Falcon7

Good info, thanks for posting.

alfaromeo

Here are the solid commitments that Delta had for RJ flying BEFORE C2012.



Delta was committed to fly 311 RJ-50's through 2015. They will be down to less than 125 by then. Please explain how Delta was able to get out of all those commitments without the incentives that C2012 allowed them.

Delta was committed to pay the financing costs for all those aircraft through 2015 also. Please explain how Delta was able to get out of those financing commitments without the incentives that C2012 allowed them.

What you are saying is, "facts be damned, I know what I know therefore I am right." All I am asking for is some rational, logical explanation of how Delta would get out of those commitments without the additional 76 aircraft to offer as bribes to both the regional carriers and the financiers of those aircraft.

That was the point of the negotiation. That is why we got $1 billion 6 months early. Without those incentives, Delta was stuck with those 50 seaters and they could not introduce 88 717's into the system without increasing capacity too much. That is why they were going to get a smaller number of A-319's as Plan B. This was not some dodge, there were negotiations with both SWA and the other party at the same time, I saw the people roaming the halls of the GO.

Every single time management speaks in public, they talk about capacity control. To follow your logic, they would have just thrown that out the window, jammed more capacity into the system that they wanted, just because you say they were too good a deal to pass up. They could have been passed up and they would have been passed up. Your position ignores all the facts and instead relies on your gut feel. Is that how Delta management runs this operation, by gut feel or by hard analysis?

One last question. If the deal was too good to pass up, then why didn't SWA get more money out of Delta? You are saying Delta had no choice but to buy those aircraft, so why didn't SWA stick it to them? The answer is that Delta had a plan to walk away from those aircraft. That was Plan B.

DAL 88 Driver

No it's not. You asked how cost neutral could be a bad thing, which implies that you think it's a good thing. Given the severity of the cuts we took... in order to recover from those cuts it's going to take some very large increases to our compensation. I don't see how that can happen without increasing our cost to Delta Air Lines, which makes what I "mentioned" extremely relevant.

Certainly, from management's perspective, increasing a cost is not what they'd like to see happen. But it's a reality of business. Costs increase at times. You deal with it... adjust the business plan to reality. The cost increase that would be needed for pilot contract restoration is doable for Delta and is relatively small in the grand scheme of things.

If your perspective is that the overriding priority should be helping management keep their costs low... well, let's just say that's NOT the perspective I expect my representation to have. Not in the situation we're in where we've taken such severe cuts.

sailingfun

So it's your belief that Delta is forging the quarterly and annual reports showing pilot costs increasing each year at almost exactly the amounts predicted by DALPA?

tsquare

I disagree. Example. If Carl takes a 20% pay cut and I get a 30% pay increase, that's (for sake of example) cost neutral. Great for me, and sucks for Carl. I don't care about Carl. Sorry, but I don't anymore than you care about me. Now apply that process to the rest of the company. IF we make more and they don't... sucks to be them. Not my problem. Cost neutral. Your waving an agenda building flag that has nothing to do with our issues.

Klondike Bear

I have a question and I was hoping someone could answer it. Why is it that the Union guys who are trying to get us improvements are the ones telling us that things are great? If I was running a union I would be complaining about everything. Sometimes I think Purple Drank and Carl Spackler are over the top on things but at least they are trying to make things better. I hated the shut up and color attitude of the Air Force and I am disappointed to see that same attitude at ALPA.

I think things are great. I love Delta I make good money and I get good time off, but I want more money and I want more time off. Lets actually fight for our improvements please. I want ALPA to stay but I fear if we don't see some fight in it the DPA will come roaring back.

Alan Shore

I certainly agree that characterizing SWA vacation at 3:15 per day is wholly inaccurate, because a SWA pilot can receive more vacation pay in a year than 3:15 per day. OTOH, a FedEx pilot gets 6:00 per day period. He can drop more trips with pay in one vacation, but he must then make that up somewhere else. The value (in terms of pay hours) is accurately described as 6:00 per day, and that's all that DALPA's comparison shows.

Nor would it be correct to say that a FedEx pilot gets more days off due to his vacation credit than we do, other than the fact that it's 6:00 as opposed to our 3:15. He can certainly drop more trips due to a vacation than we can, but he must make that up someplace else or lose $$$. At the end of the day, he gets 6:00 per day of vacation credit toward those dropped trips and we get 3:15 per day of vacation toward our initial line in PBS.

One could certainly talk about the way that good bidding (and seniority) can let him get many added days off surrounding his vacation, but one can say the same thing in PBS with good bidding (and seniority). SWA, on the other hand, has an awesome deal -- better than Delta had when we had trips touching for vacation.

sailingfun

We all want more pay and more time off. The problem is the RLA process is stacked in favor of management. One of the interesting things is when we get new blood and reformers in the union they often end up with similar thoughts to the incumbent they ousted. The reason is with a reasonable intelligence level you get the same results from the same set of facts.
We are just starting the contract process. What we attempt to gain has to be a balance. The union will look at the contract surveys and gather input from lounge shows. They will then reach out politically and determine are support level in DC. They will get briefed by the NMB on their expectations and timelines. They will speak with professional negotiators and lawyers who specialize in labor. In the end they will try and craft a opener that will produce the best gains for the pilot group. Open outside of what the NMB feels is the zone of reasonableness and they will ice us. Open to low and we leave money on the table. American is a perfect example of opening for the moon and five years later have a pay increase of zero.
Management is not going to let their pilot costs get to far above the competition without a long drawn out fight. Even if the NMB feels we are being reasonable you are looking at 3 to 3.5 years before a release at the very earliest. If they don't feel you're within reason they will ice you indefinitely. The key to getting the most value for the pilot group is striking the right balance.
We can open for a 40% raise and work rules requiring 20% more pilots. It will look great on paper and we can all thump our chests at how tough we are. 5 years later the chest thumping will be getting painful and our gains will be zero. Balance is the key. Google NMB and reasonableness, interesting reading.

Carl Spackler

It is real analysis. Your problem is that the analysis is about a different subject. You and sailingfud do that a lot. You hope that color charts somehow gives you credibility. We're not discussing "pilots required." We're discussing whether C2012 provide a net gain in value to Delta pilots. Rather than the shell game you're attempting with the graph above, you have the ability to show the data that would answer the question. You were high up in the MEC administration during C2012 so you have this data. I'll have to put my request in the next post however or else you'll ignore it and insult everything in this post.

Carl

johnso29

Several questions. Where do you see that DALPA isn't fighting for the things you mentioned? Is a contract survey, and multiple emails requesting that our membership participate a "shut up and color" attitude? Is a Rotation Construction survey? How about lounge visits? Webinars?

Sitting behind a keyboard checking out insults and criticism, while failing to acknowledge improvements, is not trying to make things better.