Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-27-2011, 11:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,538
Delta has successfully raised fares 10 times this year $6 - $10 round trip[5]
Delta made $952M in “Baggage Fees” alone during 2010[6]
A $1B contract restoration would cost $6.25 per passengers
(This happens to be the price of Delta’s “Fruit & Cheese Plate” or a Venti, Non-fat Latte)
Can Delta Air Lines afford to restore C2K ? or even C2K+ ?[/SIZE]
Delta made $952M in “Baggage Fees” alone during 2010[6]
A $1B contract restoration would cost $6.25 per passengers
(This happens to be the price of Delta’s “Fruit & Cheese Plate” or a Venti, Non-fat Latte)
Can Delta Air Lines afford to restore C2K ? or even C2K+ ?[/SIZE]
We could get full restoration many times over with the numerous multi billion dollar mistakes recent management teams have made. Many of those billion dollar blunders can be directly attributed to outsourcing so not only can we include massive scope recapture, but it can be shown quite convincingly that the company can't afford it long term if we don't.
09-27-2011, 11:30 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,014
I explained wy it was a separate issue relative to what was being discussed but you chopped it. I was referring to the false arguement that we if there is a wholly owned subsidiary flying permitted types that means we must allow non wholly owned subsidiaries to fly whatever they want as long as its on another certificate.
And your MEC made its bed with your DOH (or anything greater than a staple, even one with certain protections) and you have been riding high on the post 9-11 small jet outsourcing heyday, which is rapidly coming to a close. Regionals are going bankrupt, sending planes to the boneyards and losing flying now. You may be at a powerhouse today, but so was Comair not that long ago. Your chickens (arrogant MEC's and massive tactical miscalculations and overestimations) too will come home to roost.
And your MEC made its bed with your DOH (or anything greater than a staple, even one with certain protections) and you have been riding high on the post 9-11 small jet outsourcing heyday, which is rapidly coming to a close. Regionals are going bankrupt, sending planes to the boneyards and losing flying now. You may be at a powerhouse today, but so was Comair not that long ago. Your chickens (arrogant MEC's and massive tactical miscalculations and overestimations) too will come home to roost.
You and Joe might be talking past each other.
This deals with the legal theory that "you can not bind holding companies to a scope agreement" in legalese, "a non signatory third party can not be bound to a contract."
This theory was brought forward as a justification for ALPA's denial of ASA and Comair's attempts to secure their own scope over DCI flying (after the Delta pilots outsourced it). The results of this legal theory can be seen in many places:
- Republic Airlines Holdings operation of what we considered to be "mainline" competitors while flying under our scope
- The inception of GoJets as a separate certificate to make an end run around American's scope agreement.
- Advice to the TWA pilots that their scope would not be binding on American, thus they had no reason to protect section 1.
Unfortunately the legal justifications to make the political situation work had many consequences which harmed a great many pilots aside from those at Delta who were furloughed and the Comair pilots who saw "their" flying disbursed. The results harmed Trans States, TWA, NWA, United, American and ASA pilots to one degree or another. The only beneficiary was the non union carriers who experienced explosive growth as a result of scope being seriously undermined.
As for the original legal concept ... just pick up a copy of any insurance policy. The legal concept has been operative since the Second Century. There are numerous non signatory third party beneficiaries, obligors and obligees.
Further, with a Pilot Board Member, tell me we could not write restrictions into Republic's contract on a First Party basis. We obviously could if we wanted to.
As for the history, Joe is correct and sadly, it is what is going to kill our Association if we can't get it turned around. ALPA has been in a steady decline, in qualitative, quantitative, and economic terms for the last ten years.
09-27-2011, 11:49 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,014
Joe, would you agree the "Delta Pilot's Association" was founded in October 2000?
IMHO - what happens with the DPA vote will be a distinction with no great difference.
IMHO - what happens with the DPA vote will be a distinction with no great difference.
09-27-2011, 12:10 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
09-27-2011, 12:12 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Posts: 1,044
Good post. I would agree with what you said. And also say we should present "reasonable" proposals. Wait, what?
I just don't think we should go in with self defeating emo rhetoric like "by God you used to be able to buy a new Caddilac with a month's salary then so that is our goal" (BTW that would put most CA's around the 550K mark...well deserved but a 100% chance we would get parked forever and that's pretty obvious).
I agree with you completely about not aiming too low though. You can be both reasonable and present a very high water mark opener though. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. I think its "reasonable" to argue for SWA pay (rates and W-2) and SWA days off, both relative to small narrowbody flying and adjusted up from there. SWA is a successful, profitable, operationaly sound LCC. I would then argue for "reasonable" premiums over and above SWA:
Our per pilot revenue is significantly higher and we deserve some of that. Our intl pilots are cheaper than AF/KLM, so there is plenty of room to adjust upwards from there. JB flies a 100 seater (all coach, so really a 90-somethign seater) with their rates and again, our per pilot revenue is much higher. We have revenue premiums from a global network, first class, legacy brand and network flexibility other airlines can only dream of.
So start with SWA pay for 737-700's and JB pay for 90-something seaters and adjust to account for the reasonable premiums above those super ultra LCC's and see what you come up with. My back of the napkin math comes up with 50-60%+ on date of signing alone. Scope? Well all we want is SWA scope of 100%, you know, that darling ultra super LCC that can do no wrong? The same for work rules, etc.
If we just strut in and slam pay rates on the mediator's table with 60% raises because we're awesome and we deserve them, rest assured we will be laughed out of the room. But if we merely ask for LCC parity with reasonable premiums we will get to the same high water mark opener and just maybe get to the next step as well without getting parked.
I just don't think we should go in with self defeating emo rhetoric like "by God you used to be able to buy a new Caddilac with a month's salary then so that is our goal" (BTW that would put most CA's around the 550K mark...well deserved but a 100% chance we would get parked forever and that's pretty obvious).
I agree with you completely about not aiming too low though. You can be both reasonable and present a very high water mark opener though. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. I think its "reasonable" to argue for SWA pay (rates and W-2) and SWA days off, both relative to small narrowbody flying and adjusted up from there. SWA is a successful, profitable, operationaly sound LCC. I would then argue for "reasonable" premiums over and above SWA:
Our per pilot revenue is significantly higher and we deserve some of that. Our intl pilots are cheaper than AF/KLM, so there is plenty of room to adjust upwards from there. JB flies a 100 seater (all coach, so really a 90-somethign seater) with their rates and again, our per pilot revenue is much higher. We have revenue premiums from a global network, first class, legacy brand and network flexibility other airlines can only dream of.
So start with SWA pay for 737-700's and JB pay for 90-something seaters and adjust to account for the reasonable premiums above those super ultra LCC's and see what you come up with. My back of the napkin math comes up with 50-60%+ on date of signing alone. Scope? Well all we want is SWA scope of 100%, you know, that darling ultra super LCC that can do no wrong? The same for work rules, etc.
If we just strut in and slam pay rates on the mediator's table with 60% raises because we're awesome and we deserve them, rest assured we will be laughed out of the room. But if we merely ask for LCC parity with reasonable premiums we will get to the same high water mark opener and just maybe get to the next step as well without getting parked.
Gloopy for president.
09-27-2011, 01:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,186
The irony is, 20 years ago, management of "legacy" carriers pointed at SWA and said, "we need you pilots to match SWA's pilots' contract!". Now, ALPA would be ecstatic to win a SWA contract.
GF
GF
09-27-2011, 02:09 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Here I'll join in: The sky is blue...Chili gives you gas....Cars go fast....
09-27-2011, 02:14 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: maddoggy dog
Posts: 1,026
We interrupt your regular bit&*ing and moaning to bring you an important service announcement. October is just a few days away....... Drink beer and be merry!!!
09-27-2011, 02:17 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Why is it a "separate issue entirely"? Your MEC made it's bed when it argued that ASA and CMR were separate even though we were all owned by the same company. The chickens are coming home to roost and it looks like some of you are tired of wading thru the chicken $heet...So sorry, so sad....Enjoy the bed you made...
Actions have consequences and we are all seeing them now play out....Too bad ego's didn't want to fly little airplanes...
Actions have consequences and we are all seeing them now play out....Too bad ego's didn't want to fly little airplanes...
09-27-2011, 02:20 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
That's how the industry goes. This isn't earth shattering. UPS back in the 80's would've loved higher rates from better airlines. It's part of the cyclical nature of the airline industry.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
