Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-03-2011, 11:30 AM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
If I was the 88 A I was talking to a week ago I'd tell you about 1996 and who I think DALPA's primary concern is. And that's senior pilots (or at least as senior as the decision makers are at ALPA). If what he talked about was correct (especially when it came to lump sum retirements) then it would similar to what we saw at Continental Express when our ALPA negotiated to end the flow to CAL but guess what, the last qualified person was just junior of the lowest ALPA pilot negotiating the end of the flow. You take care of your own in other words.
Now that might draw the ire of PG or Slow and by all means I just throw it out there for the sake of the dialogue and a retort is always encouraged here. Otherwise, the thread would die.
Now that might draw the ire of PG or Slow and by all means I just throw it out there for the sake of the dialogue and a retort is always encouraged here. Otherwise, the thread would die.
Long ago and far away we had Bill Brown and the 96 contract with the 500 early outs. The MEC in those days was completely and totally corrupt. It can and does happen right here at Mother D. Take a look at the "Ryan Report" some day.
05-03-2011, 11:38 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: A330
Posts: 216
Delta Domestic departures by hub. (Based on July 06)
][IMG]
[/IMG]
][IMG]
[/IMG]
05-03-2011, 11:58 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Well I can tell you that when I walk in the crew room, I would say that at least five pilots are looking at this board.
It is simple. We have trips together that have overnights. Educate yourself, and then talk amongst your crew when you are on the layo.
I have been very encouraged by the pilots I have talked to. All of them see scope as crucial to any long term contractual gains.
It is simple. We have trips together that have overnights. Educate yourself, and then talk amongst your crew when you are on the layo.
I have been very encouraged by the pilots I have talked to. All of them see scope as crucial to any long term contractual gains.
Seems like the pilot group is always on the short end of the stick when contract interpretation comes up.
If I understand it correctly, as far as the Republic discussion goes, it does not violate our scope restrictions because Republic is considered a holding company and not considered as single-carrier status?
05-03-2011, 12:12 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
While I think scope is paramount in the next contract, I think we need to get alot better about actually enforcing what's in the contract. I feel like we are always the side of that table that works/negotiates in good faith which is rarely ever reciprocated during tense contract negotiations.
Seems like the pilot group is always on the short end of the stick when contract interpretation comes up.
If I understand it correctly, as far as the Republic discussion goes, it does not violate our scope restrictions because Republic is considered a holding company and not considered as single-carrier status?
Seems like the pilot group is always on the short end of the stick when contract interpretation comes up.
If I understand it correctly, as far as the Republic discussion goes, it does not violate our scope restrictions because Republic is considered a holding company and not considered as single-carrier status?
Point is that Republic Holdings is acting like the air carrier, not just their certificates. Per the definition we use in the PWA (CFR Part 49's definition of "Air Carrier), it can be deemed that there have been significant changes in the way Republic Holdings operates, and therefore the holding company has become the air carrier, and is the single transport system.
You can also deduce that the holding company has many of the HR functions, including pilot selection and hiring. They also direct their certificates to perform branded flying outside of a Capacity Purchase Agreement (CPA: Republic Airlines and CHQ are doing branded operations for Frontier; F9)
05-03-2011, 12:13 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
While I think scope is paramount in the next contract, I think we need to get alot better about actually enforcing what's in the contract. I feel like we are always the side of that table that works/negotiates in good faith which is rarely ever reciprocated during tense contract negotiations.
Seems like the pilot group is always on the short end of the stick when contract interpretation comes up.
If I understand it correctly, as far as the Republic discussion goes, it does not violate our scope restrictions because Republic is considered a holding company and not considered as single-carrier status?
Seems like the pilot group is always on the short end of the stick when contract interpretation comes up.
If I understand it correctly, as far as the Republic discussion goes, it does not violate our scope restrictions because Republic is considered a holding company and not considered as single-carrier status?
When UPS negotiates their contract, they videotape all of the back and forth - they nail down what is meant and expected...pretty enforceable.
05-03-2011, 12:15 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
No, I am not saying that at all. I was just answering the question about how the guys with long trips are able to effectively sell back their vacation. One cannot do that in a category that has a preponderance of short.. 3-4 day trips. They are not truly selling it back, but the net result is the same.. they are not dropping trips back into the pot.
05-03-2011, 12:27 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 142
Pilot Frog
Regarding OE schedule - Yes on XX days, NOT on Golden Days...if so, you may have to call and politely decline.
Regarding OE schedule - Yes on XX days, NOT on Golden Days...if so, you may have to call and politely decline.
05-03-2011, 01:00 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 710
I think you're spot on here.
I'm not going to change the construct of your argument, just the target. ATL is mecca, but I don't think DALPA gives it whatever they want. This after all is the base that saw the 764 flying slashed in half and replaced by the 330 which isn't based here. That kind of slashing moves a lot of people down and out of a category. I flew with a lot of 88 Captains last year getting MD'd back to the right seat of whatever. The 320 and 9 are also here doing "ATL" flying and they rightfully probably hate it
as MSP, MEM, DTW and CVG are better facilities.
This is also the base where it took a significant acquisition of 90s before they'd allow the 88 pilots to be qualified on it. Had it not been for the surge of 90s only CVG, MSP and probably NYC pilots would fly the quality of trips that comes with the 90 (such as what the SLC pilots had) versus slugging it out in the 88 east of the Mississippi River to those awesome hotspots like the Dayton long and short overnight.
If I was the 88 A I was talking to a week ago I'd tell you about 1996 and who I think DALPA's primary concern is. And that's senior pilots (or at least as senior as the decision makers are at ALPA). If what he talked about was correct (especially when it came to lump sum retirements) then it would similar to what we saw at Continental Express when our ALPA negotiated to end the flow to CAL but guess what, the last qualified person was just junior of the lowest ALPA pilot negotiating the end of the flow. You take care of your own in other words.
Now that might draw the ire of PG or Slow and by all means I just throw it out there for the sake of the dialogue and a retort is always encouraged here. Otherwise, the thread would die. I don't think ATL is the beneficiary of DALPA work but rather its just a pretty big facility, well not pretty, just big. If you saw a 744 base here while there is no 744 flying, that'd be a red flag for sure. But I do think LAX and the west coast don't get what they should get in terms of protection from the detrimental effects of Alaska. Let's hope New's source is right and that's being reviewed. What's good for LAX and SEA is good for ATL, MSP, MEM, NYC, DTW and CVG.
I'm not going to change the construct of your argument, just the target. ATL is mecca, but I don't think DALPA gives it whatever they want. This after all is the base that saw the 764 flying slashed in half and replaced by the 330 which isn't based here. That kind of slashing moves a lot of people down and out of a category. I flew with a lot of 88 Captains last year getting MD'd back to the right seat of whatever. The 320 and 9 are also here doing "ATL" flying and they rightfully probably hate it
as MSP, MEM, DTW and CVG are better facilities. This is also the base where it took a significant acquisition of 90s before they'd allow the 88 pilots to be qualified on it. Had it not been for the surge of 90s only CVG, MSP and probably NYC pilots would fly the quality of trips that comes with the 90 (such as what the SLC pilots had) versus slugging it out in the 88 east of the Mississippi River to those awesome hotspots like the Dayton long and short overnight.
If I was the 88 A I was talking to a week ago I'd tell you about 1996 and who I think DALPA's primary concern is. And that's senior pilots (or at least as senior as the decision makers are at ALPA). If what he talked about was correct (especially when it came to lump sum retirements) then it would similar to what we saw at Continental Express when our ALPA negotiated to end the flow to CAL but guess what, the last qualified person was just junior of the lowest ALPA pilot negotiating the end of the flow. You take care of your own in other words.
Now that might draw the ire of PG or Slow and by all means I just throw it out there for the sake of the dialogue and a retort is always encouraged here. Otherwise, the thread would die.
I don't think ATL is the beneficiary of DALPA work but rather its just a pretty big facility, well not pretty, just big. If you saw a 744 base here while there is no 744 flying, that'd be a red flag for sure. But I do think LAX and the west coast don't get what they should get in terms of protection from the detrimental effects of Alaska. Let's hope New's source is right and that's being reviewed. What's good for LAX and SEA is good for ATL, MSP, MEM, NYC, DTW and CVG.
05-03-2011, 01:07 PM
West Side
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: A330
Posts: 45
Ok, so I am sitting on 7 weeks of no flying after converting from Domestic 767 to the ER and I just got a call for simulator landing currency. Anybody know if this is required as my next trip has to be with a LCP on TOE. I will go if required, but seems silly.
05-03-2011, 01:32 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: 320B
Posts: 781
No, I am not saying that at all. I was just answering the question about how the guys with long trips are able to effectively sell back their vacation. One cannot do that in a category that has a preponderance of short.. 3-4 day trips. They are not truly selling it back, but the net result is the same.. they are not dropping trips back into the pot.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
