Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-13-2012, 11:01 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
03-13-2012, 11:22 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Those willing to give ALPA a pass on the vague scope reference please understand....
"Improve balance of flying between Delta and DCI" = Parking 50 seaters (just like is already happening because they are CASM pigs) and keeping the hundreds of other large RJ's at DCI contractors.
If DALPA was interested in reigning in scope they would have stated such plain and simple. They did not.
Fact is, the Moak disciples (senior guys who rule this administration), have believed and for unknown reasons, continue to believe RJ's enable more mainline flying by "feeding" mainline hubs (even though there now exists hub to hub flying and flights over 4 hours performed by RJ's). This administration isn't interested in scope recapture. It likely will not happen under this administration. If your future hopes and dreams of advancement are pinned on the notion that flying is coming back under this administration, I hate to be the one to inform you....you are in for disappointment.
Spin it any way you like. This "generic list of goals" had a big gaping hole where scope reclamation should have existed. That is an unacceptable void.
"Improve balance of flying between Delta and DCI" = Parking 50 seaters (just like is already happening because they are CASM pigs) and keeping the hundreds of other large RJ's at DCI contractors.
If DALPA was interested in reigning in scope they would have stated such plain and simple. They did not.
Fact is, the Moak disciples (senior guys who rule this administration), have believed and for unknown reasons, continue to believe RJ's enable more mainline flying by "feeding" mainline hubs (even though there now exists hub to hub flying and flights over 4 hours performed by RJ's). This administration isn't interested in scope recapture. It likely will not happen under this administration. If your future hopes and dreams of advancement are pinned on the notion that flying is coming back under this administration, I hate to be the one to inform you....you are in for disappointment.
Spin it any way you like. This "generic list of goals" had a big gaping hole where scope reclamation should have existed. That is an unacceptable void.
03-14-2012, 01:41 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Section 12: "Change Duty Period Average to Calendar Day Average"
This would take care of the 11 hour 3 days, even with the existing 5:15 (so a 3 day would be worth at least 15:45) - but you're right, there is no mention of actually improving the daily guarantee. I would like to see at least 5:45, which would put us closer to WN (I think theirs is about 5:46 when converted from TFP)
This would take care of the 11 hour 3 days, even with the existing 5:15 (so a 3 day would be worth at least 15:45) - but you're right, there is no mention of actually improving the daily guarantee. I would like to see at least 5:45, which would put us closer to WN (I think theirs is about 5:46 when converted from TFP)
Correct and we are proposing the same rules apply to REG and RES.
Its not a Min day but it is really close. It allows the flexibility to sked you for the max trip credit without getting nailed for one day that flies less. I would also hope that DH days are considered the same.
This is the way conceptual openers are. They are very underwhelming from a red meat, high five in the crew room stand point. They offer flexibility when you have other carriers in section 6 as well.
With these types of openers the MEC generally gives the Neg Committee the opening target and the min acceptable that they can come back with. This is exactly what the company got. If the company gave us their opener or a proposal yesterday it looked the same.
Just remember the company will be wanting things like 9 hrs un-augmented to save on pilot costs.
Wrt to section 1. It is vague, really vague, but they are seeking JV production balances in all JV's not just profit sharing JV's (Virgin is revenue sharing and therefore does not need a production balance) Protections on turboprops, geared jets, et al. It does not say that we are not going for a sunset clause, it says better limits(That can be anything from 254 76 seat jets to none, to better weight limits to a sunset provision). Wait and see what is a controlled leak, or what the final agreement is before giving up. It could be week/months and if the company wants, years before we make any progress.
Stand strong on your wants. You control the outcome with your "yes" or "no" vote. Period.
I have my non-starters too, and no matter how good the rest of the document is, I will vote no as well, but I will wait until I see a TA to make that decision.
*not directed at you, just used your post for the tag on.
03-14-2012, 01:43 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Those willing to give ALPA a pass on the vague scope reference please understand....
"Improve balance of flying between Delta and DCI" = Parking 50 seaters (just like is already happening because they are CASM pigs) and keeping the hundreds of other large RJ's at DCI contractors.
If DALPA was interested in reigning in scope they would have stated such plain and simple. They did not.
Fact is, the Moak disciples (senior guys who rule this administration), have believed and for unknown reasons, continue to believe RJ's enable more mainline flying by "feeding" mainline hubs (even though there now exists hub to hub flying and flights over 4 hours performed by RJ's). This administration isn't interested in scope recapture. It likely will not happen under this administration. If your future hopes and dreams of advancement are pinned on the notion that flying is coming back under this administration, I hate to be the one to inform you....you are in for disappointment.
Spin it any way you like. This "generic list of goals" had a big gaping hole where scope reclamation should have existed. That is an unacceptable void.
"Improve balance of flying between Delta and DCI" = Parking 50 seaters (just like is already happening because they are CASM pigs) and keeping the hundreds of other large RJ's at DCI contractors.
If DALPA was interested in reigning in scope they would have stated such plain and simple. They did not.
Fact is, the Moak disciples (senior guys who rule this administration), have believed and for unknown reasons, continue to believe RJ's enable more mainline flying by "feeding" mainline hubs (even though there now exists hub to hub flying and flights over 4 hours performed by RJ's). This administration isn't interested in scope recapture. It likely will not happen under this administration. If your future hopes and dreams of advancement are pinned on the notion that flying is coming back under this administration, I hate to be the one to inform you....you are in for disappointment.
Spin it any way you like. This "generic list of goals" had a big gaping hole where scope reclamation should have existed. That is an unacceptable void.
There are no limits on 50 seaters. Better limits can be less 76 seaters, or no geared jet power airplanes above 50 seats. (a fantasy sunset clause) Wait and see the details of a final deal.
03-14-2012, 01:46 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Really? You are really that disaffected Shiz? How do we get our company to say yes to contract improvements? How about the fact that pilots make the whole operation go? How about the fact that, while all of the other work groups are at or close to their pre-BK levels, we are about 45% short? How about the fact that, without our concurrence and adaptability, this almost seamless merger would not have occurred? That's how. We aren't asking for the same benefits packages that the senior management gets, we're asking to be compensated like our competition is compensated.
Let me ask you this. How can Delta management NOT compensate us for being the world's largest carrier, in sheer volume, at least at levels commensurate with the LCC that now operates in our HQ hub? How about them apples Shiz?
We are Delta and they are us. We have taken on enormous sacrifices to save our company and thrive in the environment of consolidation and growth. And we've done it in remarkable fashion. Take a look at US Air, United. American and SWA. We're not them, we are Delta. That's how.
Let me ask you this. How can Delta management NOT compensate us for being the world's largest carrier, in sheer volume, at least at levels commensurate with the LCC that now operates in our HQ hub? How about them apples Shiz?
We are Delta and they are us. We have taken on enormous sacrifices to save our company and thrive in the environment of consolidation and growth. And we've done it in remarkable fashion. Take a look at US Air, United. American and SWA. We're not them, we are Delta. That's how.
Labor peace has a price, and if we are going to be joint partners in this endeavor it comes at a price. The Neg Committee just handed over the demand sheet that will get a lot more specific as we go forward.
*Note on the sprinklers. There is a reason for that being added. Not all properties in Europe have sprinklers and since it is not part of the PWA it is not required. Just cleaning up language.
03-14-2012, 02:16 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
It's there as far as the min day goes. Change duty period average to a daily average which would take care of the low paying 3 days.....at least the ones with more than 24 hours off in the middle. If we had that now we would get 5:15 per day so any 3 day would be worth 15:45 minimum.
03-14-2012, 02:23 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
So, does Carl eat the crow or does he serve it?
03-14-2012, 03:51 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Position: MD musical chairs
Posts: 239
03-14-2012, 04:43 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
No reining in the Alaska codeshare abuse? No requirements for the union to approve future codeshares (like SWA has)? No sunsetting of DCI contracts or reduction in 70+ seat flying? Not even a throwaway attempt to bring large RJ flying to our list? No changes to the compliance period for the AF KLM JV?
I don't want promises of furlough protection!...
I don't want promises of furlough protection!...
Wrt to section 1.... Wait and see what is a controlled leak, or what the final agreement is before giving up. It could be week/months and if the company wants, years before we make any progress.
Stand strong on your wants. You control the outcome with your "yes" or "no" vote. Period.
I have my non-starters too, and no matter how good the rest of the document is, I will vote no as well, but I will wait until I see a TA to make that decision.
Stand strong on your wants. You control the outcome with your "yes" or "no" vote. Period.
I have my non-starters too, and no matter how good the rest of the document is, I will vote no as well, but I will wait until I see a TA to make that decision.
03-14-2012, 04:44 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Scope is the only big ???? here in this "conceptual" opener. The concept appears to me that they will shoot for no more growth at DCI, but no DCI flying coming back to mainline and really just leaving the AS codeshare alone.
I thought it was interesting that ALPA will ask the company to oppose any foreign ownership changes. Kinda interesting to see a political issue come into play within our contract. I think foreign ownership could be our biggest threat in the next decade.....so I give them credit for heading in that direction early.
I thought it was interesting that ALPA will ask the company to oppose any foreign ownership changes. Kinda interesting to see a political issue come into play within our contract. I think foreign ownership could be our biggest threat in the next decade.....so I give them credit for heading in that direction early.
I remember in the previous conference call how EB or RA were asked about this and they said there was no appetite in congress for this or something along those lines. But look at it this way, if they spend the money and time to get a cabotage legislation passed it will probably come with contingencies that may make foreign ownership less appealing than what is available to them now AND we know it could backfire with the Richard Branson types getting free reign.
So to me they'll continue building Skyteam and shuffle the revenue around because it could be just as or more profitable over the long run to the cabal that runs Skyteam. It'd give them what they're looking for without the headaches of new legislation. So, am I wrong to assume we're there now?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
