DAL TA Point Paper
05-24-2012, 04:10 AM
#71
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,598
About the profit sharing,
Aren't we better off folding the $$ into the monthly paychecks. In the 4 years I've been here, I've gotten 2 Profit checks. We usually question the bookkeeping from the Company and when they post a loss - I know, rare in the airline world, we don't get anything.
So, what I'm asking is "Isn't this better for us in the long term?"
Aren't we better off folding the $$ into the monthly paychecks. In the 4 years I've been here, I've gotten 2 Profit checks. We usually question the bookkeeping from the Company and when they post a loss - I know, rare in the airline world, we don't get anything.
So, what I'm asking is "Isn't this better for us in the long term?"
05-24-2012, 04:31 AM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Not when it comes to scope. It is NOT unreasonable to the NMB to insist on scope status quo. Insisting on no backward movement in scope sets us up for relevance and leverage. Allowing more outsourcing does just the opposite. This TA allows MORE seats to be outsourced. Period.
Carl
Carl
DALPA likes to brag about our slow and steady pay raises. They seem to have missed the point that Delta is going slow and steady as well, with outsourcing our jobs. This has to stop or there will be nothing left. Bottom line this TA allows more BIG RJ's. Big RJ's that on a CASM level take our jobs.
05-24-2012, 04:39 AM
#73
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I agree that a few of those may be part of it. Not sure anyone really wanted the 717's though.
I also believe that they have a timeline, and they got this done asap. Things will get interesting in late Aug to Sept as the future of AMR becomes more clearer.
05-24-2012, 04:43 AM
#74
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Free Bird,
Let me proffer and operating definition of "constructive engagement."
Constructive Engagement: Taking the Company's optimum business plan and adjusting a labor agreement around the business plan, seeking benefits where labor flexibility is needed.
The shift to the CRJ900, or equivalent, should clear up in anyone's mind whether "Delta Connection" is anything other than an alter ego for Delta Air Lines mainline pilots. These airplanes are actually more capable that what we operate. They have "mainline" operating efficiencies and could be operated here.
Does it matter? Step one is to decide we will take back our work. Every day that we concede outsourcing gives our opposition better claim to it being "their work." The only way to come at this is "unity." Our only interest is the pilots involved. Just as we barely notice the difference when Delta became DCS, we would barely notice the difference if our cabin were staffed by yet another division of the Company.
If the FAA does not care who is in the front of the airplane, I an pretty much guarantee they would not care who is in the back. Skywest, or Republic is really no different than DGS. They are all third parties.
Let me proffer and operating definition of "constructive engagement."
Constructive Engagement: Taking the Company's optimum business plan and adjusting a labor agreement around the business plan, seeking benefits where labor flexibility is needed.
The shift to the CRJ900, or equivalent, should clear up in anyone's mind whether "Delta Connection" is anything other than an alter ego for Delta Air Lines mainline pilots. These airplanes are actually more capable that what we operate. They have "mainline" operating efficiencies and could be operated here.
I am curious how you think we should staff the future 76 seaters for mainline? Our pilots, of course. How about FA's? Mechanics? Rampers? All Delta employees at Delta pay rates? Maybe ASA FA's? How much would that cost? Our sim guys? Our sims? Please give us your idea on how to do it.
- Pragmatically, the easiest and least costly labor transition would be to allow the current regional operator to maintain their seniority on their aircraft, they would also be provided a Delta System seniority number in staple order.
- As new airplanes were added (replacements) those airplanes would be staffed from a Delta system seniority list. If a current "regional" pilot had seniority to hold the position on the system list, they would bid over and obtain a Delta System DOH for pay longevity.
- Eventually as jets were replaced all pilots would become "Delta pilots" as they voluntarily bid over.
If the FAA does not care who is in the front of the airplane, I an pretty much guarantee they would not care who is in the back. Skywest, or Republic is really no different than DGS. They are all third parties.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 05-24-2012 at 05:14 AM.
05-24-2012, 04:54 AM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 169
About the profit sharing,
Aren't we better off folding the $$ into the monthly paychecks. In the 4 years I've been here, I've gotten 2 Profit checks. We usually question the bookkeeping from the Company and when they post a loss - I know, rare in the airline world, we don't get anything.
So, what I'm asking is "Isn't this better for us in the long term?"
Aren't we better off folding the $$ into the monthly paychecks. In the 4 years I've been here, I've gotten 2 Profit checks. We usually question the bookkeeping from the Company and when they post a loss - I know, rare in the airline world, we don't get anything.
So, what I'm asking is "Isn't this better for us in the long term?"
Purely in regard to profit sharing vs wages, you are better off with an increase in wages. Wages count to your retirement, and any future pay raises are compounded. It also eliminates worrying about the company's bookkeeping.
In this deal the Delta pilots are being shown "raises", with no mention of the reduction in profit sharing. It is plausible that Delta is estimating a profit sharing payout of approximately the amount of the "raises". The effect could be a zero net gain on a DAL pilot's W-2 for the next 2 years.
05-24-2012, 05:13 AM
#77
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 793
Some such as the author tend to think we will not see another TA for quite some time if we reject this one. This is illogical. Here is my point. Why was the company so quick to negotiate this one? Kindness of heart? No way...management needs it done quickly. Why would that change all of a sudden? Delta must have a pressing need to get it done otherwise they would have never negotiated so rapidly in the first place. Nothing has changed. The ball is in our court.
05-24-2012, 05:16 AM
#78
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
The author of this article did a good job, but he is so cocksure that he completely misses that we had ratios with DCI before and they failed. In fact they were the first part of Contract 2000 to do so.
05-24-2012, 06:51 AM
#79
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl
05-24-2012, 06:53 AM
#80
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Hey Bar, go back to the CASM numbers you discussed wrt the CRJ-200 and CRJ-900XLT and mainline equipment. How many mainline types would the CRJ-900XLT (tic there) beat on a CASM basis?
Because my question now is why should we agree to an exchange of CRJ-200s that have worse CASM than our mainline aircraft for CRJ-900s that beat our mainline aircraft?
So from a CASM perspective, why should I agree to exchange in mass the outsourcing of aircraft that cannot do a better job- for those that can?
Because my question now is why should we agree to an exchange of CRJ-200s that have worse CASM than our mainline aircraft for CRJ-900s that beat our mainline aircraft?
So from a CASM perspective, why should I agree to exchange in mass the outsourcing of aircraft that cannot do a better job- for those that can?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
