Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-30-2011, 11:50 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Delta Air Elite is a violation of our contract. Republic holdings is something you don't like but not a violation of the contract. Even if it were a violation and we won in the grievance process it would not have any major impact on pilot manning at Delta. Arbitrators are always sensitive to the operations of the airlines. They would give management a time frame to come into compliance with their ruling. Probably 12 months or so. Management would simply move all those RJ's to other carriers. It would take them a matter of days to rehire outsourced lift. They would have to end up paying out a bunch of cash to Republic to cancel the contract however the airframes would still be flying for Delta without Delta pilots.
Our contract gives a timeframe for DAL to be in compliance with our contract for scope violations, not an arbitrator.
I just am adding this edit: If ALPA finds there is a scope violation our contract gives the get well timeframe UNLESS ALPA decides they would rather not enforce that part of section 1 also.
Last edited by scambo1; 05-30-2011 at 03:27 PM.
05-30-2011, 12:03 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,038
Alpha, ASA had scope over its code. Delta bought its code and it became Delta's. ALPA voted not to apply merger and fragmentation policy (after certain defined terms were changed at the request of the Major MEC's & it was rumored the Delta pilots threatened to leave ALPA had the vote not gone their way).
Management wanted the merger with NWA because of the jihad which would have erupted if they had tried to run it as an alter ego division as they had done before with their regional carriers. When they bought ASA, management did not quite know what to expect, but they received the "all clear" as ALPA climbed on board with the concept of outsourcing, justified through interest based bargaining. That was a mistake and it did not harm the regional guys. Failure to enforce scope harmed Delta pilots. Let me explain.
One result of not merging ASA & Comair was Delta pilots being furloughed while the regionals hired rapidly to replace them. Even you must admit, that is CLEAR evidence of a scope failure when one division of Delta flushes and hires those furloughed pilots to replace themselves at much lower wages. That is what happens when union leadership decides against unity.
Rinse, wash, repeat = Compass. The effect will be the same on junior Delta pilots.
All pilots deserve the same representational effort from our union (or we might as well just not bother).
Frankly, posts like yours typify why we keep making the same mistakes and getting the same results. Our MEC Admin has not learned anything from past errors and seems intent on proving they were right rather than looking at the numbers from the last decade and getting back to the basics of representation. People want the DPA to clean sweep the MEC. While I think that is a mistake, what does a member do when the union is run by people who are against unity?
Look at our election to the Merger Committee - what a head slapper. Good guy, intelligent, but against the NWA merger and integral in divesting Compass. Isn't the point of a merger committee ... UNITY?
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 05-30-2011 at 12:34 PM.
05-30-2011, 02:07 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Posts: 1,044
05-30-2011, 02:39 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
OK, let me rephrase. First, you have to assume that transitioning from our current system to longevity based pay is a zero sum game. It's just a different way of allocating a fixed pot of cash. Or, if you want to assume we get massive pay increases, such that a 777A doesn't take a paycut, then that means his raise is much less than those junior to him. So either, way the math works out the same.
We have 34 airplanes (777 and 747) at the top of the pay scale. Out of 742 (according to APC). That means 4.5% of our pilots are at the top of the pay scale. Under a longevity system, that means your seniority number would have to be roughly in the top 4.5% (#559 out of 12,200) to equal that pay. Yet, we have guys with seniority number of 2200+ on the 777.
As for my thoughts overall on longevity pay, several things come to mind:
1) You're not producing any more revenue for DAL just because you've been here longer, so the economic case to be made is tougher. Longevity based pay is also how ALPA ends up with $70,000/yr secretaries, which you acknowledge is ridiculous, as do I.
2) By removing a significant incentive for moving to different aircraft, you have the effect of flattening the seniority on each aircraft, and thereby reducing your options from a quality of life perspective. It would be like we have 1-2 different categories and that is it. Whereas now, a pilot with a seniority of, for example, 2000, has the choice of:
a) Super senior on the M88
b) Senior on the M88
c) Average seniority on the 767
d) Not too senior on the 764
e) Junior but able to hold the 777
So this pilot has almost limitless choices to pick just the right mix of quality of life, trips, and pay. Eliminate the pay differential, and you basically only have domestic and international as a choice, and with DAL mixing categories even that gets blurred.
Meaning, when you first get hired, you can count on 5 years of reserve, followed by 5 years of moderate seniority as an F/O, followed by 5 years of good seniority as an F/O or reserve as a Captain. Then same once you make Captain. Under the current system, if willing to stay on a small aircraft, you can be very senior fairly quickly. That option disappears under longevity based pay. That's my primary problem with it.
We have 34 airplanes (777 and 747) at the top of the pay scale. Out of 742 (according to APC). That means 4.5% of our pilots are at the top of the pay scale. Under a longevity system, that means your seniority number would have to be roughly in the top 4.5% (#559 out of 12,200) to equal that pay. Yet, we have guys with seniority number of 2200+ on the 777.
As for my thoughts overall on longevity pay, several things come to mind:
1) You're not producing any more revenue for DAL just because you've been here longer, so the economic case to be made is tougher. Longevity based pay is also how ALPA ends up with $70,000/yr secretaries, which you acknowledge is ridiculous, as do I.
2) By removing a significant incentive for moving to different aircraft, you have the effect of flattening the seniority on each aircraft, and thereby reducing your options from a quality of life perspective. It would be like we have 1-2 different categories and that is it. Whereas now, a pilot with a seniority of, for example, 2000, has the choice of:
a) Super senior on the M88
b) Senior on the M88
c) Average seniority on the 767
d) Not too senior on the 764
e) Junior but able to hold the 777
So this pilot has almost limitless choices to pick just the right mix of quality of life, trips, and pay. Eliminate the pay differential, and you basically only have domestic and international as a choice, and with DAL mixing categories even that gets blurred.
Meaning, when you first get hired, you can count on 5 years of reserve, followed by 5 years of moderate seniority as an F/O, followed by 5 years of good seniority as an F/O or reserve as a Captain. Then same once you make Captain. Under the current system, if willing to stay on a small aircraft, you can be very senior fairly quickly. That option disappears under longevity based pay. That's my primary problem with it.
05-30-2011, 02:45 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Hey guys...trying to find out if we can trade pilot to pilot out of base (line holders) if qualified and have correct Visas. Crew sched says no, but I can't find it in the contract. When looking at the swap board section it doesn't mention out of base. Anyone know?
Thanks, Baja.
(please PM me along w/ posting here, thanks.)
Thanks, Baja.
(please PM me along w/ posting here, thanks.)
05-30-2011, 03:01 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,030
05-30-2011, 03:09 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Our MEC approached management about this issue, & informed them it was a violation of our scope clause. Management was asked to cease this flying, & refused. A formal grievance has been announced by our MEC & it is in the process of being filed.
05-30-2011, 03:20 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Bigot is such a strong word with so many racial undertones...
---->Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
How about "dogmatic" to describe Carl?
---->Dogmatic: asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated.
---->Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
How about "dogmatic" to describe Carl?
---->Dogmatic: asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated.
---->Ignorant: Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
Carl
05-30-2011, 03:41 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Alpha, ASA had scope over its code. Delta bought its code and it became Delta's. ALPA voted not to apply merger and fragmentation policy (after certain defined terms were changed at the request of the Major MEC's & it was rumored the Delta pilots threatened to leave ALPA had the vote not gone their way).
Carl - still reeling about defending alpharomeo
05-30-2011, 03:41 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
