Delta Payscale For Crj900?
02-07-2009, 11:58 AM
#411
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: A330 First Officer
Posts: 1,465
One of the reasons given for not being able to do the 70 seat flying was cost. Keep in mind it's not just pilot cost. If this becomes a mainline plane then you pay mainline flight attendant, ramp personnel and everyone else that comes in contact with the airplane. It's not just limited to pilot cost, it's the whole shooting match.
02-07-2009, 12:10 PM
#412
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Didn't he work at management at his previous carrier?FWIW, Alpha, you're dead on.
02-07-2009, 12:26 PM
#413
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: FIRE ALPA
Posts: 3,097
One of the reasons given for not being able to do the 70 seat flying was cost. Keep in mind it's not just pilot cost. If this becomes a mainline plane then you pay mainline flight attendant, ramp personnel and everyone else that comes in contact with the airplane. It's not just limited to pilot cost, it's the whole shooting match.
The only cost would come in a small increase in pay and a significant improvement in work rules for the flight crews....
02-07-2009, 12:38 PM
#414
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
ACL,
Can't do the whole quote counterquote thing because it would be too long. Just a couple of points. First, you point out CAL and AMR scope as preventing 70+ seat flying. As I said before, neither of those companies has 76 seaters on their property and both are getting rid of their smallest mainline planes. I don't know the reason behind this, but you should find out before you hold that up as the end-all solution. Also, you need to study CAL's scope a little more before you hold it up as an example to follow. They do have a limit of 50 seats on their fee for departure carriers but there are virtually no limits on pro-rate code sharing. In fact, CAL management was able to join the DL,NW,CO codeshare deal without any input from the CAL pilots because their scope had no provisions preventing it.
My main point is that Delta may end up bringing this flying back, but probably only on their own accord. If you try to force this issue in bargaining, they will make you pay for it, and the price may be high. If I said you could force this for a 0% pay cut, you would say yes. If I said you could only force this by taking a 50% pay cut, you would say no. Somewhere in between those two, you have a squeal point where the price would be too high. Management would force you to give up every penny they could if you make this your signature issue in bargaining.
There is another path, and that is to try to convince management that this is in THEIR interest. I see two possible arguments, cost and brand management. The cost side is a tough hill to climb. There are cost advantages to size and certainly Delta now pays for some or all of the cost of CEO's, CFO's, Human Relations, etc. at Compass, ASA, Comair, Mesaba, and all the rest. Eliminating this overhead might be a cost incentive to gather back in this flying.
I believe the more cogent argument is brand management. Delta management now wants to be a premiere airline with industry leading service. It will be difficult to do that with the RJ feed being managed by a bunch of executives that have to constantly underbid each other to keep their flying. (Note: this is NOT a knock at the pilots at these carriers, that in my limited exposure are quite professional). If management can be convinced that they need to recapture this flying to control their brand, then you could reach your goal without having to pay a steep price. There would be many other issues to sort out with this and the union would then play a critical role in solving those issues, but I think you will only be successful if you can convince management that they need this for THEM and not for the pilots.
You seem to have all the inside scoop from Flight Operations, perhaps you could convince your buddies up there to work on this path.
Can't do the whole quote counterquote thing because it would be too long. Just a couple of points. First, you point out CAL and AMR scope as preventing 70+ seat flying. As I said before, neither of those companies has 76 seaters on their property and both are getting rid of their smallest mainline planes. I don't know the reason behind this, but you should find out before you hold that up as the end-all solution. Also, you need to study CAL's scope a little more before you hold it up as an example to follow. They do have a limit of 50 seats on their fee for departure carriers but there are virtually no limits on pro-rate code sharing. In fact, CAL management was able to join the DL,NW,CO codeshare deal without any input from the CAL pilots because their scope had no provisions preventing it.
My main point is that Delta may end up bringing this flying back, but probably only on their own accord. If you try to force this issue in bargaining, they will make you pay for it, and the price may be high. If I said you could force this for a 0% pay cut, you would say yes. If I said you could only force this by taking a 50% pay cut, you would say no. Somewhere in between those two, you have a squeal point where the price would be too high. Management would force you to give up every penny they could if you make this your signature issue in bargaining.
There is another path, and that is to try to convince management that this is in THEIR interest. I see two possible arguments, cost and brand management. The cost side is a tough hill to climb. There are cost advantages to size and certainly Delta now pays for some or all of the cost of CEO's, CFO's, Human Relations, etc. at Compass, ASA, Comair, Mesaba, and all the rest. Eliminating this overhead might be a cost incentive to gather back in this flying.
I believe the more cogent argument is brand management. Delta management now wants to be a premiere airline with industry leading service. It will be difficult to do that with the RJ feed being managed by a bunch of executives that have to constantly underbid each other to keep their flying. (Note: this is NOT a knock at the pilots at these carriers, that in my limited exposure are quite professional). If management can be convinced that they need to recapture this flying to control their brand, then you could reach your goal without having to pay a steep price. There would be many other issues to sort out with this and the union would then play a critical role in solving those issues, but I think you will only be successful if you can convince management that they need this for THEM and not for the pilots.
You seem to have all the inside scoop from Flight Operations, perhaps you could convince your buddies up there to work on this path.
Funny thing is I agree with almost all of what you said. I never said that we would not have to take a pay cut. But I disagree with negotiating against yourself. I am not one to offer things like a pay cut for this.
I agree that, the second course is something that Delta sees.
They do not like the RJ's either. What I truly took issues with is the rhetoric about the B scale, and the history. I know it quite well. I know the issues that surround this. But there are opportunities here that were not here before CPZ.
02-07-2009, 12:39 PM
#415
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I'll bet that he won't even try. He prefers spreading the rumor du jour from the morsels he's fed by his 4th floor and CPO friends. Standing up and being accountable for an opinion that contradicts current management philosophy might burn his bridges! Didn't he work at management at his previous carrier?
FWIW, Alpha, you're dead on.
Didn't he work at management at his previous carrier?FWIW, Alpha, you're dead on.
02-07-2009, 03:51 PM
#416
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
One of the reasons given for not being able to do the 70 seat flying was cost. Keep in mind it's not just pilot cost. If this becomes a mainline plane then you pay mainline flight attendant, ramp personnel and everyone else that comes in contact with the airplane. It's not just limited to pilot cost, it's the whole shooting match.
Now with the pay cuts of the two later groups they are fairly close in line to our DCI counter parts.
Yes, there are some costs that are more here but not as many as you think. Most of these DCI carriers have trip and duty rigs that are very close to mainline. The divide is not want people think it is.
The only disparity is that a five year 50 seat CA makes about 60 an hr or so. That is downward pressure on our rates and QOL.
DAL has done a great job of creating self induced competition between the DCI carriers and the DCI carriers and mainline. This does not even include outside competition. It is an overall constant downward pressure of our wages and QOL. (Both sides of the operation not just mainline)
Brining some of these RJ's back to mainline is good for us and good for the overall trend in where this career has been headed since the late 90's.
I acknowledge that negotiations end in give in take, but they do not necessarily need to start there. Once advantage that we have is that our leaders see the long term issues with small jet lift. Over time it will be pared down. Problem is that they will want all jets blow 90 then 100 seats at DCI? Are we going to given them that when the next gun is put to our heard. If so the war has been lost.
02-07-2009, 03:55 PM
#417
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: CA
Posts: 397
ACL,
Can't do the whole quote counterquote thing because it would be too long. Just a couple of points. First, you point out CAL and AMR scope as preventing 70+ seat flying. As I said before, neither of those companies has 76 seaters on their property and both are getting rid of their smallest mainline planes.
Can't do the whole quote counterquote thing because it would be too long. Just a couple of points. First, you point out CAL and AMR scope as preventing 70+ seat flying. As I said before, neither of those companies has 76 seaters on their property and both are getting rid of their smallest mainline planes.
02-07-2009, 06:37 PM
#418
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Alfaromeo:
Thanks for knocking this issue around with us. It is hoped that we did not imply that bankruptcy was anything less that a terrible tragedy and that ALPA did truly have a gun placed to its head. You make some good points about the holes in other airlines' scope.
But, now we may have opportunities to recapture flying and best I can tell WE ARE NOT EVEN ASKING THE QUESTION! There is no harm in evaluating this situation, especially when the Company finds itself with one unworkable flow through agreement and one very undesirable flow through agreement.
I tried to answer your questions, kindly do the favor of replying to one of mine:
Why couldn't we have a single list across current contracts?
I WOULD trade my displacement for the left seat of an E170, particularly if it was in a good base. I would bid it under current contract language at the respective companies, the pilots who do not want to bid that, don't have to. If they don't wish to work for Compass' contract, it does not have to effect other pilots.
Now, I would like ALPA to evaluate this idea and actually report some facts back to the membership. It could very well be that it is a terrible idea and would allow the Company to operate more outsourced CRJ 900's or E170's. Possibly there are unintended consequences we need to be aware of.
But it appears we are failing to take any initiative to return Delta flying to Delta pilots. When the DC9's do finally retire, there are going to be a lot of pilots looking for jobs.
Thanks for knocking this issue around with us. It is hoped that we did not imply that bankruptcy was anything less that a terrible tragedy and that ALPA did truly have a gun placed to its head. You make some good points about the holes in other airlines' scope.
But, now we may have opportunities to recapture flying and best I can tell WE ARE NOT EVEN ASKING THE QUESTION! There is no harm in evaluating this situation, especially when the Company finds itself with one unworkable flow through agreement and one very undesirable flow through agreement.
I tried to answer your questions, kindly do the favor of replying to one of mine:
Why couldn't we have a single list across current contracts?
I WOULD trade my displacement for the left seat of an E170, particularly if it was in a good base. I would bid it under current contract language at the respective companies, the pilots who do not want to bid that, don't have to. If they don't wish to work for Compass' contract, it does not have to effect other pilots.
Now, I would like ALPA to evaluate this idea and actually report some facts back to the membership. It could very well be that it is a terrible idea and would allow the Company to operate more outsourced CRJ 900's or E170's. Possibly there are unintended consequences we need to be aware of.
But it appears we are failing to take any initiative to return Delta flying to Delta pilots. When the DC9's do finally retire, there are going to be a lot of pilots looking for jobs.
02-07-2009, 06:41 PM
#419
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
02-08-2009, 05:58 AM
#420
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
To have one list and one contract, you have to get the companies merged. That merger has to be initiated by the companies involved. As I said above you can try to force a merger through contractual provisions, which I don't think is likely, or you can get management to want to do the merger, which is possible.
I wouldn't necessarily assume that because you don't hear a lot about this issue that nobody is thinking about it. Management is probably pretty task saturated with the current merger, it may be best to set the stage for the near future rather than try to force the issue now.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
