Details on Delta TA
06-04-2015, 01:25 PM
#5541
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 489
Help a new guy out: I just don't understand why the whole contract thing is such a secret. Why are negotiations held behind closed doors? Why is a TA not releasable for 7 full days? It feels like I'm still active duty and we're dealing with classified info. Also feels like it's harder to keep those who should be accountable.
Good questions that many other folks wonder about as well.
As somebody else stated, you cracked part of the code with your last sentence.
06-04-2015, 01:26 PM
#5542
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Posts: 367
Yes that would still be a concession.
First of all, if the company has the market need for 100 additional airplanes, they will get those airplanes regardless of us allowing more "large RJ's" or not. Not to mention that by growing the 90 seaters at DCI even more, we would be weakening our future foundation of our newest smallest fleet.
Secondly is how on earth would we write the concession to guarantee that these new 100 "hundred seaters" (how classic is that rumor anyway) wouldn't be partial to full replacement airframes eventually anyway? Park a dozen of the oldest original 320's and several dozen MD's and cover the lift with the new lower paying jets and keep the extra concessionary 90 seater RJs. Now that's winning.
Also, the 50 fewer DCI airframes would likely be most or all 50 seaters that are on the way out regardless and that they can't staff anyway.
Pilot concessions don't buy aircraft. If we'd fall for that, then they should have locked it down by floating this proposal a year or so ago and rolling the widebody order into it as well. Would we have fallen for that too? Scope concessions don't buy aircraft.
First of all, if the company has the market need for 100 additional airplanes, they will get those airplanes regardless of us allowing more "large RJ's" or not. Not to mention that by growing the 90 seaters at DCI even more, we would be weakening our future foundation of our newest smallest fleet.
Secondly is how on earth would we write the concession to guarantee that these new 100 "hundred seaters" (how classic is that rumor anyway) wouldn't be partial to full replacement airframes eventually anyway? Park a dozen of the oldest original 320's and several dozen MD's and cover the lift with the new lower paying jets and keep the extra concessionary 90 seater RJs. Now that's winning.
Also, the 50 fewer DCI airframes would likely be most or all 50 seaters that are on the way out regardless and that they can't staff anyway.
Pilot concessions don't buy aircraft. If we'd fall for that, then they should have locked it down by floating this proposal a year or so ago and rolling the widebody order into it as well. Would we have fallen for that too? Scope concessions don't buy aircraft.
What if the 100 seater paid the same as the 80?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
06-04-2015, 01:53 PM
#5545
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
The 110 seater doesn't.
In any case breathing even more life into DCI and giving them even more DC-9-10 sized "RJ's" to perpetually hold over our head by farming out to the lowest bidder would negatively effect the "hundred seater" and serve only to pull down everything else with it, especially in the next down cycle. And there will be a next down cycle.
And it still wouldn't fully protect from some or all of them being used eventually for replacement anyway. Look how insufficient the block hour ration was the last time. No where remotely close to protecting us from downsizing.
I reject the logic loop sophistry of the "Indecent Proposal" argument in its entirety, and I think even entertaining it severely weakens us collectively. Some things just shouldn't be for sale.
In any case breathing even more life into DCI and giving them even more DC-9-10 sized "RJ's" to perpetually hold over our head by farming out to the lowest bidder would negatively effect the "hundred seater" and serve only to pull down everything else with it, especially in the next down cycle. And there will be a next down cycle.
And it still wouldn't fully protect from some or all of them being used eventually for replacement anyway. Look how insufficient the block hour ration was the last time. No where remotely close to protecting us from downsizing.
I reject the logic loop sophistry of the "Indecent Proposal" argument in its entirety, and I think even entertaining it severely weakens us collectively. Some things just shouldn't be for sale.
06-04-2015, 02:27 PM
#5547
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,730
Must be a good TA for the company to want to get it done this early. Otherwise they could sit back and just save it. Time value of money and everything.
Hmmmmm...wonder why they wanted to get it done so early? If it's because they just care about us and want a cooperative environment then I guess we'll see a minimum of restoration on date of signing without having to pay for it with a cut to PS or scope cave. If we don't see that then I would hope the average DL pilot would be more than a bit suspicious as to their motivation.
Hmmmmm...wonder why they wanted to get it done so early? If it's because they just care about us and want a cooperative environment then I guess we'll see a minimum of restoration on date of signing without having to pay for it with a cut to PS or scope cave. If we don't see that then I would hope the average DL pilot would be more than a bit suspicious as to their motivation.
Oh, and you'll never see those two 3% raises....oh wait.
06-04-2015, 02:29 PM
#5548
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 260
So, if the rumors are true, in addition to the increased in ADG from the 117 negotiations, you'll also get a payrate increase in 2015. It seems that those who guessed that the 2012 pay rates wouldn't stand to the end of the contract could in fact be correct.
06-04-2015, 02:38 PM
#5550
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Capt
Posts: 2,049
Yeah, we like to refer to those people as tools, soooooo. Kinda like saying going from $1 per hour to $1.01 is a raise, technically...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
