Delta Pilots Association
01-05-2011, 10:40 PM
#3941
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,049
I don't know this to be fact, but I'm quite sure the agreement(s) between Delta and their non-wholly owned connection carriers requires the connection carriers to indemnify DAL from lawsuits related to the connection carriers.
For example, I believe that Colgan had to indemnify Continental, and as such the lawyers representing the plaintiffs suing as a result of the crash in BUF will have a difficult time getting to Continental.
For example, I believe that Colgan had to indemnify Continental, and as such the lawyers representing the plaintiffs suing as a result of the crash in BUF will have a difficult time getting to Continental.
01-05-2011, 10:47 PM
#3942
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,049
Carl, that's because ALPA failed to full explain to those 70% of pilots what their actual position was in regards to the bankruptcy. Instead they ran the fear campaign, that's a huge departure from the old Cobra style of NWA. Why? Has ALPA become the arm of management, or become an oligarchy that only represents the most elite pilots?
I'm not as ignorant as you might think.
I'm not as ignorant as you might think.
Dealing one pilot's job for another pilot's pay destroys unity. While Carl and I are of a like mind on scope, I've not seen anything from the DPA which suggests a departure from the way ALPA evaluates and bargains. For the DPA to be credible to me, it would need to renounce ALPA's acceptance of distributive bargaining and educate prospective members on unity and basic unionism.
Just my opinion, based on the review of ALPA publications which justified their positions on scope.
01-05-2011, 11:12 PM
#3943
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
A little bit of both. Fear unified the pilots and justified the sale of junior pilot jobs to fund benefits (or fewer cuts) to the preferred group of pilots.
Dealing one pilot's job for another pilot's pay destroys unity. While Carl and I are of a like mind on scope, I've not seen anything from the DPA which suggests a departure from the way ALPA evaluates and bargains. For the DPA to be credible to me, it would need to renounce ALPA's acceptance of distributive bargaining and educate prospective members on unity and basic unionism.
Just my opinion, based on the review of ALPA publications which justified their positions on scope.
Dealing one pilot's job for another pilot's pay destroys unity. While Carl and I are of a like mind on scope, I've not seen anything from the DPA which suggests a departure from the way ALPA evaluates and bargains. For the DPA to be credible to me, it would need to renounce ALPA's acceptance of distributive bargaining and educate prospective members on unity and basic unionism.
Just my opinion, based on the review of ALPA publications which justified their positions on scope.
The DPA is all about unity..... of Delta pilots. That is the whole premise it seems.
How that would play out for scope logically would play out to ringing the outsourced flying back in. Or, for doing whatever it could to bring more compensation to the current DL pilot list.
That would remain to be seen until the motives come to light.
Regardless, I'm all for making ALPA fight for my support.
01-06-2011, 05:14 AM
#3944
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,704
[QUOTE=Bucking Bar;925578]A little bit of both. Fear unified the pilots and justified the sale of junior pilot jobs to fund benefits (or fewer cuts) to the preferred group of pilots.
I know that you are aware that scope in the last 3 major contracts was the very last thing settled. The pay rates were already done and set in stone before agreements were ever made on scope. While its possible that the company may have agreed on pay rates in anticipation of scope gains those involved in the process don't believe so. There was certainly no direct if you give us X number of 76 seat jets we will raise your pay.
What I find very perplexing is that the junior pilots resist the contract areas that would bring the most job gain the quickest. That is work rule changes. We gave up 2500 jobs pre merger to work rule changes. Post merger that number is larger.
I will never forget a new hire FE telling me how DALPA was screwing him by having a cap of 78 hours at the time. I asked why that was screwing him. He replied he would fly more and make more money if the cap was lifted. I asked him how much money he thought he would make if the cap were removed the next day. He replied he would fly to the FAR's or around 100 hard hours a month and see probably 110 hours a month pay with credit.
I replied that he was wrong. His new pay rate if the cap were lifted would be zero because he would be on the street furloughed. I still don't think he got it.
With the 1113 contract we have essentially become a cap less airline. Every pilot gets to fill out a contract survey. Recapturing some of the work rules we gave up and getting a real cap back on the property will be high on my list even though at my seniority it will not have much effect. Work rule changes that bring back 10 percent of the lost jobs will however be huge for the bottom half of the seniority list.
I know that you are aware that scope in the last 3 major contracts was the very last thing settled. The pay rates were already done and set in stone before agreements were ever made on scope. While its possible that the company may have agreed on pay rates in anticipation of scope gains those involved in the process don't believe so. There was certainly no direct if you give us X number of 76 seat jets we will raise your pay.
What I find very perplexing is that the junior pilots resist the contract areas that would bring the most job gain the quickest. That is work rule changes. We gave up 2500 jobs pre merger to work rule changes. Post merger that number is larger.
I will never forget a new hire FE telling me how DALPA was screwing him by having a cap of 78 hours at the time. I asked why that was screwing him. He replied he would fly more and make more money if the cap was lifted. I asked him how much money he thought he would make if the cap were removed the next day. He replied he would fly to the FAR's or around 100 hard hours a month and see probably 110 hours a month pay with credit.
I replied that he was wrong. His new pay rate if the cap were lifted would be zero because he would be on the street furloughed. I still don't think he got it.
With the 1113 contract we have essentially become a cap less airline. Every pilot gets to fill out a contract survey. Recapturing some of the work rules we gave up and getting a real cap back on the property will be high on my list even though at my seniority it will not have much effect. Work rule changes that bring back 10 percent of the lost jobs will however be huge for the bottom half of the seniority list.
01-06-2011, 05:41 AM
#3945
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
[QUOTE=sailingfun;925608]
While I agree with you to an extent, there comes a point where work rules that increase the workforce make said workforce non competitive on a productivity basis. The historical trend for labor groups is to become more productive.
If we could some how ensure more productive trip construction along with your work rule changes it could work. As it is now we spend too much time sitting around getting credit instead of block hours.
Compensation is derived from market value. Two big components of that are scarcity and productivity. We should strive to improve and control both.
A little bit of both. Fear unified the pilots and justified the sale of junior pilot jobs to fund benefits (or fewer cuts) to the preferred group of pilots.
I know that you are aware that scope in the last 3 major contracts was the very last thing settled. The pay rates were already done and set in stone before agreements were ever made on scope. While its possible that the company may have agreed on pay rates in anticipation of scope gains those involved in the process don't believe so. There was certainly no direct if you give us X number of 76 seat jets we will raise your pay.
What I find very perplexing is that the junior pilots resist the contract areas that would bring the most job gain the quickest. That is work rule changes. We gave up 2500 jobs pre merger to work rule changes. Post merger that number is larger.
I will never forget a new hire FE telling me how DALPA was screwing him by having a cap of 78 hours at the time. I asked why that was screwing him. He replied he would fly more and make more money if the cap was lifted. I asked him how much money he thought he would make if the cap were removed the next day. He replied he would fly to the FAR's or around 100 hard hours a month and see probably 110 hours a month pay with credit.
I replied that he was wrong. His new pay rate if the cap were lifted would be zero because he would be on the street furloughed. I still don't think he got it.
With the 1113 contract we have essentially become a cap less airline. Every pilot gets to fill out a contract survey. Recapturing some of the work rules we gave up and getting a real cap back on the property will be high on my list even though at my seniority it will not have much effect. Work rule changes that bring back 10 percent of the lost jobs will however be huge for the bottom half of the seniority list.
I know that you are aware that scope in the last 3 major contracts was the very last thing settled. The pay rates were already done and set in stone before agreements were ever made on scope. While its possible that the company may have agreed on pay rates in anticipation of scope gains those involved in the process don't believe so. There was certainly no direct if you give us X number of 76 seat jets we will raise your pay.
What I find very perplexing is that the junior pilots resist the contract areas that would bring the most job gain the quickest. That is work rule changes. We gave up 2500 jobs pre merger to work rule changes. Post merger that number is larger.
I will never forget a new hire FE telling me how DALPA was screwing him by having a cap of 78 hours at the time. I asked why that was screwing him. He replied he would fly more and make more money if the cap was lifted. I asked him how much money he thought he would make if the cap were removed the next day. He replied he would fly to the FAR's or around 100 hard hours a month and see probably 110 hours a month pay with credit.
I replied that he was wrong. His new pay rate if the cap were lifted would be zero because he would be on the street furloughed. I still don't think he got it.
With the 1113 contract we have essentially become a cap less airline. Every pilot gets to fill out a contract survey. Recapturing some of the work rules we gave up and getting a real cap back on the property will be high on my list even though at my seniority it will not have much effect. Work rule changes that bring back 10 percent of the lost jobs will however be huge for the bottom half of the seniority list.
If we could some how ensure more productive trip construction along with your work rule changes it could work. As it is now we spend too much time sitting around getting credit instead of block hours.
Compensation is derived from market value. Two big components of that are scarcity and productivity. We should strive to improve and control both.
01-06-2011, 05:54 AM
#3946
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
I don't know if you guys are familiar with the Mesaba bankruptcy, but the judge abrogated our contract and filed an injunction against us striking. Scope was a huge issue because we had a side letter with our parent company MAIR holdings restricting the size of Big Sky(our alter ego carrier, now defunct). However, during the bankruptcy that side letter was not thrown out, instead it held up in court, the Mesaba pilots never gave in on that concession. The reason it held up in court is because scope is the legal right of workers to organize and monopolize the labor of their own company. A bankruptcy judge denying that law and giving scope relief to the company is as ludicrous as a judge trying to make murder legal in a 1113(c) process. In other words scope is NEVER on the table, it must be willingly sold. Scope relief is a denial of union CBA representation to a certain part of the pilot group.
01-06-2011, 06:44 AM
#3947
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Beliefs like yours are a cancer to the major airline industry. You are the one supporting the destruction of our industry by working for food stamp wages. Yet you rail against people like me who have worked and struck to maintain as a high a wage base and QOL base as possible.
I would tell you to wise up, but I don't think you can.
Carl
I would tell you to wise up, but I don't think you can.
Carl
01-06-2011, 06:54 AM
#3948
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
I disagree with your "easy" premise of "volume":
For every "start-up RJ operator" there is a loss somewhere else in the network.
Gain Compass dues = Lose NWA mainline dues
Gain ASA/CMR dues= Lost DAL mainline dues
Gain CHQ flying = Lost UAL/CAL/US mainline dues and any RJ ALPA dues
Gain GoJet pilots only= Lose UA mainline dues and any RJ ALPA dues
Even if your theory was sort of true, it takes 2+ RJ pilots dues to replace 1 mainline pilots dues
(That is a lot more "walmarting" than can possibly have actually occured).....and I still aver that the flying is only shifting, not growing.
besides...what RJ airline has been started up in the last 10 years besides Gojets(diverted flying from transtates pilots...non-ALPA), Compass(that NWA created to replace DC-9 flying), and Freedom(which wasn't new growth but diverted Mesa growth...also non union but later absorbed into Mesa)?
01-06-2011, 07:27 AM
#3949
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
[QUOTE=satchip;925619]
While I agree with you to an extent, there comes a point where work rules that increase the workforce make said workforce non competitive on a productivity basis. The historical trend for labor groups is to become more productive.
If we could some how ensure more productive trip construction along with your work rule changes it could work. As it is now we spend too much time sitting around getting credit instead of block hours.
Compensation is derived from market value. Two big components of that are scarcity and productivity. We should strive to improve and control both.
Work rule changes are how you force more productive trip construction. Productivity sit arounds are the worst, but to get rid of them, you have to manipulate the workrules so the sit around is more expensive than not having it.
I dont know why this quoted Sailing, I think Satch is the one it should have quoted.
While I agree with you to an extent, there comes a point where work rules that increase the workforce make said workforce non competitive on a productivity basis. The historical trend for labor groups is to become more productive.
If we could some how ensure more productive trip construction along with your work rule changes it could work. As it is now we spend too much time sitting around getting credit instead of block hours.
Compensation is derived from market value. Two big components of that are scarcity and productivity. We should strive to improve and control both.
I dont know why this quoted Sailing, I think Satch is the one it should have quoted.
01-06-2011, 07:51 AM
#3950
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
[QUOTE=scambo1;925661]
Work rule changes are how you force more productive trip construction. Productivity sit arounds are the worst, but to get rid of them, you have to manipulate the workrules so the sit around is more expensive than not having it.
I dont know why this quoted Sailing, I think Satch is the one it should have quoted.
Yes it was me. If what you say is true, then by all means lets do this. Our schedulers use of resources is abysmal. It must be cheaper to have us sit on lounge chairs than in control seats. If we could make sit time as expensive or more so than fly time, I think that would stop. Would a minimum day of over 5 do it? 5x4 days = 20 hours should be an average trip. Would that work?
Work rule changes are how you force more productive trip construction. Productivity sit arounds are the worst, but to get rid of them, you have to manipulate the workrules so the sit around is more expensive than not having it.
I dont know why this quoted Sailing, I think Satch is the one it should have quoted.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 11:33 AM
