Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-28-2011, 07:03 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Bingo. The fact that it was left out of the JCBA I think was more ignorance... much like the air carrier thing with the RAH thing.
They are VERY good at doing stuff like that and going "aw whoops. we'll catch it next time!" after the ship has already sailed.
After all, it's the best lawyers in the industry!
They are VERY good at doing stuff like that and going "aw whoops. we'll catch it next time!" after the ship has already sailed.
After all, it's the best lawyers in the industry!
Now the question is: How much more of this calculated ignorance will we tolerate? And how much can we decipher as more ALPA calculated ignorance before the damage is done?
Carl
09-28-2011, 07:08 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
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...
Carl
09-28-2011, 07:09 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
09-28-2011, 07:11 AM
Get's Every Day Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 1,860
No, your missing my point. My relative seniority on the seniority list has IMPROVED since the arbitrated list. I know have MORE people junior to me on the seniority list, not just in my category. Even though we have less pilots now then when the SLI was released, I now still have MORE junior to me then when the SLI was released. My seniority company wide has improved. Or as you put it, I have more fresh meat under me on the seniority list. I'm pretty junior though, so it doesn't take much. 
09-28-2011, 07:11 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
09-28-2011, 07:18 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I think the largest threat to our top end scope is the following. China Eastern, China Southern, and as of today China Airlines. All code share for now, but as this is the fastest growing market I am sure we will want to lock into some kind of JV to get at that revenue.
Also please do not forget that Korean is undercutting our NRT ops and a JV would rationalize that business plan. Do not forget about V Blue as well.
09-28-2011, 07:24 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
All the pro alpa guys always spout that alpa is is controlled at local levels and if any changes are needed work at the local level to change things.When the meet and confer with dci carriers come up,they always say national has nothing to do with that and that national doesn't have anything control with our contract.What better way to take care of this by removing some local presence and giving more control to national.
Carl
09-28-2011, 07:25 AM
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 793
Just got my MEC Touch & Go regarding NPRM. My summary is that they're saying we shouldn't worry about what changes are made that may not be as favorable to pilots as current FAA rules are since our contract provides protection. e.g.:
Section 12 E. 1. of our contract specifies when we require augmented operations. Any operation over 8 hours requires one additional pilot and any operation over 12 hours requires an additional crew. The FAA can alter requirements for augmentation but if less restrictive than our contract, it does not affect our contractual requirements.
Also stated in the Touch & Go edition:As another example, Sections 12 G. 2-3. of our contract mandate the minimum rest requirements for layovers. In some cases, the FAA’s NRPM will provide even more stringent provisions for rest than that those in our contract. In those cases, the provisions of the new rules will prevail.
In short, anyone trying to evaluate the impact of the FAA NPRM on Delta pilots must remember that our contractual protections will not disappear just because the FAA rules change. It is clear that these critics either lack contractual knowledge or have another agenda.
When I've asked the question why aren't MD-88 pilots who are qualified to fly MD-90s getting the higher pay like rest of Delta pilots, or increased pay for the increased revenue we're generating from flying more passengers (modified aircraft) one of the answers I get is, "What are you willing to give up for that?" So I'm trying to get my mind straight with this, so with that said I ask, what are we giving up to for these new FAA rules that benefit us, or for that matter the protection of the contract that we're now enjoying? Yes, I've become cynical; at this point I can envision our being asked to "give up" something to keep the contractual protections we'll begin enjoying with these new FT/DT rules.
In short, anyone trying to evaluate the impact of the FAA NPRM on Delta pilots must remember that our contractual protections will not disappear just because the FAA rules change. It is clear that these critics either lack contractual knowledge or have another agenda.
09-28-2011, 07:49 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
We have tried the huge opener at Delta. In the end we got a lower rate then could have been achieved with a more reasonable opener and lost half the 16 aircraft on order.
The problem with a huge opener is what do you do when the company says the following on 1 Apr.
Company:Thank you for your opener. We will get back to you with a response in June.
DALPA: June? That is not acceptable. Its almost 2 months away. We want to talk sooner.
Company: You must have misunderstood us. We meant June of 2014!
Goodbye.
There are two things in a contract negotiation that have to always be considered. What you want and what is achievable. The two are almost never the same. The majority of pilots are rational enough to understand that concept. The rest will simply always be unhappy and looking for someone or something to blame.
The problem with a huge opener is what do you do when the company says the following on 1 Apr.
Company:Thank you for your opener. We will get back to you with a response in June.
DALPA: June? That is not acceptable. Its almost 2 months away. We want to talk sooner.
Company: You must have misunderstood us. We meant June of 2014!
Goodbye.
There are two things in a contract negotiation that have to always be considered. What you want and what is achievable. The two are almost never the same. The majority of pilots are rational enough to understand that concept. The rest will simply always be unhappy and looking for someone or something to blame.
Carl
09-28-2011, 07:51 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,598
When I've asked the question why aren't MD-88 pilots who are qualified to fly MD-90s getting the higher pay like rest of Delta pilots, or increased pay for the increased revenue we're generating from flying more passengers (modified aircraft) one of the answers I get is, "What are you willing to give up for that?" So I'm trying to get my mind straight with this, so with that said I ask, what are we giving up to for these new FAA rules that benefit us, or for that matter the protection of the contract that we're now enjoying? Yes, I've become cynical; at this point I can envision our being asked to "give up" something to keep the contractual protections we'll begin enjoying with these new FT/DT rules.
As for the ALPA apologists, could you just please post the talking points and save us and yourselves the trouble of repeatedly reading them?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
