Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-10-2011, 10:28 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Hi Tsquare,
I (think I) agree with you. I'm cynically optimistic with our current union. But I swear, If the reps come to us, the membership, with anything less than an opener of approximately a 50% raise, PLUS improvements in scope, I'm sending in my card to DPA, and getting vocal WRT supporting same. If the negotiating strategy is 15-25% payraise, that is merely a continuance of a bankruptcy contract. Our union had better get this right, the first time. By all accounts, anybody on this property >15 years (12 year payscale), captain or Jr wide-body copilot, has given the company approximately 300K in wages over the last 6 years. Enough of bankruptcy wages & contracts.
I (think I) agree with you. I'm cynically optimistic with our current union. But I swear, If the reps come to us, the membership, with anything less than an opener of approximately a 50% raise, PLUS improvements in scope, I'm sending in my card to DPA, and getting vocal WRT supporting same. If the negotiating strategy is 15-25% payraise, that is merely a continuance of a bankruptcy contract. Our union had better get this right, the first time. By all accounts, anybody on this property >15 years (12 year payscale), captain or Jr wide-body copilot, has given the company approximately 300K in wages over the last 6 years. Enough of bankruptcy wages & contracts.
Where are my stamps again?
07-10-2011, 10:30 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
07-10-2011, 10:53 AM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
This is about elections to the negotiating committee and possible motivations for making a change on that committee. I haven't seen any personal attacks. This is about as issue oriented as we get around here.
People are distrustful of ALPA on the issue of scope. That may be really offensive to you but certainly you can understand the reasons for it.
Didn't mean to push your button. Sorry.
07-10-2011, 10:55 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 767ER capt
Posts: 1,190
Great post, Alfa--
07-10-2011, 11:07 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: bartender
Posts: 295
I am completely neutral right now on the ALPA/DPA issue and frankly have not read or heard anything from DPA that makes me think they are going to be different other than the fact they only represent Delta pilots.
What I see on here are both sides arguing about which side sucks, not which side is better. This is an emotional topic because it greatly affects each of us that are pilots for Delta. I find it funny/sad that there are those on here lamenting about the contract opener and that it is already going to be bad when the union hasn't even put one together. The survey isn't out yet and there are those complaining about that. My guess is that if the union put it out 3 months ago, and there was a drastic change in the market/economy, these same individuals would complain that the survey was out to early and ALPA is so stupid. Let's let the committees/LEC/MEC work and put out the survey closer to the contract opener in order to get more timely info. I can guarantee that the company is loving the idea of us changing unions right before a section 6. That will in-fact ensure that there is no change in labor costs to the company for the foreseeable future (as someone complained about ALPA because the company says this).
What I see on here are both sides arguing about which side sucks, not which side is better. This is an emotional topic because it greatly affects each of us that are pilots for Delta. I find it funny/sad that there are those on here lamenting about the contract opener and that it is already going to be bad when the union hasn't even put one together. The survey isn't out yet and there are those complaining about that. My guess is that if the union put it out 3 months ago, and there was a drastic change in the market/economy, these same individuals would complain that the survey was out to early and ALPA is so stupid. Let's let the committees/LEC/MEC work and put out the survey closer to the contract opener in order to get more timely info. I can guarantee that the company is loving the idea of us changing unions right before a section 6. That will in-fact ensure that there is no change in labor costs to the company for the foreseeable future (as someone complained about ALPA because the company says this).
07-10-2011, 11:37 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I only have an imagination that is kept fertile by the constant rain of bovine poo from above.
It's all about context. It's about what isn't being said...which in UnionSpeak(tm) is consistently more important than what is.
As a reader of the HCS, I am sure you are well aware of that.
In this case, a perfectly routine election, called for by the Policy Manual, could be simply conducted by teleconference.
The fact that the majority of the LEC members have decided that this needs to be in person tells everyone that the poo is raining in ATL.
Speaking of Poo....I was not aware that the company has asked for early openers. Interesting...cue Bar for his interpretation.
Nu
It's all about context. It's about what isn't being said...which in UnionSpeak(tm) is consistently more important than what is.
As a reader of the HCS, I am sure you are well aware of that.
In this case, a perfectly routine election, called for by the Policy Manual, could be simply conducted by teleconference.
The fact that the majority of the LEC members have decided that this needs to be in person tells everyone that the poo is raining in ATL.
Speaking of Poo....I was not aware that the company has asked for early openers. Interesting...cue Bar for his interpretation.
Nu
I do not think the company has responded.
07-10-2011, 11:45 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 117
It's not a FREE wake-up card.
DPA will file for an election the second they get the minimum number of cards. We then go into a protracted process to determine which will represent us.
At that point, DAL just sits back and says, "Call us when you are ready. We're happy to keep paying you JCBA wages."
I want more money, no give on scope and I want it sooner than later...lots sooner.
The great danger that DPA poses, IMO, is pushing back the time line for ANY improvement.
T
DPA will file for an election the second they get the minimum number of cards. We then go into a protracted process to determine which will represent us.
At that point, DAL just sits back and says, "Call us when you are ready. We're happy to keep paying you JCBA wages."
I want more money, no give on scope and I want it sooner than later...lots sooner.
The great danger that DPA poses, IMO, is pushing back the time line for ANY improvement.
T
07-10-2011, 11:45 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I think PG is probably right about the affect on the seniority list. The choice of staying senior on smaller equipment or being junior on larger equipment would likely be gone. No matter what, there will be some unintended consequences.
But what really bothers me is if you have one pay scale for captains and on for FOs then someone is going to get a pay cut. Whatever we do with the pay scale, it will have to be cost neutral vs the current pay scale. I see no way to pay everyone on the same scale without the top guys taking a paycut. Even assuming we were going to get large pay raises, then the guys at the top would get nothing while everyone else had their pay brought up to the top rate.
There are a lot of senior widebody FOs who have not bid narrowbody captain. The hit to their lifestyle was not worth the small pay raise. But if every captain seat paid the same as a 777 seat, then you can bet your ass a large number of them will want a captain seat....any captain seat. If you get to one pay rate do you rebid the whole airline? How much will that cost the company?
From a scope standpoint, if you support a single pay scale you may as well sell out the 100 seaters. There is no way the company will invest in a 100 seat aircraft when they have to pay the pilots the same as a 777 pilot.
Getting away from different rates per aircraft sounds great in theory, but in practice it can never happen at an airline like Delta. Too many obstacles.
But what really bothers me is if you have one pay scale for captains and on for FOs then someone is going to get a pay cut. Whatever we do with the pay scale, it will have to be cost neutral vs the current pay scale. I see no way to pay everyone on the same scale without the top guys taking a paycut. Even assuming we were going to get large pay raises, then the guys at the top would get nothing while everyone else had their pay brought up to the top rate.
There are a lot of senior widebody FOs who have not bid narrowbody captain. The hit to their lifestyle was not worth the small pay raise. But if every captain seat paid the same as a 777 seat, then you can bet your ass a large number of them will want a captain seat....any captain seat. If you get to one pay rate do you rebid the whole airline? How much will that cost the company?
From a scope standpoint, if you support a single pay scale you may as well sell out the 100 seaters. There is no way the company will invest in a 100 seat aircraft when they have to pay the pilots the same as a 777 pilot.
Getting away from different rates per aircraft sounds great in theory, but in practice it can never happen at an airline like Delta. Too many obstacles.
That said, my point with LBP was this: We have 32(31) jets in the highest paying category, the AF JV (given how they are paid and how we are paid, along with the Import-Export Bank advantages given to foreign carriers) tilts bigger metal going to overseas airlines and 330/ER time being sent our way. It also means we will fly more block hrs in this pay area. Given these facts/observations, it would make sense to 1) look at advantages/disadvantages to a LBP system or some sort of modification to our current tiered system. In other words, put good capital where the lion's share of the growth of our fleet will be.
Also, I know that many people feel that getting 73n/320 rates above the SWA line is doable, but to raise the rates above these jets will be harder due to the industry pay rate averages right now. I disagree as we saw pre CH11 the widebody rates were always well above that of the 73N. The only difference this time is that we are dealing with a different industry. That is also why it is imperative to have the FDX and UPS PWA/CBA's included. They are relevant.
Given these two points, we are at a crossroads of what our future fleet will look like. We need to decide to include the FDX/UPS rates then fight with vigor, or look at a different way of compensating our members. The point is to discuss the issue so you can give pertinent input to your reps. The first step in this in acknowledging what trends the JVs and Alliances have created for US carriers.
07-10-2011, 11:55 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I do too. My main concern over it is the risk that it would favor growth for larger planes while also favoring fewer smaller planes. Once the pay is the same, sure go ahead and give us a few A380s and give tons of 767/777/787/350s to JV partners. And forget about ever recapturing scope. As hard as that would be anyway (100% possible, realistic and worth it, but hard nonetheless) it would be even harder to try and bring 76 seaters back to mainline...or even the next gen 100 seater...at 747/380 pay.
I'm not saying a workable solution isn't possible, but I'm just not seeing one at the moment. Even if we had a dynamic rate that flexed for everyone proportionately to how much of each fleet type was pressed into service, that wouldn't do anything to fix that flaw in the system and would actually once again push the majority of the group very hard to outsource the bottom end so as to not effect the top pay downward. The only incentive would be that small percentage of very senior FO's and very junior Captains in the "habitable zone" of potential upgrades/downgrades in the near future with a small movement either way, and thats not enough. The company would then have significant pressure to keep the size of aircraft as big as possible and even more incentive to outsource more. UPS uses longevity pay and while their rates are good they don't fly anything under a 757. That would be very bad for us if we went that route, even with their payrates and retirement.
So for a LBP system to work, it would have to incentivise smaller aircraft (the much fatter part of the bottom of the pyramid rather than the top) and I'm not seeing how it would do that. If that could be addressed I would be in favor of it.
I'm not saying a workable solution isn't possible, but I'm just not seeing one at the moment. Even if we had a dynamic rate that flexed for everyone proportionately to how much of each fleet type was pressed into service, that wouldn't do anything to fix that flaw in the system and would actually once again push the majority of the group very hard to outsource the bottom end so as to not effect the top pay downward. The only incentive would be that small percentage of very senior FO's and very junior Captains in the "habitable zone" of potential upgrades/downgrades in the near future with a small movement either way, and thats not enough. The company would then have significant pressure to keep the size of aircraft as big as possible and even more incentive to outsource more. UPS uses longevity pay and while their rates are good they don't fly anything under a 757. That would be very bad for us if we went that route, even with their payrates and retirement.
So for a LBP system to work, it would have to incentivise smaller aircraft (the much fatter part of the bottom of the pyramid rather than the top) and I'm not seeing how it would do that. If that could be addressed I would be in favor of it.
744/777/330/765
7ER/767/752/753 etc
73N/320/m88/90/dc9/e190/CS-10/300
Point is to look at the trends with AF type JV's and then find a way to make the most money for our groups. A straight LBP may not be the answer but we must realize where our growth seat are going to be and I suspect that it will not be in the 777 range. I should be, but this company seems content allowing AF to purchase and fly that metal. I think we will see that trend repeated with Skyteam Partners and future JV's.
07-10-2011, 11:58 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I am if that is what the reps want. Point is that there is a very big divide on what to do with this NC and from what it sounds like, there may be good cause. In the end they will do the bloodletting on Tuesday.
We also need reps that are willing to put their positions in writing, explain their votes, and be accountable. The lack of transparency in the process is what I have identified as the root cause for the "mistrust" many of our line pilots have.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
