Delta (finally) adds -8 to the CF34 line

[robbedagain]

i know an agent in clt who is from alaska and he told me once may be 2 or so yrs ago that in anc that dl does ground handling for us in anc i dont know if that the case and i also dont know about fairbanks either

 

[WorldTraveler]

The regional carrier insourcing is more focused on bringing flying that has been done by regional carrier back to DL more than moving the ground handling of regional carrier flights from regional carriers or DL non-mainline subsidiaries to DL mainline.

IN the month of April 2013, DL mainline domestic capacity was up 3.5% while regional carrier capacity was down over 4%. ON a year to date basis, regional carrier capacity is down 7.5% while DL mainline capacity is up 2%. No other carrier is shifting as much flying back to the mainline operation and away from regional carriers as DL is doing and the trend will continue for the next couple of years as the 717s arrive and another couple hundred 50 seat RJs are removed. It is also worth noting that DL has only exercised orders for about half of the 76 RJs that are permitted under the new pilot contract.
http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=1970

Tenacity is indeed a good thing and I have always respected your commitment, Kev, to the principles that you believe in and express on this forum; however, the majority of non-pilot DL employees continue to believe that there isn't enough gain to be had by hiring a union.
DL and its employees have understand the potential to unionize which is why the drives have continued for years but so far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) there have not been any representation votes since the merger-related votes. Groups of DL employees have continued to "threaten" the company with unionization, enough employees sign cards to force an election, but when the election actually occurs there aren't enough votes to form a union. The process has occurred multiple times even outside of the merger-related votes which didn't require card drives and yet no new large unions have been formed at DL - and in fact tens of thousands of PMNW employees who were union members now work for (have been hired by) DL as non-union employees.

Robbed, the list of DL TechOps capabilities is here http://www.deltatechops.com/mro-capabilities/view/category/capabilities-overview

DL has said for years that it is the largest airline MRO in N. America. If it weren't true, I'm sure someone would sue them.

Note that about half of their total engine overhauls are done for outside/insourced clients.

The value of DL Tech Ops' business comes from serving 150 smaller airlines than trying to gain major airline clients.

 

[southwind]

Oh and before anyone says it. I would rather be run over before working in a engine shop.

Pretty much how we feel about working in the hanger !
So, you just stay where you are and all will be right with the world !

 

[southwind]

Delta works with the engine shop. They could careless with the hangar. Just like in BK the 219 line. They got every chance to save that work. Wall street likes engines. They don't like overhauls because it cost to much. Even if it doesn't cost to much they cost to much. Very few have the balls to stand up to shareholders and tell them how stupid they are. (not trying to be a ass, but its people like you. Its people that, even though AA said tons of times they did overhauls at home for a reason, still said they need to dump them. Finally they got a CEO that did it just because)
As i have said before. I promise it cost Delta more to do them now. In a true figure and an opportunity cost. 88 HMVs took 3 weeks, now they take a month to two months. Thats a lot of flying left on the table, but they had to share the cost of the cuts even though Delta has almost a 15 cent CASM advantage in terms of MX cost. (and that is with the 3nd highest wadges in the country.)

Its kind of like what happened with Eastern. If employers would work with the employees production would be so much better. give the guys a shared reword for getting a HMV done a day early. I promise guys would be in there busting their butts. (because I can tell you, I know plenty of people in 242 at the time who did nothing. Come in, sit on their asses and get paid. 10x once they started talking about cutting. We knew years before it happened they wanted HMVs gone. Tony came into cut, thats what he did best. Did it when he was in Cargo and was going to do it in TechOps. IMO if any MX union would have been somewhat useful TechOps would have gotten one. Plus the engine shop only cared about the engine shop. Not the hangar, not DeltaNorth, not Tampa, not LA, not DWH....and they had done the same damn cutting before....didn't give a s**t about the numbers. Made up some crap, then 4 years later, like magic, the work came back. The Mexico thing is, IMO Tony's last stand. All the vendor changes have basically reconfigured that its costing to much. They can't get near the quality or the production. Just think of the numbers if they would put that Mexico money into TechOps.)

few things
Its low man work. ie, once they start cutting airframe large numbers go away. Engine shop doesn't have near the people the hangar does. Being more junior ends up with a lower quality of life.
Its the same thing every day. Its assembly line work. Hangar we get different work, different types, different airlines etc. (you get different airlines in the engine shop but a Prat PW4000 is a PW4000. Doesn't matter if it is a Delta or FedEx engine. Only big differences is paper work)

no idea on who/what/when will do the BR work. I guess Rolls will do the work in Indy but I really don't know. Maybe ask FL who handles it? AFAIK Delta is just taking over that contract.

Maybe you need to find work somewhere else !

 

[southwind]

Ok now for my opinion post.

you could pretty much hear the crying of the (big) babies in the engine shop as soon as John said the BR715s would still be power by the hour from rolls. Once again they somehow save a ton of jobs.

in the mean time, no one is (clearly) crying enough in the hangar and the Mexico project is still going strong. (but hey the AM hangar in GDL is shutting down so yeah. We should be happy about that...or something). Just like in BK, Hangar work (or potential) goes bye-bye and yet the engine shop stays golden. Starting to think some of those guys have some dirt on Delta or something. They save the 219 line then come back and save the CF34 line. must be nice.

Oh and before anyone says it. I would rather be run over before working in a engine shop.

And btw, the mechanics in the engine shop, have no say, just like the hanger mechanics, in what work stays and what work goes and to be honest, it sounds like your the only one crying !

Guess you must be a low timer and can't hold engine shop !

 

[Kev3188]

Maybe you need to find work somewhere else !

Wow, another "if you don't like it, leave" post. That's a new one... 🙄

And btw, the mechanics in the engine shop, have no say, just like the hanger mechanics, in what work stays and what work goes and to be honest, it sounds like your the only one crying !

Actually, since you're at will, you have no say in *anything.*

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

And btw, the mechanics in the engine shop, have no say, just like the hanger mechanics, in what work stays and what work goes...

Now that is something to be proud of as an at will employee and hold out as a reason for keeping a union out.

Nothing like being proud of not having any say in the direction of a company. You most definitely fit the mold of the groveling, "just lucky to have a job" employee.

 

[WorldTraveler]

funny how these "at will" DL employees have managed over the past three years to win the largest profit sharing by any group of airline employees in the history of aviation over a similar timeframe.....

I would hardly say they are at the whims of their employer.

DL employees know exactly what they need to do to increase their own personal riches and are doing it.

It absolutely slays you that the free enterprise system is a more powerful motivator of employee commitment to their employer than is loyalty to a group of labor leaders.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Of course you missed the point of the post.

Here we have an employee championing the fact that his group has no say on any company matters. This from a company that champions employee involvement as a reason for not needing a union.

Of course Southwind is clearly not the model employee you would want to have touting the ability for Delta employees to have "skin in the game."

You can save the lecture WT. I know Delta has an exemplary process that allows all employees to affect change from within without the burden and anchor of belonging to a union.

BTW, I trust the leaders of the industrial union less than the leaders of Delta to do the right thing for the employees/members.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I doubt if you do get it since your affiliation with NW came to an end long before the merger.

Having skin in the game doesn't mean you get to decide the work that DL accepts from other clients or even does inhouse on its own aircraft.

You do realize that DL will now have the highest percentage of work down inhouse of any large US carrier now that AA has decided to push its work out the door? Your argument of what labor can accomplish for mechanics is stood on its head based on that statistic - and many others to boot.

You, like 700, seem to act as if you have some great inside knowledge of DL despite the fact that you made sure you would never be hired by DL. Talk about putting your name on a list.

 

[700UW]

See you dont know it all WT, your not at DL.

And I was offered a job with DL in 1988, went to Piedmont instead.

Keep trying.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Just because you chose to go to PI instead of DL hardly makes you an insider or have more information than those who ACTUALLY worked at DL - for decades.

I think you are the one who is trying to retain some level of credibility - and not doing a terribly great job - gigantic paper checks and the whole nine yards.

I would dare say that an employee who was hired on the same day at DL as you were at PI in the same job or class fared far better in their career than you did.

Mostly because their employer wasn't constantly fighting with their union who was trying to "out" anyone that wouldn't play the game the way the union thought it should be played.

Again, it's no surprise the majority of DL employees have REPEATEDLY refused to have anything to do with unions.

 

[700UW]

I never claimed to have inside information at DL, unlike yourself.

Show me in any post where I said I have inside information about DL.

And PMNW did way better than DL employees in chapter 11, and I guess you forgot about that pesky Leadership 7.5 program.

And how DL treated the FA for the drug test and ALPA and the AFA got involved.

And currently there are plenty of facts on how bad DL treats its FAs.

But in your eyes DL can do no wrong it will take over the world all Hail Delta!

 

[737823]

I never claimed to have inside information at DL, unlike yourself.

Show me in any post where I said I have inside information about DL.

And PMNW did way better than DL employees in chapter 11, and I guess you forgot about that pesky Leadership 7.5 program.

And how DL treated the FA for the drug test and ALPA and the AFA got involved.

And currently there are plenty of facts on how bad DL treats its FAs.

But in your eyes DL can do no wrong it will take over the world all Hail Delta!

How come the IAM directed US to terminate two US employees at CLT for unpaid dues?

Why do you hate AMFAinMIAMI?

In your eyes the IAM can do no wrong and anyone who asks about deficiencies of the IAM is ignorant.

Josh

 

[700UW]

Your off topic again joshie, go read the CBA, and USAPA has done the same at US.

Paying dues is a condition of employment.

Once again you have no idea of what you talk about.

Keep making a fool of yourself with your know it all attitude.

And that happened over 10 years ago, all unions in the airlines that have closed shops have similar language:

5. For the purpose of this Agreement, "M 1 embership in good standing in
2 the Union," shall mean that the employee is a member of the Union and is
3 not more than sixty (60) days in arrears in the payment of initiation fees,
4 assessments, service charge and membership dues as referred to herein.
5
6 6. When an employee becomes delinquent or not "in good standing"
7 within the meaning of paragraph (A) 5. above, he shall be subject to
8 discharge and the following procedures shall apply:
9
10 (a) The General Chairman of the Union shall notify the employee
11 in writing, Certified mail, return receipt requested, and copy to the Senior
12 Vice President of Maintenance Operations of the Company, that he is
13 delinquent in the payment of initiation fees, assessments or membership
14 dues as specified herein, and accordingly is subject to discharge as an
15 employee of the Company. Such letter shall also notify the employee that
16 he must make the required payment to the Financial Secretary of the
17 appropriate local lodge of the Union within fifteen (15) days of the date of
18 mailing of the notice or be subject to discharge.
19
20 ( B) If, upon the expiration of the fifteen (15) day period, the
21 employee still remains delinquent, the General Chairman of the Union shall
22 certify in writing to the Senior Vice President of Maintenance Operations of
23 the Company, with copy to the employee, that the employee has failed to
24 make the required payment within the fifteen (15) day grace period
25 provided in sub-paragraph (a) above, and is therefore to be discharged. The
26 Senior Vice President of Maintenance Operations shall promptly notify the
27 employee involved that he is to be discharged from the service of the
28 Company, and shall so discharge him for his failure to pay or tender the
29 initiation fees, dues, and assessments as required under the terms of this
30 Article unless he files an appeal.

© If the decision of the Senior Vice President of Maintenance
33 Operations is not satisfactory to the employee or to the Union, it may be
34 appealed directly to the highest officer of the Company designated to handle
35 such appeals. Such appeals shall be taken within ten (10) calendar days of
36 the date of the decision appealed from, and if taken, shall operate to stay
37 action on the termination of employment until the decision on the appeal is
38 rendered. The Company shall promptly notify the other party in writing of
39 any such appeal. The decision of such appeal shall be rendered within ten
40 (10) calendar days of the date the appeal is taken and the employee and the
41 Union shall be promptly advised thereof. If the decision on such appeal is
42 that the employee has not complied with the terms of this Agreement, his
43 employment and seniority in that class or craft shall be terminated within
44 ten (10) calendar days of the date of said decision, unless the Company and
45 the Union agree otherwise in writing.
within seven (7) days thereof the Union requests in writing that the decision
3 be reviewed in such joint conference by the Senior Vice President of
4 Maintenance Operations or by his designated representative, and the
5 General Chairman, or by his designated representative. If such request is
6 made, the decision on appeal shall be reviewed in such joint conference
7 within seven (7) days of the date such request is received, and any decision
8 rendered within such seven (7) day period shall be final and binding. If the
9 decision on such review is that the employee has not complied with the
10 terms of this Agreement, his employment and seniority in that class or craft
11 shall be terminated within ten (10) calendar days of the date of said
12 decision, unless the Company and the Union agree otherwise in writing.
13
14 7. An employee discharged by the Company under the provisions of
15 paragraph (A) 6. shall be deemed to have been discharged for non-payment
16 of Union dues, and notation so made on his employment record.
17
18 8. Time limits specified in this Article may be extended in individual
19 cases by written agreement of the Company and the Union.
20
21 9. The grievance procedure of the Basic Agreement will not apply to
22 cases arising under this Article.
23
24 10. Other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary
25 notwithstanding, the Company shall not be required to terminate
26 the employment of any employee until such time as the services of
27 a qualified replacement are available. The Company may not,
28 however, retain any employee in the service under the provisions
29 of this paragraph for a period in excess of ninety (90) calendar
30 days from the date of the Union's original notice except by mutual
31 agreement by the parties hereto.