Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
01-06-2011, 06:34 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
01-06-2011, 06:43 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Until this is rectified, DALPA now looks like they agree with ALPA with regard to scope being a "complicated" issue that needs to be viewed in the context of "national unity." This troubles me greatly. Call it a helmet fire if you want, but will you be the same guy that's going to be screaming about getting furloughed when the next scope sale happens? And will you be the same guy that will send hate out to the "senior pilots" for not caring about scope again?
Carl
01-06-2011, 07:35 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: LAX 350 A
Posts: 564
There is a page on DeltaNet that explains what's being done.
Oh, you want to know where it is? ;-) Go to the IFS page, scroll down and look for "Jan 2011 Fleet Update" then scroll down again, there is a "Click Here" right after the IFS January Fleet Update, it details each type and what's going to be done.
There is actually a lot of interesting information on DeltaNet, it's just a matter of finding it.
Oh, you want to know where it is? ;-) Go to the IFS page, scroll down and look for "Jan 2011 Fleet Update" then scroll down again, there is a "Click Here" right after the IFS January Fleet Update, it details each type and what's going to be done.
There is actually a lot of interesting information on DeltaNet, it's just a matter of finding it.
01-06-2011, 09:47 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,538
Wow, Did you even really read my post? I clearly stated I felt the E170/175 should be mainline. Here is a repost of parts since you did not read all of the first post.
""I believe its with the EMB170/175 and they should be at the mainline.""
""I think a excellent start would be for Delta to bring the E170/175 into the mainline. Some of that flying would be dropped in the transition as no longer cost viable but the net result I think would be a significant gain in mainline jobs. Not 1 for 1 as the jets come over but still a large gain.
This takes pressure off other airlines to allow outsourcing larger jets especially the CAL/UAL deal and a possible future contract at AMR if the NMB ever allows them back into mediation. ""
""I believe its with the EMB170/175 and they should be at the mainline.""
""I think a excellent start would be for Delta to bring the E170/175 into the mainline. Some of that flying would be dropped in the transition as no longer cost viable but the net result I think would be a significant gain in mainline jobs. Not 1 for 1 as the jets come over but still a large gain.
This takes pressure off other airlines to allow outsourcing larger jets especially the CAL/UAL deal and a possible future contract at AMR if the NMB ever allows them back into mediation. ""
The paragraph below was what I was mostly referring to:
The cost savings to outsource flying is always carefully monitored by DALPA. The ALPA economic analysis team is considered by even most airline managements to be the best around. This was especially true in the 1113 contract where the company had to put their case for outsourcing before a judge. The reality is that the company numbers and the EF&A numbers have always been very close. There have been differences but never large. The intangible in outsourcing is how much future revenue is lost due to poor performance of the contractor. The actual costs to outsource verses keeping the flying have rarely been in dispute.
Yeah 76 is the new 50, but other than that its the same basic miscalculation and the company is in bed with common type 118 seat operators (one who also flies 150 seaters) and others with firm orders for semi-next gen 100 seaters. After the shellacking they just got on their less than stellar judgement call, the answer of the company seems to be that had they had those magical additional 26 seats everything would be alright, and the national union that prefers to barely if at all even address the issue while implying that it will take care of itself because the market forces of the smaller RJ's is playing out...at the same time they run huevos to the wall on the maximum number of larger RJ's.
Outsourcing the bottom half of the company was an epic fail, so the solution is 76 is better than 50, move along, nothing to see here?
And all of this, all of it, was at one time endorsed by the company bean counters and ALPA's EF&A. They both got it wrong, by the billions and billions of dollars, and so IMHO neither of them should be viewed with anywhere near the same level of credibility they both once commanded.
If airline managers can't manage their own airline, they have no business in the business. If pilot leadership can't realize that section one trumps every single issue, not because it is more important per say, but because it in essence is every other issue, how can they be trusted to protect careers and "the profession" in the first place?
It isn't even about Monday morning quarterbacking, although I realize that's how it may come across. But it is about admitting where we screwed up, collectively as an industry, a company and a group because if they (management) won't, and/or if we won't admit that the MBA's and EF&A's were wrong about outsourcing, and they got it as wrong as they did with the 50 seater, what is going to happen with the current "armada" of larger outsourced jets and their up to 118 seat common types?
Management: use your "executive talent" to run a real airline, not a virtual one, or you by default don't know what you're doing.
Pilot leadership: with all due respect, its about the jobs, stupid. No matter how much the "bargaining credit" is, we are still burning the furniture to heat the house when we allow it.
So anyway sailing, my original rantishly sounding reply to you wasn't aimed at you but at the notion that EF&A and the beancounters get outsourcing wrong, don't want to admit it, and still say "trust me I'm a doctor" almost as if we didn't notice just how wrong they got it. That's all.
01-06-2011, 11:16 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,014
I love flying for Delta. Honestly it was one of my top two hopes for a Major career. That being said, there is a W2 thread going on on flight info and although the W2 isn't everything it is a big thing.....
Just watch how the carrot comes out when Republic is flying the C series and Delta pilots are given a raise if Delta can just " put our code on those flights"
I hope I am wrong, I guess we will see.
Just watch how the carrot comes out when Republic is flying the C series and Delta pilots are given a raise if Delta can just " put our code on those flights"
I hope I am wrong, I guess we will see.
So glad we did not merge with US Air.
01-07-2011, 01:40 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Still in one
Posts: 784
Now we have the new DALPA chairman not mentioning Scope. And, we now have LEC reps defending the DALPA chairman for NOT mentioning scope.
Until this is rectified, DALPA now looks like they agree with ALPA with regard to scope being a "complicated" issue that needs to be viewed in the context of "national unity." This troubles me greatly. Call it a helmet fire if you want, but will you be the same guy that's going to be screaming about getting furloughed when the next scope sale happens? And will you be the same guy that will send hate out to the "senior pilots" for not caring about scope again?
Carl
Until this is rectified, DALPA now looks like they agree with ALPA with regard to scope being a "complicated" issue that needs to be viewed in the context of "national unity." This troubles me greatly. Call it a helmet fire if you want, but will you be the same guy that's going to be screaming about getting furloughed when the next scope sale happens? And will you be the same guy that will send hate out to the "senior pilots" for not caring about scope again?
Carl
I just see it was a one page intro message, not a manifesto on the policy of the MEC Chairman.
And the policy of the MEC Chairman's is only what the MEC Reps direct and allow. Any failing of the MEC is that of the Reps and what they allowed a strong willed Chairman to do.
If you don't like what your (DTW?) Reps are doing you should have them recalled, or voted out of office. They did that in NYC, the process does work.
Are you going to give the new MEC a chance or are we going to crucify the guy and the entire process in favor of a bunch of angry men with no real plan because he didn't put Scope in bold at the top of his first communique?
Talking tough is easy, getting the work done and building consensus in a democratic body takes more than screaming council updates and pounding ones shoe on the table.
Last edited by TANSTAAFL; 01-07-2011 at 01:53 AM.
01-07-2011, 02:21 AM
Underboob King
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Guppy Commander
Posts: 4,412
I guess I got hung up what I thought you meant WRT the "accuracy" of ALPA's (or anyone's for that matter) EF&A because by its very nature its analysis is short term and extremely static when it comes to something as operationally dynamic as outsourcing half your flights to a convoluted matrix of ACMI RFP low bidders.
The paragraph below was what I was mostly referring to:
The way I read that came across as you basically saying that ALPA/DALPA have accurately weighed the full impact of outsourcing. Not the "we make X per hour and they make X per hour and the difference is X per hour" of course they get that accurate. How could they not. But its the other variables that I think, upon further review, they get an epic fail for misjudging. Not only operationally as previously discussed, but when the so called experts do their super secret drink your ovaltine ninja math and then think they come up with a value for the "savings" of outsourcing, and armed with that "knowledge", they then derive that it will be good for the pilot group and the company, and then, almost immediately in some cases, we see the entire industry reverse course because their recent decision has pooped the bed. The company bleeds, hard. The pilots endured thousands upon thousands of furloughs and downgrades. The company bought multibillion dollar high and sold pennies on the dollar low. And its not that they got it wrong, because anyone can get something wrong. Its that they all got it so terribly wrong precisely after the "trust us, we're EF&A/MBA's" lecture of how us peons could never fathom the sheer genius of their industry prognostication in the first place and then still proceed to keep doing the exact same thing today!
Yeah 76 is the new 50, but other than that its the same basic miscalculation and the company is in bed with common type 118 seat operators (one who also flies 150 seaters) and others with firm orders for semi-next gen 100 seaters. After the shellacking they just got on their less than stellar judgement call, the answer of the company seems to be that had they had those magical additional 26 seats everything would be alright, and the national union that prefers to barely if at all even address the issue while implying that it will take care of itself because the market forces of the smaller RJ's is playing out...at the same time they run huevos to the wall on the maximum number of larger RJ's.
Outsourcing the bottom half of the company was an epic fail, so the solution is 76 is better than 50, move along, nothing to see here?
And all of this, all of it, was at one time endorsed by the company bean counters and ALPA's EF&A. They both got it wrong, by the billions and billions of dollars, and so IMHO neither of them should be viewed with anywhere near the same level of credibility they both once commanded.
If airline managers can't manage their own airline, they have no business in the business. If pilot leadership can't realize that section one trumps every single issue, not because it is more important per say, but because it in essence is every other issue, how can they be trusted to protect careers and "the profession" in the first place?
It isn't even about Monday morning quarterbacking, although I realize that's how it may come across. But it is about admitting where we screwed up, collectively as an industry, a company and a group because if they (management) won't, and/or if we won't admit that the MBA's and EF&A's were wrong about outsourcing, and they got it as wrong as they did with the 50 seater, what is going to happen with the current "armada" of larger outsourced jets and their up to 118 seat common types?
Management: use your "executive talent" to run a real airline, not a virtual one, or you by default don't know what you're doing.
Pilot leadership: with all due respect, its about the jobs, stupid. No matter how much the "bargaining credit" is, we are still burning the furniture to heat the house when we allow it.
So anyway sailing, my original rantishly sounding reply to you wasn't aimed at you but at the notion that EF&A and the beancounters get outsourcing wrong, don't want to admit it, and still say "trust me I'm a doctor" almost as if we didn't notice just how wrong they got it. That's all.
The paragraph below was what I was mostly referring to:
The way I read that came across as you basically saying that ALPA/DALPA have accurately weighed the full impact of outsourcing. Not the "we make X per hour and they make X per hour and the difference is X per hour" of course they get that accurate. How could they not. But its the other variables that I think, upon further review, they get an epic fail for misjudging. Not only operationally as previously discussed, but when the so called experts do their super secret drink your ovaltine ninja math and then think they come up with a value for the "savings" of outsourcing, and armed with that "knowledge", they then derive that it will be good for the pilot group and the company, and then, almost immediately in some cases, we see the entire industry reverse course because their recent decision has pooped the bed. The company bleeds, hard. The pilots endured thousands upon thousands of furloughs and downgrades. The company bought multibillion dollar high and sold pennies on the dollar low. And its not that they got it wrong, because anyone can get something wrong. Its that they all got it so terribly wrong precisely after the "trust us, we're EF&A/MBA's" lecture of how us peons could never fathom the sheer genius of their industry prognostication in the first place and then still proceed to keep doing the exact same thing today!
Yeah 76 is the new 50, but other than that its the same basic miscalculation and the company is in bed with common type 118 seat operators (one who also flies 150 seaters) and others with firm orders for semi-next gen 100 seaters. After the shellacking they just got on their less than stellar judgement call, the answer of the company seems to be that had they had those magical additional 26 seats everything would be alright, and the national union that prefers to barely if at all even address the issue while implying that it will take care of itself because the market forces of the smaller RJ's is playing out...at the same time they run huevos to the wall on the maximum number of larger RJ's.
Outsourcing the bottom half of the company was an epic fail, so the solution is 76 is better than 50, move along, nothing to see here?
And all of this, all of it, was at one time endorsed by the company bean counters and ALPA's EF&A. They both got it wrong, by the billions and billions of dollars, and so IMHO neither of them should be viewed with anywhere near the same level of credibility they both once commanded.
If airline managers can't manage their own airline, they have no business in the business. If pilot leadership can't realize that section one trumps every single issue, not because it is more important per say, but because it in essence is every other issue, how can they be trusted to protect careers and "the profession" in the first place?
It isn't even about Monday morning quarterbacking, although I realize that's how it may come across. But it is about admitting where we screwed up, collectively as an industry, a company and a group because if they (management) won't, and/or if we won't admit that the MBA's and EF&A's were wrong about outsourcing, and they got it as wrong as they did with the 50 seater, what is going to happen with the current "armada" of larger outsourced jets and their up to 118 seat common types?
Management: use your "executive talent" to run a real airline, not a virtual one, or you by default don't know what you're doing.
Pilot leadership: with all due respect, its about the jobs, stupid. No matter how much the "bargaining credit" is, we are still burning the furniture to heat the house when we allow it.
So anyway sailing, my original rantishly sounding reply to you wasn't aimed at you but at the notion that EF&A and the beancounters get outsourcing wrong, don't want to admit it, and still say "trust me I'm a doctor" almost as if we didn't notice just how wrong they got it. That's all.
01-07-2011, 03:07 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Carl;
I suggest waiting a little bit and seeing if the new MEC Master Chair addresses this in a different medium. My guess is that it will and it will be something that cannot be thrown together.
I suggest waiting a little bit and seeing if the new MEC Master Chair addresses this in a different medium. My guess is that it will and it will be something that cannot be thrown together.
01-07-2011, 03:31 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 248
Every time they announce more DCI airplanes coming it's like a thumb in my back, it ****es me off. the count is now up to 12 more 70 seaters coming to DCI. That should **** everyone off.
And I don't always agree with Carl or his manner of delivering his message, but for God's sake, at least he's on our side! Who's side are you on? It doesn't seem like the Delta Air Lines pilot.
01-07-2011, 03:51 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
No Delta pilot likes to see jets coming to DCI, but the simple harsh reality is that these jets are allowed by our PWA. No contract violation has occurred, and are within the limit of 255. As Reroute has pointed out they have about 23 more 70 seat jets they can take delivery of to hit the 255. They are capped at 153 76 seat jest until the mainline fleet count goes over 767. We are over 20 shy of that number right now.
What them buying 70 seat jets means is that either 1) our mainline fleet count will not go above that number for the foreseeable future, or 2) they wanted jets now and our 76 hull limit passed a stress test and they bought what they were allowed to buy.
Yes, we need to make scope a top priority, not just for 2012, but for each and every day we are engaged in talks with our company, IFALPA, and the Skyteam airlines, or anywhere else, Delta Pilot jobs may be at risk, but to date the company is in full compliance with the limitations of section one.
What them buying 70 seat jets means is that either 1) our mainline fleet count will not go above that number for the foreseeable future, or 2) they wanted jets now and our 76 hull limit passed a stress test and they bought what they were allowed to buy.
Yes, we need to make scope a top priority, not just for 2012, but for each and every day we are engaged in talks with our company, IFALPA, and the Skyteam airlines, or anywhere else, Delta Pilot jobs may be at risk, but to date the company is in full compliance with the limitations of section one.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
