acl65pilot

What is interesting is that many of the regionals that make up the DCI portfolio have work rules that have come a long way since 2001, 401K match of 75% up to at least 8%, and trip rigs that pay them a lot more than what they fly. Their costs have gone up a lot over the lat 12 years. No doubt about that.

It will cost more on a pilot to pilot basis to fly the jets here. No doubt about it. We know that, and unless we want to fly their whole book, and have a separate one for this flying, we just need to understand and expect that. The difference is what seniority numbers will be flying A and B positions here versus there. Here it will be significantly more junior. That must be taken in to account.

Where we differ on labor costs the most are their mechanics, flight attendants, and dispatchers. Their mechanics have to work about a 70 hr week to clear 80K a year, their FA's top out at 27 an hr where ours are almost to 48 an hr, and their dispatchers are paid about 60% of what our get paid. The majority of the labor savings come from these.

The real savings comes in the form of removing debt off the balance sheet and having someone else commit to the aircraft lease/payment. DAL is still on the hook for the payment, but now though the form of an operational expense, and not debt service. This helps DAL lower the debt service on the debt it carriers as well and the debt that they would carry, which would result in higher rates/debt service for all of the debt. That savings far outweighs any pilot or labor savings. Find a way to allow or convince DAL to do this with in-sourcing labor, and reducing redundant management and support teams and you found a way for all parties to come out ahead.

The simple fact is the savings are too great for DAL to pass up and as a result they go for the savings and outsource the brand.

tsquare

Do you somehow have to retire at 60 Jack? I think you have those same five years available to you too unless there is some sort of strange time warp that doesn't include you.

And no I have no kids in the business as if that matters anyway. I am the one that wants to put more money in YOUR pocket, not Carl.. you might want to do a little research buddy.. Carl thinks you need to wait until your seniority will allow you to hold the big iron.. I think it shouldn't make any difference... but rant on pal.

You don't get it.

BlueMoon

So could the DALPA contract span to more than one company? The regional would get their pilots from Delta and pay in accordance with the Delta contract. All the pilots would be on a master list and could bid between companies as seniority allow. I know it may not be something you can institute now, but just an idea.

Or just negotiate in the your scope clause that any contracted flying must meet certain compensation requirements for pilots, thus driving up the cost of outsourcing.

vprMatrix

What you state above is the sickness in our industry. What you and ALPA fail to see right under your nose is that ALPA is the cause of it and is making it all possible. By actively supporting outsourcing at mainline we are destroying the industry from the bottom up. ALPA leadership has bought into managements idea that you cannot afford to fly small jets at mainline rates and that by outsourcing more and larger jets to many cheaper carriers will allow price control which will allow more profits which will allow higher pay to mainline pilots.

The outsourcing portion has worked as advertised. By having multiple carriers Delta management has successfully moved flying from carrier to carrier as soon as one of these carriers cost have increased at all giving flying to not only non-ALPA carriers but also to groups that have been established to destroy ALPA carriers. The result is carriers with low longevity and established carriers in bankruptcy or large reductions. The companies that have gone bankrupt haven't gone bankrupt because they paid there pilots some outrageous dollar amount but because there longevity started to increase.

DALPA has not once publicly denounced the destroying of other ALPA jobs in favor of new startup or alter ego airlines because they believe that it is good for Delta pilots and that mainline pay rates can be increased because of the downward pressure on wages at DCI due to the whipsaw. The problem I see is that there no way to know if we are getting any of that money other that a little profit sharing but I also argue that we are creating a downward pressure on our own pay rates. When negotiations get down to pay rates any management team worth anything will have to point out the difference in pay between the 76 seat four year avg longevity pay rates and compare them to the smallest mainline equipment and say that it's just not reasonable to have a “significant” raise unless more outsourcing is allowed. This process then effects all other higher paying aircraft as well. I can guarantee that company negotiators and analyst are looking at the pilot cost of not just our peer airlines but also those airlines we are outsourcing to.

My believe is that ALPA's support for outsourcing to the lowest cost provider will continue to destroy the profession and place a downward press on mainline wages. DALPA has an opportunity now to stop or significantly reduce outsourcing and stop the downward pressure that the whipsawing and perpetual bankruptcy of regional carriers will continue to cause.

Wasatch Phantom

Slow,

I didn't define "respectable, but I would categorize "Go Jets" as less than respectable. I don't think very highly of Republic, either.

In my quick research I did not "cherry pick" but rather used examples of carriers that I was pretty sure operated CRJ-900 aircraft or the E-190. I just went to APC and looked at the numbers they had listed.

IIRC Compass was started by NWA during their bankruptcy and there were flow agreements in both directions. It's my understanding Compass applicants interviewed with NWA as they would eventually become NWA pilots. This is just my opinion, but DALPA "screwed the pooch" with the way they handled Compass.

The DALPA attitude of "It's a really complex cost equation and you're not smart enough to understand..." is the type of arrogance that I really resent, and one reason why I support DALPA's ouster.

DAL73n

We are always talking about our High Value Customers - their is a value to having control of the brand. How much do we lose by one of our HVCs having a bad experience at the DCI carriers (whether it's a gate agent, bad maintenance, poor FA's, or a poor crew). If that happens at DAL then if they complain then at least we can identify a weak area and fix it. What do we do if it happens at a DCI carrier. Marketing firms will tell you how expensive it is to attract a new customer (I'm talking an HVC - not your scour the internet, cheapest price leisure customer). How many of AT's former Platinum Flyers are we going to get when SWA eliminates 1st class? Let's factor that into the cost equation (there are ways to figure this out).

Columbia

Bingo. However, management would rather keep their RJ outsourced leverage than ticking off innumerable hvcs who leave for greener pastures. They know that once they give up their leverage, even if it costs them a ton of money, the pilots will never give it back. 50 seaters will be here longer and in greater numbers than most would hope.

Scoop

Slow,

You are missing my point. Lets be consistent. Its only the real world at the DCI level? AMR, UCAL and USAIR will somehow not prohibit our ability to get a pay-raise in section 6, but the DCI carriers you mention will not allow anyone to pay a higher rate on that equipment ever? You say pattern bargaining works both ways - is that except for DCI which will always and forever go down?

IF DALPA can bargain up mainline rates (and at times has) why do you showcase some bottom feeding DCI carriers and declare it a lost cause concerning DCI?

No one is saying costs do not matter. We should all agree we are constrained by the current environment, and maybe the 70 seater economics will not presently work at Delta but what about the E190?

Scoop

scambo1

You misunderstood what I said.

My metric is pilot rate ie: lets say $125/hr divided by the passengers (76)= x

747-400 is $380ish/hr divided by 400 passengers = y

I dont see a 60% disparity

Timbo

Too bad we don't have some type of a big National Union with some stones and political clout, that would set a pay floor, or some type of system wide, minimum pay and benefit scale, that would prohibit the whipsawing we've been watching since ALPA signed it's first B scale contract, back in 1985.

Instead we had to wait for the FAA to set the floor for anyone flying passengers in a Part 121, scheduled Airline type operation, as having to hold an ATP.

What a concept.

Where was ALPA in demanding this, many years ago, when the first RJ's started showing up? But today, all they have to do is piggy back onto this new Reg. and say; "We fully support the new 1500hr. ATP rule, and to that end, since you are going to have to be hiring a more experienced, higher rated pilot, who has invested more time and money into his own training, we will now enact a "Minimum Pay Scale" for all ATP Pilots, starting with the 50 seat RJ's, and that minimum rate will be $100/hr. (or something greater) for first year Capts. and $70/hr. for first year F/O's, and go up from there, for every year of greater experience these pilots will have to offer."

Where's all my ALPA PAC money going anyway??