Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-11-2011, 04:57 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,038
In our scope history, concessions have always remained one step ahead of what is needed to allow airplanes that have already been ordered. That's an awful lucky coincidence, isn't it?
Follow the history of small jet orders from 1999 to 2010 and place that beside a time line of contract revisions. The correlation is remarkable, but more remarkable when you consider the orders preceded the scope changes.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 07-11-2011 at 05:08 AM.
07-11-2011, 05:08 AM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
ALPA's problem created by teaming up with management is that they get a lot of information that can not be disclosed to the general membership. In fact, the Reps are not told until they "need to know." Information is power and the Admin has the power (and often the duty) to with hold information.
Thus, certain key positions have centralized power that is greater than it should be and deals are done which should have been sent to membership ratification ... it is all justifiable.
That is why I demand our MEC come out with a statement "no member gets sold." I do not trust them because they have refused to make a commitment to our pilots. Our Admin should be very tightly controlled with guidance from the bottom up. Instead we have top down leadership from an unelected few who have the power to cut anyone they don't like out of the loop.
Thus, certain key positions have centralized power that is greater than it should be and deals are done which should have been sent to membership ratification ... it is all justifiable.
That is why I demand our MEC come out with a statement "no member gets sold." I do not trust them because they have refused to make a commitment to our pilots. Our Admin should be very tightly controlled with guidance from the bottom up. Instead we have top down leadership from an unelected few who have the power to cut anyone they don't like out of the loop.
Management invites them to their parties and makes them feel like they are part of some "inner circle" of illuminati and many of them end up thinking they are junior executives and forget who they really work for.
Management uses the selective distribution of "privileged information" to control our union.
Same with the pilot seat on the BOD. Its something ALPA National wants as part of their political agenda so they can feel like they are taking part in "corporate governance". In reality, its used by management to draw the union into their schemes to lower the cost of labor.
We're dreaming if we think management is ever going to provide the union guys with some confidential report saying we could afford to give the pilots a 50% raise. There will however be plenty of secret data showing how critical it is to control our labor costs because fuel hedging is so difficult to master.
07-11-2011, 05:10 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,038
I am not sure about the pay them accordingly part. For almost the entire history of SW they have paid them well below the industry average. They have never offered to put them at the top of the industry. They got there buy accident and those very fuel hedges that helped them became a double edge sword on pilot costs. You can't ask for paycuts when your rolling in money. Neither SW management or even their union like their present position in the pilot pay arena. They would much prefer we pass them back up so they can regain their historical cost advantage and start back to their years of 10 percent growth instead of mergers.
07-11-2011, 05:10 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
I am not sure about the pay them accordingly part. For almost the entire history of SW they have paid them well below the industry average. They have never offered to put them at the top of the industry. They got there buy accident and those very fuel hedges that helped them became a double edge sword on pilot costs. You can't ask for paycuts when your rolling in money. Neither SW management or even their union like their present position in the pilot pay arena. They would much prefer we pass them back up so they can regain their historical cost advantage and start back to their years of 10 percent growth instead of mergers.
07-11-2011, 05:16 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
The difference between at LUV is simple. They know their pilots are the employee group that has the best view of the operation. They know that they are integral to their success, and treat them as such.
They got lucky on a long term fuel hedge, and that allowed them many years of enhanced profit and growth.
The only difference between our managers and theirs is the value they place on their employee groups, pilots in particular, and go out of their way to make you value them as your employer and pay accordingly. Both can be bottom line driven, but them crazy Texans also know that you need to spend money in the correct places to make money.
As for DALPA, the correct spirit is there in many of the reps. They just need to be supported by their pilots. Sitting behind a keyboard is great, but it generally does not provide the level of support that is needed. Showing up and holding people accountable is.
They got lucky on a long term fuel hedge, and that allowed them many years of enhanced profit and growth.
The only difference between our managers and theirs is the value they place on their employee groups, pilots in particular, and go out of their way to make you value them as your employer and pay accordingly. Both can be bottom line driven, but them crazy Texans also know that you need to spend money in the correct places to make money.
As for DALPA, the correct spirit is there in many of the reps. They just need to be supported by their pilots. Sitting behind a keyboard is great, but it generally does not provide the level of support that is needed. Showing up and holding people accountable is.
I don't often get to say this anymore... but great post!
I only take exception with the last paragraph. I agree with you in theory on that one. But I have found the reality to be that reps are not really that open to input... i.e. they do a lot more talking and a lot less listening. I know guys are saying that is changing now. Hopefully it is at other bases.
07-11-2011, 05:17 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by gloopy View Post
The straw man arguement that FedEx and UPS are so different as to warrant exclusion from our compeitive peer group is completely self refuting. If all the money flying airplanes is truly into cargo as the arguement for competitive peer excusion is made, then why are those very same managers making that arguement the same ones saying there is no money in cargo? And then tripping all over themselves to sign massive postal contracts as fast as they can precicely because of how lucritive it is?
We have difficulty with payloads and performance on several long haul routes due to the tons of cargo we load, and some of those routes have nothing to do with short runways or high terrain (like ATH when we were carrying so much yogurt and/or marble we were load limited).
So if all the money is in cargo and we therefore can't throw those rates in for comparison, then why are we not going into cargo? If there's no money in cargo, how can they afford those rates?
Bottom line, they fly the same equipment in the same airspace and hire from the same talent pool of pilots as we do, and they are global powerhouses like we are. So it is pure fantasy to think they are somehow so seperate that they are irrelevant.
And absolutely ROFL @ anyone who claims SWA isn't not only a competitive peer but also an absolute floor for compensation as they are 100% relevant.
Originally Posted by gloopy View Post
The straw man arguement that FedEx and UPS are so different as to warrant exclusion from our compeitive peer group is completely self refuting. If all the money flying airplanes is truly into cargo as the arguement for competitive peer excusion is made, then why are those very same managers making that arguement the same ones saying there is no money in cargo? And then tripping all over themselves to sign massive postal contracts as fast as they can precicely because of how lucritive it is?
We have difficulty with payloads and performance on several long haul routes due to the tons of cargo we load, and some of those routes have nothing to do with short runways or high terrain (like ATH when we were carrying so much yogurt and/or marble we were load limited).
So if all the money is in cargo and we therefore can't throw those rates in for comparison, then why are we not going into cargo? If there's no money in cargo, how can they afford those rates?
Bottom line, they fly the same equipment in the same airspace and hire from the same talent pool of pilots as we do, and they are global powerhouses like we are. So it is pure fantasy to think they are somehow so seperate that they are irrelevant.
And absolutely ROFL @ anyone who claims SWA isn't not only a competitive peer but also an absolute floor for compensation as they are 100% relevant.
07-11-2011, 05:18 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
07-11-2011, 05:34 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
07-11-2011, 05:41 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,598
07-11-2011, 05:55 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: maddoggy dog
Posts: 1,026
.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
