What if we got the 717s with TODAY's SCOPE?
05-23-2012, 10:32 AM
#81
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
With all due respect, it is a huge factor. I spent 4.5 years thinking all about FM on furlough, when we had a no furlough clause, while Delta hired thousands. I could go on and on but I'll spare you. I am trying to keep our jobs and secondly, spare the new guys from that same injustice.
Your argument is weak. You obviously do not understand what FM is. I understand your bitterness regarding it, but your anger is misplaced, and your fixation on that is killing your objectivity. But that is your choice. I'm done with this.. again.
05-23-2012, 10:33 AM
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 777 Sim Instructor
Posts: 745
If you've ever run a business you know that employees are expensive, wages are just a part of the total cost ergo it behooves companies to be as productive as possible. I don't believe any company would allow employees of another company to operate their expensive machinery much less the insurance companies. As far as the cost: all of our employees cost more than DCI all the way from Richard to the ramp rat plus our overhead is huge. A simple question you have to ask is; if that flying could be done profitably by DL why wouldn't they do it ? By the way the answer is not to screw the pilots. I know it's hard to use logic with all the emotion involved but I'll bet you a new Porsche that you never see the 76 seat RJ come to mainline unless you can get the cost below what DCI can do it for. My opinion for what it's worth
05-23-2012, 10:38 AM
#83
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Raise rents a little every year. Not enough to anger your tenants off but enough that y0u get what you want slowly.
This is what is happening. 30 seats become 44 seats. 44 seats becomes 50 seats. 70 seats become 76 seats. In a few years 76 seats become 100 seats. This process will continue until one day you wake up and see that you have no job. This process is also taking money away from us. It simply will not work.
The TA is well built by attorneys that pilots are now succumbing to the little nuggets and forgoing and rationalizing the slow demise of the main issue; SCOPE and PAY. Please do not rationalize the loosening of SCOPE. The difference between 76 seats and 117 seats is not big. The gap is closing fast.
I do not like what I am reading.
TEN
This is what is happening. 30 seats become 44 seats. 44 seats becomes 50 seats. 70 seats become 76 seats. In a few years 76 seats become 100 seats. This process will continue until one day you wake up and see that you have no job. This process is also taking money away from us. It simply will not work.
The TA is well built by attorneys that pilots are now succumbing to the little nuggets and forgoing and rationalizing the slow demise of the main issue; SCOPE and PAY. Please do not rationalize the loosening of SCOPE. The difference between 76 seats and 117 seats is not big. The gap is closing fast.
I do not like what I am reading.
TEN
The 76 seater issue is complex because there are already 153 of them out there flown by the regionals. If you can explain how we would fly future 76 seaters at a profit, then I'll listen. Some routes probably can't use a 50 seater, and a 717 might be too big. You have to fly the rigt sized plane to make that profit. I just want your opinion on how you suggest we do it. Who would be the other people in the 76 seat operation? How much would we pay them? Would we have two ASA flight attendants in the back? Honest questions nobody wants to answer. I know we have rates for us on those planes, but who would operate them with who else working them?
05-23-2012, 10:40 AM
#84
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
Of course a 777 is not going to be outsourced due to a FM event.
The problem is we already HAVE given it away. We already have outsourced 76 seat jets, it's just a matter of how many. In a FM event I can see the company using this argument. "Judge, we need more than 102 more 76 seaters. We are allowed unlimited 50 seaters and are already allowed X amount of 76 seaters . All we want to do is increase the amount of 76 seaters that are already allowed. Oh and we will agree to a limit of 125 50 seaters instead of an unlimited amount."
Maybe I'm cynical but, realistically, in the event of FM3, who do you think will have the edge with a judge/arbitrator? To me, we would be under the gun similar to bankruptcy.Denny
The problem is we already HAVE given it away. We already have outsourced 76 seat jets, it's just a matter of how many. In a FM event I can see the company using this argument. "Judge, we need more than 102 more 76 seaters. We are allowed unlimited 50 seaters and are already allowed X amount of 76 seaters . All we want to do is increase the amount of 76 seaters that are already allowed. Oh and we will agree to a limit of 125 50 seaters instead of an unlimited amount."
Maybe I'm cynical but, realistically, in the event of FM3, who do you think will have the edge with a judge/arbitrator? To me, we would be under the gun similar to bankruptcy.Denny
05-23-2012, 10:53 AM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
No, I don't agree. I think an airframe is an airframe is an airframe (hard numbers). Management would be arguing for more airframes. That is a very hard case to sell. It would be very obvious to all parties what the company was doing. Relaxing or throwing out ratios is a much easier sell to an arbitrator or judge. History has shown ratios were adjusted after 9/11. No judge or arbitrator directed increases to the number of airframes allowed at DCI. We don't need a judge's help to do that anyway, we do just fine on our own.
I guess we will have to "agree to disagree!" Hopefully we will never have to find out who is right......My argument was not for or against the TA scope clause. It was "In the event of FM incident, what can management do under the TA scope that they cannot do under the current contract." I don't see much of a problem to the company with a judge/arbitrator giving management what they want for the companys survival under either the current contract or the TA.
Denny
05-23-2012, 10:59 AM
#86
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
I understand exactly what it is, I can assure you. Very simple concept and a tool the company can and will use when the opportunity arises, just as they used bankruptcy against us. I am very objective, but no amount of "I'm smarter than you, I know more than you," is going to persuade me to outsource more of our jobs as you are advocating. Every time a contract rolls around, supposed smart guys such as yourself come out of the woodwork to tell me why I should vote my job off the property. The ironic thing is these same geniuses later complain nonstop about all the RJs that are in front of them for takeoff or clogging up the ramp. I haven't listened to them in the past and I won't this time as well, but I'm glad you agree it is my choice.
05-23-2012, 11:33 AM
#87
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 521
You are not capable of learning from your mistakes.
Hopefully the majority of DAL pilots will kill this deal before it does more harm to the industry.
05-23-2012, 11:38 AM
#88
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Maybe the industry would be helped if you guys settled your problems like adults too?
05-23-2012, 11:40 AM
#89
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 7ERB
Posts: 2,039
The 76 seater issue is complex because there are already 153 of them out there flown by the regionals. If you can explain how we would fly future 76 seaters at a profit, then I'll listen. Some routes probably can't use a 50 seater, and a 717 might be too big. You have to fly the rigt sized plane to make that profit. I just want your opinion on how you suggest we do it. Who would be the other people in the 76 seat operation? How much would we pay them? Would we have two ASA flight attendants in the back? Honest questions nobody wants to answer. I know we have rates for us on those planes, but who would operate them with who else working them?
1) We, DAL PILOTS, can fly those 76 airplanes ourselves with a negotiated rate and I bet you we can do it and have a profit from it. If you look at the rates, we are not far off. A true analysis will not happen on this by either ALPA or the company. Conflict of interest. Good luck getting true numbers also.
or-create a schedule that utilizes our own fleet by
2) we can replace, on a schedule, ONE A319 or 717 for TWO scheduled DCI RJ flights. Not only will we make profit, but our quality of service and product will certainly enhance the passengers experience and desire to continue their loyalty to Delta. (PS. I know for a fact, a few business people avoid DCI flights at all CO$TS). The negative to this is that the frequency will get cut but Im sure there will be a way to mitigate the effects.
You have to dig deep and pull out real reasons why the company wants to outsource. Outsourcing is expensive and inefficient. However, there is a price to pay for separate labor groups that is worth the investment for our companies and political groups like ALPA, RJAA etc..
We have been led to believe that the RJ guy get paid very low, but if you look at the ratios completely, they get paid more per seat than we do.
It should be ALPAs job to audit the true costs of outsourcing, but since they represent RJ pilots, this analysis will never come about with TRUTHFUL figures and facts. My opinion to you is that the time value of outsourcing is a BIG MONEY LOSER!
TEN
05-23-2012, 11:51 AM
#90
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Just like the PIG, money losing 50 seaters (They are a drag to our company and pilots, especially NOW); the 76 seaters will do the same thing.
1) We, DAL PILOTS, can fly those 76 airplanes ourselves with a negotiated rate and I bet you we can do it and have a profit from it. If you look at the rates, we are not far off. A true analysis will not happen on this by either ALPA or the company. Conflict of interest. Good luck getting true numbers also.
or-create a schedule that utilizes our own fleet
2) we can replace, on a schedule, ONE A319 or 717 for TWO scheduled DCI RJ flights. Not only will we make profit, but our quality of service and product will certainly enhance the passengers experience and desire to continue their loyalty to Delta. (PS. I know for a fact, a few business people avoid DCI flights
at all CO$TS). The negative to this is that the frequency will get cut but Im sure there will be a way to mitigate the effects.
You have to dig deep and pull out real reasons why the company wants to outsource. Outsourcing is expensive and inefficient. However, there is a price to pay for separate labor groups that is worth the investment for our companies and political groups like ALPA, RJAA etc..
We have been led to believe that the RJ guy get paid very low, but if you look at the ratios completely, they get paid more per seat than we do.
It should be ALPAs job to audit the true costs of outsourcing, but since they represent RJ pilots, this analysis will never come about with TRUTHFUL figures
and facts. My opinion to you is that the time value of outsourcing is a BIG MONEY LOSER!:
TEN
1) We, DAL PILOTS, can fly those 76 airplanes ourselves with a negotiated rate and I bet you we can do it and have a profit from it. If you look at the rates, we are not far off. A true analysis will not happen on this by either ALPA or the company. Conflict of interest. Good luck getting true numbers also.
or-create a schedule that utilizes our own fleet
2) we can replace, on a schedule, ONE A319 or 717 for TWO scheduled DCI RJ flights. Not only will we make profit, but our quality of service and product will certainly enhance the passengers experience and desire to continue their loyalty to Delta. (PS. I know for a fact, a few business people avoid DCI flights
at all CO$TS). The negative to this is that the frequency will get cut but Im sure there will be a way to mitigate the effects.
You have to dig deep and pull out real reasons why the company wants to outsource. Outsourcing is expensive and inefficient. However, there is a price to pay for separate labor groups that is worth the investment for our companies and political groups like ALPA, RJAA etc..
We have been led to believe that the RJ guy get paid very low, but if you look at the ratios completely, they get paid more per seat than we do.
It should be ALPAs job to audit the true costs of outsourcing, but since they represent RJ pilots, this analysis will never come about with TRUTHFUL figures
and facts. My opinion to you is that the time value of outsourcing is a BIG MONEY LOSER!:
TEN
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
