Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
06-01-2011, 06:33 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 737A
Posts: 1,890
Give me $10,000,000 and a condo at the Wynn and I'll vote yes.
06-01-2011, 07:07 AM
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
I think the next scope battle will be the bait and switch. They'll return the jets for relief in the turboprop area, and it will be a huge mistake. The next gen turboprops will compete directly with jets.
06-01-2011, 07:12 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Last edited by johnso29; 06-01-2011 at 07:27 AM.
06-01-2011, 07:13 AM
veut gagner ŕ la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Yes he can. Haven't you ever seen one of his presentations (they are quite good, even if I disagree with his conclusions).
His presentation is that Delta Air Lines is performing well and that Delta Air Lines Pilots are near the top of their peer group in pay & working conditions (all true & he does deserve much credit for all of these successes). Then he dives into the idea that small jets can not be operated at mainline profitably. This concludes with when Delta makes money we make money. We can do better negotiating with a profitable company.
He touts the APA as foolish and an example of doing everything wrong.
When sitting through his presentation it was obvious that he relied on bankruptcy economic analysis to determine "small jets can not be operated profitably at mainline." In subsequent presentations he removed the obvious references to facts no longer in existence (like differences in ground handling costs) but the conclusion remained the same.
A pilot posted the presentation summary under the title "Outsourcing is Good." The insiders jumped on his head. But, the audience member got it right. Moak's economics based argument is that outsourcing helps the company make money, which benefits Delta pilots.
This of course triggered my response, where's Moak getting his numbers? Folks learned without Moak's approval no one could run an economic analysis and Moak was not giving the command to do that work. There are varying after action reports, but at the time of the vote everyone was unanimous that we divested Compass without running the numbers.
His presentation is that Delta Air Lines is performing well and that Delta Air Lines Pilots are near the top of their peer group in pay & working conditions (all true & he does deserve much credit for all of these successes). Then he dives into the idea that small jets can not be operated at mainline profitably. This concludes with when Delta makes money we make money. We can do better negotiating with a profitable company.
He touts the APA as foolish and an example of doing everything wrong.
When sitting through his presentation it was obvious that he relied on bankruptcy economic analysis to determine "small jets can not be operated profitably at mainline." In subsequent presentations he removed the obvious references to facts no longer in existence (like differences in ground handling costs) but the conclusion remained the same.
A pilot posted the presentation summary under the title "Outsourcing is Good." The insiders jumped on his head. But, the audience member got it right. Moak's economics based argument is that outsourcing helps the company make money, which benefits Delta pilots.
This of course triggered my response, where's Moak getting his numbers? Folks learned without Moak's approval no one could run an economic analysis and Moak was not giving the command to do that work. There are varying after action reports, but at the time of the vote everyone was unanimous that we divested Compass without running the numbers.
But the problem was there was nothing the pilots could do to stop LM's National campaign that involved placating to the ALPA National hierarchy, pro-outsourcing management types and RJ lifers running their respective unions?
So we weren't thrown under the bus but the bus was picked up and we were told to lay down under it.
Carl, don't say duh yet, this is a rehash exercise.
06-01-2011, 07:15 AM
veut gagner ŕ la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Giving up 100 seat jets would probably result in furloughs of around 20-25% of the list. Maybe more. So no, there is no realistic scenario that will get me to vote for anymore seats, lbs, or whatever of scope give backs. 77+ seat flying is ours, and we are well and truly screwing ourselves if we give it away.
Give me $10,000,000 and a condo at the Wynn and I'll vote yes.
Give me $10,000,000 and a condo at the Wynn and I'll vote yes.
06-01-2011, 07:16 AM
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,728
In case you have forgotten there was a chance for the DAL MEC to support recapturing a segment of the 76 seat flying with the resolution proposed to staple CP to the bottom of the seniority list. The DAL MEC voted against it and went as far as removing CP from the MEC saying that we had competing interests. They were only competing interests in the opinion of the DAL MEC and that is proven by the fact that 95% of CP pilots took the flow to DL when offered.
I don't think you will find a whole lot of regional guys that want to see this trend continue. Unfortunately, in most ways you guys control the careers of those that come behind you. The modern day B-scale and only you all can end it.
You hear mainline guys talk about RJ guys taking their jobs, well, mainline pilots weakening scope has taken the career potential from many RJ guys.
I don't think you will find a whole lot of regional guys that want to see this trend continue. Unfortunately, in most ways you guys control the careers of those that come behind you. The modern day B-scale and only you all can end it.
You hear mainline guys talk about RJ guys taking their jobs, well, mainline pilots weakening scope has taken the career potential from many RJ guys.
I agree, and that's why I keep voting NO on scope relaxation. Unfortunatly, I am always in the minority, the majority seems to want a larger pay raise in exchage for scope, imagine that.
Then they complain when they have to sit copilot for even more years, or get furloughed, while the RJ's keep getting bigger...There has always been a 70/30 split at DL South when it comes to contract votes. 70% sheep, 30% ****ed off. Until that ratio changes, nothing else wil.
06-01-2011, 07:22 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Calling PCL_128...Calling PCL_128...Come in please.
You called me every name in the book when I challenged you about your statement that we cannot strike over scope. You posted the 1974 court case that set the precedent. Now, Check Essential posted the parts of the case you left out, and follows it with a Supreme Court opinion that contradicts you. Please read the following:
and this:
So where have we all gone wrong here PCL_128? Check Essential's case law clearly shows that we DO have the right to strike over Scope language.
Do we, or don't we?
Carl
You called me every name in the book when I challenged you about your statement that we cannot strike over scope. You posted the 1974 court case that set the precedent. Now, Check Essential posted the parts of the case you left out, and follows it with a Supreme Court opinion that contradicts you. Please read the following:
Carl-
I have to admit that I haven't been closely following the discussion over in the DPA thread. This exchange you've been having regarding the status of scope as a subject of mandatory bargaining has caught my eye however.
I'm pretty sure that you were correct in your initial interpretaion and PCL 128 is mistaken when he states that we can never strike over a scope issue. I believe his reading of the court's opinion is in error. He's overlooking a crucial distinction between that JAL Machinist's case and our current situation.
We already have a scope clause. It is part of an existing set of "rules and working conditions". The IAM contract with JAL had none. The IAM was trying to get their very first scope language. This wasn't about the machinists who were working under the agreement. They were trying to bring new people and new work sites under their jurisdiction. It wasn't really outsourcing because that work had never been "insourced". That's a huge difference. Look at these parapraghs from the court's ruling:
The primary impact of the scope proposal does not lie in these mandatory areas of bargaining. If adopted, its principal beneficiaries would be those persons hired to fill the newly created jobs. Nothing in the RLA obliges JAL to discuss with the Union issues of immediate concern only to individuals not yet included within the bargaining unit. See Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 179-80, 30 L. Ed. 2d 341, 92 S. Ct. 383 (1971); NLRB v. Local 445, supra.
The RLA was enacted in 1926 against a background of nearly forty years of frustration with unsuccessful legislative efforts to stabilize labor relations in the railroad industry. In unique fashion, it was drafted by representatives of the carriers and their employees and then enacted by the Congress. See International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 758, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1141, 81 S. Ct. 1784 (1961). Testifying on behalf of the bill which they had written at hearings which preceded its passage, spokesmen for both labor and management emphasized that "the only kind of a dispute wherein there is any danger of . . . a strike is a dispute where there is a change sought in the existing rules and working conditions."
The court goes on to talk about the fact that the IAM's current employees are already protected by a no furlough clause and their job security is not dependent on JAL's discontinuance of "subcontracting". The IAM's attempt to open up this new area of bargaining and extend their contract far beyond its current "scope" was not something that they could strike about --- but that is definitely NOT the case if you are talking about the Delta Pilot Working Agreement.
We have a long established scope clause. It is an integral and vital part of our "rules and working conditions". We have been bargaining on that issue for years. Our job security is quite clearly dependent on the strength of our scope language. That is not a subject that management can now suddenly refuse to discuss. Our situation is very different from the JAL machinists.
PCL 128 didn't post the whole opinion. He left out some crucial passages. Specifically the last 4 or 5 paragraphs. Those sections of the opinion make it clear that the court is only saying that management can refuse to bargain over scope only when the union is seeking to substantially expand the reach of its contract and the job security of the existing workers is not really at issue. They are clearly not issuing a flat ruling that scope issues can never be the subject of a dispute that leads to a release to self-help. Its only if the particular scope issue is "peripheral" that you can't strike over it. That's not the case with major airline pilots these days.
Anyway, I've babbled enough. Bottom line is -- that case doesn't apply to us. I think both DALPA and the company have a duty to bargain over scope and either party could legitimately insist on their position all the way through to self-help under the RLA.
Here's a link to the full text if you're interested:
FindACase™ | Japan Air Lines Co. v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
I have to admit that I haven't been closely following the discussion over in the DPA thread. This exchange you've been having regarding the status of scope as a subject of mandatory bargaining has caught my eye however.
I'm pretty sure that you were correct in your initial interpretaion and PCL 128 is mistaken when he states that we can never strike over a scope issue. I believe his reading of the court's opinion is in error. He's overlooking a crucial distinction between that JAL Machinist's case and our current situation.
We already have a scope clause. It is part of an existing set of "rules and working conditions". The IAM contract with JAL had none. The IAM was trying to get their very first scope language. This wasn't about the machinists who were working under the agreement. They were trying to bring new people and new work sites under their jurisdiction. It wasn't really outsourcing because that work had never been "insourced". That's a huge difference. Look at these parapraghs from the court's ruling:
The primary impact of the scope proposal does not lie in these mandatory areas of bargaining. If adopted, its principal beneficiaries would be those persons hired to fill the newly created jobs. Nothing in the RLA obliges JAL to discuss with the Union issues of immediate concern only to individuals not yet included within the bargaining unit. See Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 179-80, 30 L. Ed. 2d 341, 92 S. Ct. 383 (1971); NLRB v. Local 445, supra.
The RLA was enacted in 1926 against a background of nearly forty years of frustration with unsuccessful legislative efforts to stabilize labor relations in the railroad industry. In unique fashion, it was drafted by representatives of the carriers and their employees and then enacted by the Congress. See International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 758, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1141, 81 S. Ct. 1784 (1961). Testifying on behalf of the bill which they had written at hearings which preceded its passage, spokesmen for both labor and management emphasized that "the only kind of a dispute wherein there is any danger of . . . a strike is a dispute where there is a change sought in the existing rules and working conditions."
The court goes on to talk about the fact that the IAM's current employees are already protected by a no furlough clause and their job security is not dependent on JAL's discontinuance of "subcontracting". The IAM's attempt to open up this new area of bargaining and extend their contract far beyond its current "scope" was not something that they could strike about --- but that is definitely NOT the case if you are talking about the Delta Pilot Working Agreement.
We have a long established scope clause. It is an integral and vital part of our "rules and working conditions". We have been bargaining on that issue for years. Our job security is quite clearly dependent on the strength of our scope language. That is not a subject that management can now suddenly refuse to discuss. Our situation is very different from the JAL machinists.
PCL 128 didn't post the whole opinion. He left out some crucial passages. Specifically the last 4 or 5 paragraphs. Those sections of the opinion make it clear that the court is only saying that management can refuse to bargain over scope only when the union is seeking to substantially expand the reach of its contract and the job security of the existing workers is not really at issue. They are clearly not issuing a flat ruling that scope issues can never be the subject of a dispute that leads to a release to self-help. Its only if the particular scope issue is "peripheral" that you can't strike over it. That's not the case with major airline pilots these days.
Anyway, I've babbled enough. Bottom line is -- that case doesn't apply to us. I think both DALPA and the company have a duty to bargain over scope and either party could legitimately insist on their position all the way through to self-help under the RLA.
Here's a link to the full text if you're interested:
FindACase™ | Japan Air Lines Co. v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
and this:
Following on the heels of our RAH surrender, its a disturbing trend we have going here when the ALPA guys are so ready to capitulate on scope issues and claim there's nothing we can legally do about outsourcing and subcontracting.
The notion that we can't force management to bargain about scope and job security because its a "permissive" topic and we can never strike over those issues is just plain dangerous. Its even more loony than saying that Republic Air is not an air carrier.
Here's the Supreme Court on the issue:
The type of "contracting out" involved in this case -- the replacement of employees in the existing bargaining unit with those of an independent contractor to do the same work under similar conditions of employment -- is a statutory subject of collective bargaining under § 8(d) of the Act.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that, on the facts of this case, the "contracting out" of the work previously performed by members of an existing bargaining unit is a subject about which the National Labor Relations Act requires employers and the representatives of their employees to bargain collectively.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/379/203/case.html
The notion that we can't force management to bargain about scope and job security because its a "permissive" topic and we can never strike over those issues is just plain dangerous. Its even more loony than saying that Republic Air is not an air carrier.
Here's the Supreme Court on the issue:
The type of "contracting out" involved in this case -- the replacement of employees in the existing bargaining unit with those of an independent contractor to do the same work under similar conditions of employment -- is a statutory subject of collective bargaining under § 8(d) of the Act.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that, on the facts of this case, the "contracting out" of the work previously performed by members of an existing bargaining unit is a subject about which the National Labor Relations Act requires employers and the representatives of their employees to bargain collectively.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/379/203/case.html
Do we, or don't we?
Carl
06-01-2011, 07:24 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
I haven't been on this thread for quite some time so I'm not up to date, but I have a question for the Airbus drivers.
Do the sidestick controllers move and do they provide artificial feel feed back? There is some debates going on about this issue for the AF447 flight.
Thanks
Do the sidestick controllers move and do they provide artificial feel feed back? There is some debates going on about this issue for the AF447 flight.
Thanks
06-01-2011, 08:13 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 737 Capt
Posts: 1,166
I haven't been on this thread for quite some time so I'm not up to date, but I have a question for the Airbus drivers.
Do the sidestick controllers move and do they provide artificial feel feed back? There is some debates going on about this issue for the AF447 flight.
Thanks
Do the sidestick controllers move and do they provide artificial feel feed back? There is some debates going on about this issue for the AF447 flight.
Thanks
06-01-2011, 08:14 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Hey. I've been doing a lot of deadheading before and after my trips lately and haven't been to my mailbox in a while.
How do you get notified that your fleet has officially changed over to ship sets and you don't have to bring your flight kit's to work with you anymore?
How do you get notified that your fleet has officially changed over to ship sets and you don't have to bring your flight kit's to work with you anymore?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
