during the summer, I had to taxi with both engines and the APU to keep the cabin from getting unbearably hot... and even sometimes that wasn't enough!
01-06-2011, 06:30 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Top
Posts: 472
01-06-2011, 06:43 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
