Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-15-2012, 09:43 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
Until Manning signs with some team, they can all use him as a boogeyman to hold down their current quarterback's salary demands -- just like legacy airlines do with the threat of outsourcing. 
But Tebow.. and I really DO like the guy.. is just an RJ in a mainline world..
03-15-2012, 09:53 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by Sink r8
And some can work for the Delta pilots as welll. If the pilots crewing DCI jets were on Delta's seniority list, we wouldn't have a problem. When Bastian says he needs to come up with creative solutions, I'd say that if he really, really wants to have some outsourced employees in the equation (a dumb idea, IMO), he can have an arrangement where the jets are wet-leased to the DCI carrier. In many cases, we're providing the airframe already, I believe, so why can't we provide crews. It doesn't even require bypassing existing crews. If an agreement can be reached, you pick up the pilots. I don't really see a reason we can't negotiate something that's mutually acceptable.
Except for pig-headedness.
It's time for engagement to be productive. There are some among us that think engagement is anathema to being union members, and some that think constructive engagement has been 100% successful. I think it's been mostly successful, but the test of any engagement must always remain the results. The purpose of engagement is not the relationship, but the mutual benefits. As long as both sides work well each other, we remain engagemed. I'd advocate for a policy of results-based engagement, or productive engagement.
Except for pig-headedness.
It's time for engagement to be productive. There are some among us that think engagement is anathema to being union members, and some that think constructive engagement has been 100% successful. I think it's been mostly successful, but the test of any engagement must always remain the results. The purpose of engagement is not the relationship, but the mutual benefits. As long as both sides work well each other, we remain engagemed. I'd advocate for a policy of results-based engagement, or productive engagement.
03-15-2012, 10:17 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Best way from JFK to EWR in less then 2 hours?
03-15-2012, 10:22 AM
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,722
Originally Posted by Sink r8
I recently heard a current PBS guy tell us the opposite at an LEC meeting: nothing gets done without mutual agreement. Is this guy lying, or were you referring to the original (Express) PBS, which has been extinct for over a decade?
No argument from me WRT AE's: they really, really **** with those things far too much.
No argument from me WRT AE's: they really, really **** with those things far too much.
In fact, it is usually OUR (DALPA) PBS guys who make suggestions to the company, about changing the stack heights, thresholds, etc. and doing mulitple runs, so not as many pilots get shuffled, unstacked, etc. I don't think the PBS guy was lying, they do have a "mutual agreement" clause, that's why they have to do multiple runs.
If the DALPA QC guys don't like what they see, after the first run, they tell the company to "...change this and that, and run it again..." until they get numbers they can both agree on re. stack heights, reserves available, etc. That is the mutual agreement part.
If it were up to the company, they would do one run, award all the open time, (unstack every trip) and eliminate all the open time, have minimum reserves, or at least as few as they could get away with. And it would be ugly for us!
To be clear, I like our PBS system, now that I know how to bid! I got my first choice of days off, and trips, and I'm only at 50% of line holders in my category. BUT... if as the MEC claims, the AVERAGE pilot is flying 87 (not me, only 73 the last two months and next month!) then PBS has cost us Thousands of jobs.
87-75=12 extra hours, per pilot, on average. Let's leave out 33% of the pilots, for reserves and those stuck in training, that leaves about 8,000 pilots flying 12 extra hours every month. That equates to 96,000 extra hours being flown, per month. Divide that by 75 hours and you see we have eliminated the need for about 1,280 pilots, to do the same flying.
Want to know why you ain't movin' up? That's why.
Keep parking trips and you'll see more backwards movement.
03-15-2012, 10:25 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by Timbo
In fact, it is usually OUR (DALPA) PBS guys who make suggestions to the company, about changing the stack heights, thresholds, etc. and doing mulitple runs, so not as many pilots get shuffled, unstacked, etc. I don't think the LEC guy was lying, and they do have a "mutual agreement" clause, that's why they have to do multiple runs.
If the DALPA QC guys don't like what they see, after the first run, they tell the company to "...change this and that, and run it again..." until they get numbers they can both agree on re. stack heights, reserves available, etc. That is the mutual agreement part.
If it were up to the company, they would do one run, award all the open time, (unstack every trip) and eliminate all the open time, have minimum reserves, or at least as few as they could get away with. And it would be ugly for us!
To be clear, I like our PBS system, now that I know how to bid! I got my first choice of days off, and trips, and I'm only at 50% of line holders in my category. BUT... if as the MEC claims, the AVERAGE pilot is flying 87 (not me, only 73 the last two months and next month!) then PBS has cost us Thousands of jobs.
87-75=12 extra hours, per pilot, on average. Let's leave out 33% for reserves and stuck in training, that leaves about 8,000pilots flying 12 extra hours. That equates to 96,000 extra hours being flown, per month. Divide that by 75 hours and you see we have eliminated the need for about 1,280 pilots, to do the same flying.
Want to know why you ain't movin' up? That's why.
Keep parking trips and you'll see more backwards movement.
If the DALPA QC guys don't like what they see, after the first run, they tell the company to "...change this and that, and run it again..." until they get numbers they can both agree on re. stack heights, reserves available, etc. That is the mutual agreement part.
If it were up to the company, they would do one run, award all the open time, (unstack every trip) and eliminate all the open time, have minimum reserves, or at least as few as they could get away with. And it would be ugly for us!
To be clear, I like our PBS system, now that I know how to bid! I got my first choice of days off, and trips, and I'm only at 50% of line holders in my category. BUT... if as the MEC claims, the AVERAGE pilot is flying 87 (not me, only 73 the last two months and next month!) then PBS has cost us Thousands of jobs.
87-75=12 extra hours, per pilot, on average. Let's leave out 33% for reserves and stuck in training, that leaves about 8,000pilots flying 12 extra hours. That equates to 96,000 extra hours being flown, per month. Divide that by 75 hours and you see we have eliminated the need for about 1,280 pilots, to do the same flying.
Want to know why you ain't movin' up? That's why.
Keep parking trips and you'll see more backwards movement.
Agree on PBS costing jobs.
I am absolutely, 100% against trip parking. In fact, I would advocate a cap, and closing some loopholes in Swap Board / SWF. Still, I was told parking only represents 1% of swap transactions, according to that same PBS guy. Hard to believe.
03-15-2012, 10:28 AM
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,722
Originally Posted by Sink r8
Thanks Timbo. I might have misunderstood your original post.
Agree on PBS costing jobs.
I am absolutely, 100% against trip parking. In fact, I would advocate a cap, and closing some loopholes in Swap Board / SWF. Still, I was told parking only represents 1% of swap transactions, according to that same PBS guy. Hard to believe.
Agree on PBS costing jobs.
I am absolutely, 100% against trip parking. In fact, I would advocate a cap, and closing some loopholes in Swap Board / SWF. Still, I was told parking only represents 1% of swap transactions, according to that same PBS guy. Hard to believe.
Well...if that 1% number is true, HOW is the "Average" line guy flying 87 hours, EVERY MONTH??
Did anyone ask him that?
03-15-2012, 10:32 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by gloopy
Our section 1 opener was so weak that it was weak even as a "conceptional" opener. Heck it could even be "interpreted" to mean a massive scope sale of ultra large RJ's. How about for every 10 fifty seaters parked, DL management can add 9 "hundred seaters" and we get to claim we are "improving the production balance"? That's worst case if we go by block hours, but even if we go by ASM's, try on: for every 10 fifty seaters parked, management can outsource 4.9 "hundred" seaters. See, that still complies with our weaksauce conceptual opener.
Even a conceptual opener should be better than this in the most important section in the opener (section 1).
Even a conceptual opener should be better than this in the most important section in the opener (section 1).
Carl
03-15-2012, 10:36 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by Timbo
Well...if that 1% number is true, HOW is the "Average" line guy flying 87 hours, EVERY MONTH??
Did anyone ask him that?
Did anyone ask him that?
I'm sure I'm in the minority.
Tough to stand between a crack-whoare and the crack.
03-15-2012, 10:38 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,322
Originally Posted by Timbo
HOW is the "Average" line guy flying 87 hours, EVERY MONTH??
03-15-2012, 10:45 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by capncrunch
They're not. That number is pure bologna.
Why not inlcude Reserves? I think they should.
At any rate... you got better numbers?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
