Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-14-2012, 07:04 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
VPR,
The core of the issue is, "Why do we allow outsourcing at all ?"
Block hour percentages are like the alcoholic at the bar saying "I'll have one more and quit."
In our case, we have partnered with management in the outsourcing business. As Moak described it, we need DCI to make lots of money, so Delta makes lots of money, so we make lots of money. When Delta is threatened by economic turmoil, our union's first response was to allow more outsourcing to try to keep the ship afloat.
What I propose is a more common sense approach. Delta pilots do Delta flying at competitive pay rates for equipment (big airplanes make big money, small airplanes make less money).
At this point we should be less concerned about what is attainable and focused on why we are engaged in a partnership with management to outsource jobs to begin with.
The core of the issue is, "Why do we allow outsourcing at all ?"
Block hour percentages are like the alcoholic at the bar saying "I'll have one more and quit."
In our case, we have partnered with management in the outsourcing business. As Moak described it, we need DCI to make lots of money, so Delta makes lots of money, so we make lots of money. When Delta is threatened by economic turmoil, our union's first response was to allow more outsourcing to try to keep the ship afloat.
What I propose is a more common sense approach. Delta pilots do Delta flying at competitive pay rates for equipment (big airplanes make big money, small airplanes make less money).
At this point we should be less concerned about what is attainable and focused on why we are engaged in a partnership with management to outsource jobs to begin with.
03-14-2012, 07:07 AM
Sho me da money!
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: B25, Left
Posts: 947
Couldn't have said it better. Two additional points:
1. This was NOT the opener given to management folks. This was the highly sanitized "conceptual" version. The example of us demanding sprinklers in our hotel rooms is the level of specifics that management got in all sections. If management only got a "conceptual" opener, that part should have read: "improve hotel rooms."
2. Understand that this Section 1 position is now the High Water Mark. Negotiating in good faith will almost certainly require us to come off this crazy high water mark opening position of ours. Regarding Section1, it's very clear that it was written for us by ALPA national and the regional MEC's. They are unharmed and protected with language regarding preferential hiring.
Carl
1. This was NOT the opener given to management folks. This was the highly sanitized "conceptual" version. The example of us demanding sprinklers in our hotel rooms is the level of specifics that management got in all sections. If management only got a "conceptual" opener, that part should have read: "improve hotel rooms."
2. Understand that this Section 1 position is now the High Water Mark. Negotiating in good faith will almost certainly require us to come off this crazy high water mark opening position of ours. Regarding Section1, it's very clear that it was written for us by ALPA national and the regional MEC's. They are unharmed and protected with language regarding preferential hiring.
Carl
I am disappointed too with what I am reading, but I fail to see as you say, any proof that this a watered down version or that ALPA was worried that telling us the truth was not appropriate. Do you know for a fact or just guessing. I am curious and I am angry as well, but does this mean we are being blatantly lied too?
Also, my issue is with any mention of any DCI carrier or crew member getting any consideration at DAL at all whether scope, hiring, pass benefits anything. JV and code share needs to be addressed in much stronger language. Alaska code share has decimated QOL of every pilot at DAL especially west coast crews. Absolute hard limit language on scope and no more scope concession period. Not the strength of the language I want but then again I was not at the table with my peers going through how to concoct an opener. SO I will have to wait and see. DPA is not even in the equation at all. They are not here now, maybe we will see but any comparison to what DPA would do is pure fantasy and frankly irritating.
03-14-2012, 07:11 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,907
Early word is the phones are burning up in LEC Rep Land.
Turns out people are/were seriously unimpressed, and now the word has gone out to push the message via the "alternate" route.
I'm voting for Carl to receive, rather than serve.
Nu
Turns out people are/were seriously unimpressed, and now the word has gone out to push the message via the "alternate" route.
I'm voting for Carl to receive, rather than serve.
Nu
03-14-2012, 07:12 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'm not sure my position on the topic. After all, we don't really represent "them," but they do fly a lot of Delta passengers.
From a union perspective, I had hoped we might require ALPA membership to fly Delta pax.
03-14-2012, 07:21 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,598
APC Web Board Resolution 01-2012
Whereas: The current Section 1 opener is akin to a wife asking her husband if the blue drapes or the white drapes look better while the house is on fire.
Let it be Moved: Bullet point #1 on Scope Opener be re-written:
""Provide job security, longevity, quality of life and upgrade potential for Delta pilots by requiring all flights bearing Delta code be operated by Delta Air Lines crews"
Do I have a second?
"Provide job security, longevity, quality of life and upgrade potential for Delta pilots by requiring all flights bearing Delta code be operated by Delta Air Lines Pilots on the Delta Air Lines Seniority List"
Last edited by dragon; 03-14-2012 at 07:24 AM. Reason: Added quote
03-14-2012, 07:21 AM
Sho me da money!
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: B25, Left
Posts: 947
Having been at at DCI carrier for 10 years, I can attest that DCI carriers have no interest in being part of the DAL team. Many see DAL as a hinderance to their QOL and growth. (short sided on their part ) so why consider them in any equation IMHO. Also, ALPA can not represent pilots at a major and be sure the interests of the regional guys are being addressed as well. This conflict is not good in the long term. Capital wasted on this is not worth it in the long term.
03-14-2012, 07:24 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Can't believe that's true for bottom 75%.
03-14-2012, 07:28 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 134
Hi Carl and bar, long time fan.
Bar to answer your earlier question I simply don't think alpa had this future envisioned when they signed off on the outsourcing. I think they, as well as the membership were just trying to preserve what little they had left. I don't think alpa envisioned the regionals growing to this size and amount of power. So much power in numbers, that in fact, the only reason moak is the president is to appease one of only two majors left at alpa. (We're the piggy bank). From my own personal experience at the alpa board of director meetings there were always mainline guys grumbling "the regionals are taking over!". And rightly so, the regionals grew and as a result the political structure had to change to keep them grouped together and retain a high level of vp's for the majors so that they could always overpower the regionals in the voting process.
But....you can only do that for so long. With three or four majors it was easy...now with two it is very difficult. One election, perhaps the next one, and we could see a regional mec chair as alpa president.
Now that Im thinking of it, once they realize their power and band together they'll give US the boot! They would lose the money we bring to the table but would gain complete control. But as I've stated before in my previous post there's nothing inherently wrong with that. The regionals need representation and someone to represent them. There is a lot of pilot pushing at that level of flying that many of us are not aware of. Simply put, right now we get to have the alpa president position because they are too afraid of losing the money. That wont last forever.
Back to delta pilots...the average age of our group is 53. It makes sense that many of our mid to higher seniority pilots would want instant satisfaction of pay rates during their last few years of employment. I completely understand that. In fact, although I don't always agree with what Carl says, take a look at this picture. Here's a guy who should care less about scope. At his seniority level he would most likely be looking for a pay increase before jumping ship and shouldn't be the slightest bit concerned about the profession or perhaps helping to build something new to sustain our profession for another 30 years. Unlike the previous quarter century of pilots who pulled the ladder up, Carl, through a lifetime of voting, striking and observation, GETS IT. It's about US, not about ME.
I support better retiree medical benefits for those retiring. Would that help me? Perhaps a few guys would jump ship a little sooner but perhaps not. I think...what if I was promised something for my entire career, only to have it yanked from beneath my feet?
So again I rant a little to long when I should be walking the dogs or studying for CQ. Here is a question for discussion and rhetorical sake....are WE the rouges for having NOT joined CAPA yet? Most of our major airline brothers are waiting on US.
Bar to answer your earlier question I simply don't think alpa had this future envisioned when they signed off on the outsourcing. I think they, as well as the membership were just trying to preserve what little they had left. I don't think alpa envisioned the regionals growing to this size and amount of power. So much power in numbers, that in fact, the only reason moak is the president is to appease one of only two majors left at alpa. (We're the piggy bank). From my own personal experience at the alpa board of director meetings there were always mainline guys grumbling "the regionals are taking over!". And rightly so, the regionals grew and as a result the political structure had to change to keep them grouped together and retain a high level of vp's for the majors so that they could always overpower the regionals in the voting process.
But....you can only do that for so long. With three or four majors it was easy...now with two it is very difficult. One election, perhaps the next one, and we could see a regional mec chair as alpa president.
Now that Im thinking of it, once they realize their power and band together they'll give US the boot! They would lose the money we bring to the table but would gain complete control. But as I've stated before in my previous post there's nothing inherently wrong with that. The regionals need representation and someone to represent them. There is a lot of pilot pushing at that level of flying that many of us are not aware of. Simply put, right now we get to have the alpa president position because they are too afraid of losing the money. That wont last forever.
Back to delta pilots...the average age of our group is 53. It makes sense that many of our mid to higher seniority pilots would want instant satisfaction of pay rates during their last few years of employment. I completely understand that. In fact, although I don't always agree with what Carl says, take a look at this picture. Here's a guy who should care less about scope. At his seniority level he would most likely be looking for a pay increase before jumping ship and shouldn't be the slightest bit concerned about the profession or perhaps helping to build something new to sustain our profession for another 30 years. Unlike the previous quarter century of pilots who pulled the ladder up, Carl, through a lifetime of voting, striking and observation, GETS IT. It's about US, not about ME.
I support better retiree medical benefits for those retiring. Would that help me? Perhaps a few guys would jump ship a little sooner but perhaps not. I think...what if I was promised something for my entire career, only to have it yanked from beneath my feet?
So again I rant a little to long when I should be walking the dogs or studying for CQ. Here is a question for discussion and rhetorical sake....are WE the rouges for having NOT joined CAPA yet? Most of our major airline brothers are waiting on US.
03-14-2012, 07:43 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Decoupled
Posts: 922
03-14-2012, 07:45 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: A330
Posts: 216
Having been at at DCI carrier for 10 years, I can attest that DCI carriers have no interest in being part of the DAL team. Many see DAL as a hinderance to their QOL and growth. (short sided on their part ) so why consider them in any equation IMHO. Also, ALPA can not represent pilots at a major and be sure the interests of the regional guys are being addressed as well. This conflict is not good in the long term. Capital wasted on this is not worth it in the long term.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
