DAL early retirement 2009/2011
04-23-2011, 06:16 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: MD88
Posts: 455
Almost. The 900 and the E-175's, etc. are definitely nice, comfortable airplanes. No question we should be flying those... they are a direct replacement for the DC-9.
But here's what I see wrong with your thinking above. I commuted for 4 years on mostly RJ's. I have seen it time and time again. These subcontracted carriers do not have the same motivation, professionalism, etc. to provide the kind of product Delta desires for its customers. Bottom line... you get what you pay for. It's just never going to happen with an outsourced product. And while the cost side of the equation might look better with outsourcing, the effect on revenue should not be ignored. There's no telling how many thousands of passengers we've run off over the years because they had a terrible experience on what they thought was Delta. I don't mean this as a slam at the regional pilots. I've seen some bad ones, but the vast majority have been professionals that fly a nice airplane. But there is just no way to have the needed control over your product by outsourcing it. Not going to happen in a million years.
And about the valet bag thing. That's not always as good as it may sound. I've had my bag damaged numerous times via this process. If I could carry it onboard myself, that damage would not have happened. Furthermore, I've seen countless times where our customers are being forced to stand in an extremely hot or cold jetway waiting (sometimes for as much as 10 minutes) for these bags to be brought up. Not only is it inappropriate to subject our customers to this level of discomfort... but I've also seen numerous times where people were really pressed for time to make their connecting flight and waiting for the bags caused them to miss it.
But here's what I see wrong with your thinking above. I commuted for 4 years on mostly RJ's. I have seen it time and time again. These subcontracted carriers do not have the same motivation, professionalism, etc. to provide the kind of product Delta desires for its customers. Bottom line... you get what you pay for. It's just never going to happen with an outsourced product. And while the cost side of the equation might look better with outsourcing, the effect on revenue should not be ignored. There's no telling how many thousands of passengers we've run off over the years because they had a terrible experience on what they thought was Delta. I don't mean this as a slam at the regional pilots. I've seen some bad ones, but the vast majority have been professionals that fly a nice airplane. But there is just no way to have the needed control over your product by outsourcing it. Not going to happen in a million years.
And about the valet bag thing. That's not always as good as it may sound. I've had my bag damaged numerous times via this process. If I could carry it onboard myself, that damage would not have happened. Furthermore, I've seen countless times where our customers are being forced to stand in an extremely hot or cold jetway waiting (sometimes for as much as 10 minutes) for these bags to be brought up. Not only is it inappropriate to subject our customers to this level of discomfort... but I've also seen numerous times where people were really pressed for time to make their connecting flight and waiting for the bags caused them to miss it.
04-23-2011, 06:27 AM
#62
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
04-23-2011, 06:36 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
No strike committee active under JM.
No DPN/P2P/Family Awareness under JM.
Refusal to testify during our 1113. Even retired pilots did that.
Tried to keep a PRP as a voting member for his election.
Delayed the election when it was clear he was going to lose.
He did nothing to protect the pension. After the liquidity shortfall he put out a communique that the pension was fine and lump sums wouldn't affect it. Our pension never paid a lump sum again.
Gloves off? Right...
04-23-2011, 07:05 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
Not to belabor the point (too much) but one thing "we got" out of letter 50 was the so-called "Bankruptcy Protection Letter". Basically the letter, signed by DAL senior management, promised if the company sought protection through the bankruptcy process DAL would:
a.) Not ask any more of the pilot group than any other employee group, and...
b.) The cuts taken by the pilot group in Letter 50 would count toward that amount.
I find it interesting that in the thread discussing the situation with Republic and the scope clause issue, "the intent of the parties" is thought to be very germane to the issue...
Similarly we are frequently told by the ALPA stalwarts that ALPA National has "the best legal team available".
After John Malone was replaced by Lee Moak we were told by ALPA that the Bankruptcy Protection Letter was meaningless and had no value in court.
My question to the ALPA stalwarts is:
If this team is so great why was the Bankruptcy Protection Letter even created and "sold" to the pilot group in the first place? Or, if the intent of the parties was important, (and the Bankruptcy Protection Letter clearly spelled out intent) why was it not used?
I try to judge someones performance based upon their track record. My personal opinion, based partly upon their performance during the bankruptcy process we went through, is ALPA National's "crack legal team" is anything but...
a.) Not ask any more of the pilot group than any other employee group, and...
b.) The cuts taken by the pilot group in Letter 50 would count toward that amount.
I find it interesting that in the thread discussing the situation with Republic and the scope clause issue, "the intent of the parties" is thought to be very germane to the issue...
Similarly we are frequently told by the ALPA stalwarts that ALPA National has "the best legal team available".
After John Malone was replaced by Lee Moak we were told by ALPA that the Bankruptcy Protection Letter was meaningless and had no value in court.
My question to the ALPA stalwarts is:
If this team is so great why was the Bankruptcy Protection Letter even created and "sold" to the pilot group in the first place? Or, if the intent of the parties was important, (and the Bankruptcy Protection Letter clearly spelled out intent) why was it not used?
I try to judge someones performance based upon their track record. My personal opinion, based partly upon their performance during the bankruptcy process we went through, is ALPA National's "crack legal team" is anything but...
04-23-2011, 09:23 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Not to belabor the point (too much) but one thing "we got" out of letter 50 was the so-called "Bankruptcy Protection Letter". Basically the letter, signed by DAL senior management, promised if the company sought protection through the bankruptcy process DAL would:
a.) Not ask any more of the pilot group than any other employee group, and...
b.) The cuts taken by the pilot group in Letter 50 would count toward that amount.
I find it interesting that in the thread discussing the situation with Republic and the scope clause issue, "the intent of the parties" is thought to be very germane to the issue...
Similarly we are frequently told by the ALPA stalwarts that ALPA National has "the best legal team available".
After John Malone was replaced by Lee Moak we were told by ALPA that the Bankruptcy Protection Letter was meaningless and had no value in court.
a.) Not ask any more of the pilot group than any other employee group, and...
b.) The cuts taken by the pilot group in Letter 50 would count toward that amount.
I find it interesting that in the thread discussing the situation with Republic and the scope clause issue, "the intent of the parties" is thought to be very germane to the issue...
Similarly we are frequently told by the ALPA stalwarts that ALPA National has "the best legal team available".
After John Malone was replaced by Lee Moak we were told by ALPA that the Bankruptcy Protection Letter was meaningless and had no value in court.
It was under Malone's watch that LOA 46 (which contained the Bankruptcy Protection Letter) was hawked. When management filed BK and sought to reject our contract through section 1113, they made the point that the BPL was part of our contract. It would be rejected too, as it was a pre-petition contract.
Past practice and intent don't matter when the entire document is being rejected. That's the power of BK. We were able to use the BPL for leverage in our allowed claim, but there wasn't much leverage there.
04-23-2011, 10:08 AM
#66
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Take the gloves off?
No strike committee active under JM.
No DPN/P2P/Family Awareness under JM.
Refusal to testify during our 1113. Even retired pilots did that.
Tried to keep a PRP as a voting member for his election.
Delayed the election when it was clear he was going to lose.
He did nothing to protect the pension. After the liquidity shortfall he put out a communique that the pension was fine and lump sums wouldn't affect it. Our pension never paid a lump sum again.
Gloves off? Right...
No strike committee active under JM.
No DPN/P2P/Family Awareness under JM.
Refusal to testify during our 1113. Even retired pilots did that.
Tried to keep a PRP as a voting member for his election.
Delayed the election when it was clear he was going to lose.
He did nothing to protect the pension. After the liquidity shortfall he put out a communique that the pension was fine and lump sums wouldn't affect it. Our pension never paid a lump sum again.
Gloves off? Right...
Slow;
I gotta agree with you here. Sometimes the truth hurts, but it still is the truth. I think Malone was terrified by the bankruptcy process and was strategically VERY lacking.
04-23-2011, 02:03 PM
#67
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
It was under Malone's watch that LOA 46 (which contained the Bankruptcy Protection Letter) was hawked. When management filed BK and sought to reject our contract through section 1113, they made the point that the BPL was part of our contract. It would be rejected too, as it was a pre-petition contract.
How on Earth people like you can call ALPA lawyers the "best in the business" is beyond shocking. It would be hilarious if I wasn't damaged by their lack legal prowess.
Carl
04-23-2011, 03:19 PM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
It was a Bankruptcy Protection Letter. It was negotiated by ALPA's legal team. The best legal team in the business, right? The Bankruptcy Protection Letter was then rejected...in bankruptcy! Gee, how could ALPA legal have ever expected that! Who could have ever seen that coming!
The BPL and our PWA wasn't rejected in bankruptcy. Management filed to reject it but we (as did you) achieved a consensual deal. And reread the part where I stated the BPL did give us a little leverage in a very management tilted process.
We liked the BPL so much we put a Bankruptcy Protection Covenant in LOA 51.
04-23-2011, 03:51 PM
#69
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Here's what you said earlier:
...It was under Malone's watch that LOA 46 (which contained the Bankruptcy Protection Letter) was hawked. When management filed BK and sought to reject our contract through section 1113, they made the point that the BPL was part of our contract. It would be rejected too, as it was a pre-petition contract.
It was a Bankruptcy Protection Letter. It was negotiated by ALPA's legal team. The best legal team in the business, right? The Bankruptcy Protection Letter was then rejected...in bankruptcy! Gee, how could ALPA legal have ever expected that! Who could have ever seen that coming!
How on Earth people like you can call ALPA lawyers the "best in the business" is beyond shocking. It would be hilarious if I wasn't damaged by their lack legal prowess.
Carl
How on Earth people like you can call ALPA lawyers the "best in the business" is beyond shocking. It would be hilarious if I wasn't damaged by their lack legal prowess.
Carl
Focus now slowplay. Fo-------cus.
Carl
04-23-2011, 05:07 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
I said management made an argument.
I didn't say the court bought the argument. We never found out the result, because prior to the ruling of the 3-man neutral panel or an 1113 rejection we got LOA-51. I believe that management's argument was legally correct, but also believe the letter was helpful in establishing management's "character" in front of the court.
I said the letter gave us some leverage. Not much, but a little, in helping get to a consensual deal. That deal was far better than the consensual deal that any other legacy MEC in bankruptcy had been able to achieve.
If I've typed too fast for you, I'll try to slow down even more...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
