Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-11-2012, 05:15 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
I think the notion reserve is a choice is a bit overstated. That said, there are some pilots that choose in base reserve to achieve a better quality of life than holding a bottom feeder line.
Forcing a reservist to fly potentially near 100 hours/month is ridiculous no matter how you spin it. Again, it just removes an option that some (obviously not Bill Lumberg who is gunning for only his own gains) find usefull in crafting their best quality of life.
Lets keep as many tools (not that kind of tool) available to Delta pilots to tailor their quality of life as possible and not write off one particular option/group simply because it doesn't apply to other groups.
Forcing a reservist to fly potentially near 100 hours/month is ridiculous no matter how you spin it. Again, it just removes an option that some (obviously not Bill Lumberg who is gunning for only his own gains) find usefull in crafting their best quality of life.
Lets keep as many tools (not that kind of tool) available to Delta pilots to tailor their quality of life as possible and not write off one particular option/group simply because it doesn't apply to other groups.
05-11-2012, 05:25 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
I am not trying to gun for my own gains at all. I want reserve pilots to get better QOL and more pay. I just pointed out that a lot of the more vocal pilots on this board are reserve guys, and that may or may not be by choice. I want the whole contract to be better. I just want the reserve guys to also look at life while not on reserve, which may be around the corner. No need to get hostile.
I guess I am just frustrated with guys talking about giving up QOL or horse trading items that could leave us worse off than we currently are in some areas.
05-11-2012, 05:29 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
I don't post much, but sit reserve and kill time reading this thread.
1. Unless you are a senior F/O on the super premium wide body pay scale this T/A will not be for us. Just a realist.
2. If you don't like your trips don't go to work. There are multiple options available to drop trips via the PWA. Heck there are even ways to get paid and stay at home.
As a collective group we need to realize we have the upper hand and grow a set. There is no one on the property that does not have at least 1.5 months of platinum days and 2 months worth of profit sharing pay. Stay home and enjoy.
1. Unless you are a senior F/O on the super premium wide body pay scale this T/A will not be for us. Just a realist.
2. If you don't like your trips don't go to work. There are multiple options available to drop trips via the PWA. Heck there are even ways to get paid and stay at home.
As a collective group we need to realize we have the upper hand and grow a set. There is no one on the property that does not have at least 1.5 months of platinum days and 2 months worth of profit sharing pay. Stay home and enjoy.
05-11-2012, 05:36 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,538
Could DAL reduce the debt another way? Maybe, but for them it does not solve the DCI issues for at least another ten years. We can force them to pay for those leases; eat them as Carl puts it, or we can force them to hit the leverage point another way. Facts are, they are apparently on a timeline and one that is tight in nature. Will being right and just with the RJ conviction force DAL to pass up opportunities that will grow our list and increase or take? Should we care and stick to our convictions?
At that point, the easiest and most foolproof way to test the validity of management's supposedly desperate RJ lease situation theory is to see the longevity of these additional (as well as existing) large RJ DC-9-10 replacement jets. What I mean by that is even if they truly need these extra jets at DCI and even if it is in our best interests over all (which it isn't) then the company should have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with making all of the additional jets temporary and offer a complete phase out of all of DCI above 50 seats in a reasonable timeframe. As in, no more DCI agreements can be renewed for over 50 seaters ever, and all must be gone by 2020 with very significant reductions starting a few years prior to that. That coincides with a full and complete sunset.
But does anyone really think management will go for that? They want more DC-9 replacement jets at DCI and they want them now. But the key here is they want them permanently. That's how you know they are lying about their intentions. If it were truly a one time please help us out deal that will save epic tons of money, they should have no problem putting an aggressive but doable drop dead sunset clause on all DCI over 50 seats. But THEY WON'T.
Again, that is how you know they are lying. Its also how you know our own MEC falsely thinks they are savvy in partnering with management to sell out more mainline jobs in the long run, even if phase I of all this results in hiring fairly quickly.
The way this is being pushed by the MEC, and supposedly in the spirit of constructive engagement, and to "unleash the DNA of Delta" as the guy who sits behind C.E. Woolman's desk so eloquently puts it, we should face absolutely no resistance in a complete drop dead of all >50 seaters before the decade is out unless what this is really about is permanent narrowbody fleet replacement and a never ending dead weight to our bargaining leverage. There is no other logical reason they wouldn't agree to it that that.
If that is not in the upcoming scope sale in the TA for more large RJ's, the company is lying to us and the MEC is, for whatever reason, partnering with them to gut the smaller end of our narrowbody jobs even more over the long term.
05-11-2012, 05:42 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
I don't want to give up anything, I want gains only. Do I think the company will want some help with scope (more 76 seaters to replace outgoing 50 seaters)? Probably. I don't want to give anything else with scope. I think there are a lot of areas that need major work, but I don't know if we can get to all of them. I hope so, but we have a lot that needs fixin.
05-11-2012, 05:46 PM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: Clarion View Crash Pad
Posts: 23
More Delta Air Line pilots should be everybody's focus during this negotiation process!
05-11-2012, 05:48 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
IOW, more 76 seaters at DCI. Probably lots more, like 50-100 or even more. OK, while that's an automatic no vote from me and I don't buy into any of the sky is falling alternatives, let's run with that assumption that we *need* these additional 76 seaters and we need them at DCI. Again, I strongly disagree, but let's assume it is the case (cause it WILL be in the TA no matter what.)
At that point, the easiest and most foolproof way to test the validity of management's supposedly desperate RJ lease situation theory is to see the longevity of these additional (as well as existing) large RJ DC-9-10 replacement jets. What I mean by that is even if they truly need these extra jets at DCI and even if it is in our best interests over all (which it isn't) then the company should have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with making all of the additional jets temporary and offer a complete phase out of all of DCI above 50 seats in a reasonable timeframe. As in, no more DCI agreements can be renewed for over 50 seaters ever, and all must be gone by 2020 with very significant reductions starting a few years prior to that. That coincides with a full and complete sunset.
But does anyone really think management will go for that? They want more DC-9 replacement jets at DCI and they want them now. But the key here is they want them permanently. That's how you know they are lying about their intentions. If it were truly a one time please help us out deal that will save epic tons of money, they should have no problem putting an aggressive but doable drop dead sunset clause on all DCI over 50 seats. But THEY WON'T.
Again, that is how you know they are lying. Its also how you know our own MEC falsely thinks they are savvy in partnering with management to sell out more mainline jobs in the long run, even if phase I of all this results in hiring fairly quickly.
The way this is being pushed by the MEC, and supposedly in the spirit of constructive engagement, and to "unleash the DNA of Delta" as the guy who sits behind C.E. Woolman's desk so eloquently puts it, we should face absolutely no resistance in a complete drop dead of all >50 seaters before the decade is out unless what this is really about is permanent narrowbody fleet replacement and a never ending dead weight to our bargaining leverage. There is no other logical reason they wouldn't agree to it that that.
If that is not in the upcoming scope sale in the TA for more large RJ's, the company is lying to us and the MEC is, for whatever reason, partnering with them to gut the smaller end of our narrowbody jobs even more over the long term.
At that point, the easiest and most foolproof way to test the validity of management's supposedly desperate RJ lease situation theory is to see the longevity of these additional (as well as existing) large RJ DC-9-10 replacement jets. What I mean by that is even if they truly need these extra jets at DCI and even if it is in our best interests over all (which it isn't) then the company should have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with making all of the additional jets temporary and offer a complete phase out of all of DCI above 50 seats in a reasonable timeframe. As in, no more DCI agreements can be renewed for over 50 seaters ever, and all must be gone by 2020 with very significant reductions starting a few years prior to that. That coincides with a full and complete sunset.
But does anyone really think management will go for that? They want more DC-9 replacement jets at DCI and they want them now. But the key here is they want them permanently. That's how you know they are lying about their intentions. If it were truly a one time please help us out deal that will save epic tons of money, they should have no problem putting an aggressive but doable drop dead sunset clause on all DCI over 50 seats. But THEY WON'T.
Again, that is how you know they are lying. Its also how you know our own MEC falsely thinks they are savvy in partnering with management to sell out more mainline jobs in the long run, even if phase I of all this results in hiring fairly quickly.
The way this is being pushed by the MEC, and supposedly in the spirit of constructive engagement, and to "unleash the DNA of Delta" as the guy who sits behind C.E. Woolman's desk so eloquently puts it, we should face absolutely no resistance in a complete drop dead of all >50 seaters before the decade is out unless what this is really about is permanent narrowbody fleet replacement and a never ending dead weight to our bargaining leverage. There is no other logical reason they wouldn't agree to it that that.
If that is not in the upcoming scope sale in the TA for more large RJ's, the company is lying to us and the MEC is, for whatever reason, partnering with them to gut the smaller end of our narrowbody jobs even more over the long term.
05-11-2012, 07:44 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
Thats one of my biggest issues with this contract. No more three days worth 10.3. If I'm going to layover someplace for 30 hours because it's in the company's best interest, fine, but pay me for it. LAX 73 guys with a line are working 18-20 days a month to make 78 hours. The scheduling process needs to ensure that we are productively used. That, and pay training and vacation commensurate with our duty time.
That is all for now.
OBTW, hanging at the pool at Aria Las Vegas. Serious eye candy. My wife included.
That is all for now.
OBTW, hanging at the pool at Aria Las Vegas. Serious eye candy. My wife included.
05-11-2012, 07:45 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
05-11-2012, 07:50 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 7ERB
Posts: 2,039
TEEEEEEEEEEN
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
