Rigs should be priority in c2019
11-03-2018 | 04:00 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
From: Fastest Hunk of Junk in the Galaxy
Hasn't ALPA published that more pilots are getting paid as a result of fatigue calls with the FRB than before? I'm not saying I'm totally for them, but if true, why would we get rid of them? Unless of course we can get contract language like SWA has wrt to fatigue calls...then by all means dump it.
11-03-2018 | 04:12 AM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,150
Likes: 116
You know, there's no law of nature that says the company can't be more open about their intent with things like VB and make commitments to such intentions. I have zero regret about us "pulling the rug out from under them" as you put it. They knew we held that rug in our hands and they've thumbed their noses at us plenty. Let it be a lesson to them, no problem here. I happen to think it was bad for the pilot group at large anyway and it seems (non scientific) that many fellow pilots feel the same.
If they want to pour money and time into IT, it should happen at a much larger scale to stave the next major IT meltdown and multi-hundred-million dollar losses. Or they could program payroll to stop stealing millions from the pilot group, since there seems to be no end in sight to their continual underpayment of premium pay/reroute pay/reserve guarantee.
If they want to pour money and time into IT, it should happen at a much larger scale to stave the next major IT meltdown and multi-hundred-million dollar losses. Or they could program payroll to stop stealing millions from the pilot group, since there seems to be no end in sight to their continual underpayment of premium pay/reroute pay/reserve guarantee.
11-03-2018 | 04:53 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 107
From: Road construction signholder
You know, there's no law of nature that says the company can't be more open about their intent with things like VB and make commitments to such intentions. I have zero regret about us "pulling the rug out from under them" as you put it. They knew we held that rug in our hands and they've thumbed their noses at us plenty. Let it be a lesson to them, no problem here. I happen to think it was bad for the pilot group at large anyway and it seems (non scientific) that many fellow pilots feel the same.
If they want to pour money and time into IT, it should happen at a much larger scale to stave the next major IT meltdown and multi-hundred-million dollar losses. Or they could program payroll to stop stealing millions from the pilot group, since there seems to be no end in sight to their continual underpayment of premium pay/reroute pay/reserve guarantee.
If they want to pour money and time into IT, it should happen at a much larger scale to stave the next major IT meltdown and multi-hundred-million dollar losses. Or they could program payroll to stop stealing millions from the pilot group, since there seems to be no end in sight to their continual underpayment of premium pay/reroute pay/reserve guarantee.
While we're at it do you think the MEC was wise to dismiss the prior scheduling chair...the same one they then praised for the millions he recovered for the pilot group?
11-03-2018 | 06:25 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,564
Likes: 24
You know, there's no law of nature that says the company can't be more open about their intent with things like VB and make commitments to such intentions. I have zero regret about us "pulling the rug out from under them" as you put it. They knew we held that rug in our hands and they've thumbed their noses at us plenty. Let it be a lesson to them, no problem here. I happen to think it was bad for the pilot group at large anyway and it seems (non scientific) that many fellow pilots feel the same.
If they want to pour money and time into IT, it should happen at a much larger scale to stave the next major IT meltdown and multi-hundred-million dollar losses. Or they could program payroll to stop stealing millions from the pilot group, since there seems to be no end in sight to their continual underpayment of premium pay/reroute pay/reserve guarantee.
If they want to pour money and time into IT, it should happen at a much larger scale to stave the next major IT meltdown and multi-hundred-million dollar losses. Or they could program payroll to stop stealing millions from the pilot group, since there seems to be no end in sight to their continual underpayment of premium pay/reroute pay/reserve guarantee.
I believe they have bragged about a $500 million backup data facility in Alpharetta. Does that count?
While we're at it do you think the MEC was wise to dismiss the prior scheduling chair...the same one they then praised for the millions he recovered for the pilot group?
While we're at it do you think the MEC was wise to dismiss the prior scheduling chair...the same one they then praised for the millions he recovered for the pilot group?
11-03-2018 | 07:37 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,150
Likes: 116
I believe they have bragged about a $500 million backup data facility in Alpharetta. Does that count?
While we're at it do you think the MEC was wise to dismiss the prior scheduling chair...the same one they then praised for the millions he recovered for the pilot group?
While we're at it do you think the MEC was wise to dismiss the prior scheduling chair...the same one they then praised for the millions he recovered for the pilot group?
I don't know enough about the working relationship of the MEC chair and those who serve at his pleasure. I want a team that is all on board with the same vision at the helm. Many approaches can be successful, but not simultaneously. As the MEC chairman stated too, I appreciate the efforts of the previous scheduling chair... and his whole team. In my experience, many of those millions were recovered after individual pilots detected anomalies themselves and let the whole scheduling committee work on their behalf. It's a great service that I think itself nearly justifies my dues...but none of us should have to fund our own pay investigators because a Fortune 500 company cannot pay its employees in accordance with the working agreement.
11-03-2018 | 07:41 AM
#66
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,341
Likes: 829
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
Using a pull down provision is not the issue, it’s the manner in which you do so. It makes a difference, particularly in the VB instance, that will carry forward into future negotiations. We sat around knowing full well that the company was expending a lot of man power to get the IT in place for handling VB bidding and administration and just as they got it done, yanked the rug out from underneath them.
I don’t want you to misconstrue me on this, so let me be clear, I was never in favor of VB, I would have never gained from VB and I was in favor of it ultimately getting pulled down, but not in this way.
Anytime in the past that VB has been brought up, it’s been the boogeyman for us because we have a sum total of zero data points on it to truly nail down the effects on staffing and schedule quality so we can cost it out accurately without guessing. It is my opinion that the MEC should have called a meeting right after the 4th of July. The June VB in MCO would have already taken place and they could review what actually happened to staffing and schedules for that month and July. The bidding would already be in progress for August. The MEC makes the call to pull down VB at that time. The required notice would have allowed for the August bid period and that would have been the end of it. The big difference would be that we would have 3 months of data to use going forward. We may have discovered that:
1) The company didn’t like it and was just going to quit using it and we wouldn’t have to deal with them asking for it ever again; or
2) The company looooved it and if it ever got brought up again at the table, the price tag would be yuuuge; or
3) Something in between 1 and 2.
Either way, we would have followed through and actually allowed the test to take place under the intent of the agreement and no one could question that we upheld our end of the deal. What we did was perfectly allowable, but by denying the test itself at the last moment after the work and expense had been incurred, we stuck them with a hot poker. They won’t forget that and that’s why I don’t think they’ll ever agree to it again. I wouldn’t if I were them. Heck, it was the very catalyst for the company to say sorry, we aren’t going to be able to put any IT manpower into working on reroute automation.
Management had made some boneheaded moves leading up to the April pull down with the 350 delivery, no movement on the AM JV talks and the scope infractions, but as time has shown, what we did has had zero impact on any of those issues. So if we did it under the auspices of eye for an eye or to stick it to the man, then we’ve shown that as a failed method of achieving things for the pilots.
You also have to consider that we might be the ones trying to achieve something in a future negotiation that the company is hesitant on and a test period with pull down might have been used to nudge them over the edge and get what we want in the future. That’s a tool that I believe has been summarily removed from the tool bag currently carried by our negotiators.
Also, we would have the necessary data to quantify a stance on the VB issue rather than it being the bogeyman. As it stands today, we still don’t know squat about it definitively.
I don’t want you to misconstrue me on this, so let me be clear, I was never in favor of VB, I would have never gained from VB and I was in favor of it ultimately getting pulled down, but not in this way.
Anytime in the past that VB has been brought up, it’s been the boogeyman for us because we have a sum total of zero data points on it to truly nail down the effects on staffing and schedule quality so we can cost it out accurately without guessing. It is my opinion that the MEC should have called a meeting right after the 4th of July. The June VB in MCO would have already taken place and they could review what actually happened to staffing and schedules for that month and July. The bidding would already be in progress for August. The MEC makes the call to pull down VB at that time. The required notice would have allowed for the August bid period and that would have been the end of it. The big difference would be that we would have 3 months of data to use going forward. We may have discovered that:
1) The company didn’t like it and was just going to quit using it and we wouldn’t have to deal with them asking for it ever again; or
2) The company looooved it and if it ever got brought up again at the table, the price tag would be yuuuge; or
3) Something in between 1 and 2.
Either way, we would have followed through and actually allowed the test to take place under the intent of the agreement and no one could question that we upheld our end of the deal. What we did was perfectly allowable, but by denying the test itself at the last moment after the work and expense had been incurred, we stuck them with a hot poker. They won’t forget that and that’s why I don’t think they’ll ever agree to it again. I wouldn’t if I were them. Heck, it was the very catalyst for the company to say sorry, we aren’t going to be able to put any IT manpower into working on reroute automation.
Management had made some boneheaded moves leading up to the April pull down with the 350 delivery, no movement on the AM JV talks and the scope infractions, but as time has shown, what we did has had zero impact on any of those issues. So if we did it under the auspices of eye for an eye or to stick it to the man, then we’ve shown that as a failed method of achieving things for the pilots.
You also have to consider that we might be the ones trying to achieve something in a future negotiation that the company is hesitant on and a test period with pull down might have been used to nudge them over the edge and get what we want in the future. That’s a tool that I believe has been summarily removed from the tool bag currently carried by our negotiators.
Also, we would have the necessary data to quantify a stance on the VB issue rather than it being the bogeyman. As it stands today, we still don’t know squat about it definitively.
Last edited by notEnuf; 11-03-2018 at 08:22 AM.
11-03-2018 | 07:50 AM
#67
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,341
Likes: 829
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
A backup facility is great. But if you talk to people in IT, they suggest the architecture of the networks and the software itself needs to be reworked almost from scratch. That's the investment that will help me sleep soundly. It may not pay for itself by the next quarterly financial report, but it'd be wise if you care about the long term stability of Delta.
I don't know enough about the working relationship of the MEC chair and those who serve at his pleasure. I want a team that is all on board with the same vision at the helm. Many approaches can be successful, but not simultaneously. As the MEC chairman stated too, I appreciate the efforts of the previous scheduling chair... and his whole team. In my experience, many of those millions were recovered after individual pilots detected anomalies themselves and let the whole scheduling committee work on their behalf. It's a great service that I think itself nearly justifies my dues...but none of us should have to fund our own pay investigators because a Fortune 500 company cannot pay its employees in accordance with the working agreement.
I don't know enough about the working relationship of the MEC chair and those who serve at his pleasure. I want a team that is all on board with the same vision at the helm. Many approaches can be successful, but not simultaneously. As the MEC chairman stated too, I appreciate the efforts of the previous scheduling chair... and his whole team. In my experience, many of those millions were recovered after individual pilots detected anomalies themselves and let the whole scheduling committee work on their behalf. It's a great service that I think itself nearly justifies my dues...but none of us should have to fund our own pay investigators because a Fortune 500 company cannot pay its employees in accordance with the working agreement.
The fact that I get thousands of dollars in pay each year that the company never intended to pay me speaks LOUDLY about their supposed integrity and fairness. The amount of the money not paid to pilots properly will never be known. Until this is resolved we are all due a debt. PAY UP SUCKA!
11-03-2018 | 08:32 AM
#68
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 972
Likes: 1
From: 7ERA
-ditto-
The fact that I get thousands of dollars in pay each year that the company never intended to pay me speaks LOUDLY about their supposed integrity and fairness. The amount of the money not paid to pilots properly will never be known. Until this is resolved we are all due a debt. PAY UP SUCKA!
The fact that I get thousands of dollars in pay each year that the company never intended to pay me speaks LOUDLY about their supposed integrity and fairness. The amount of the money not paid to pilots properly will never be known. Until this is resolved we are all due a debt. PAY UP SUCKA!
I agree with you here. Over the years I’ve wished there was a premium attached to pay if I’m the one who finds it and initiated the correction because the company didn’t pay me correctly in the first place. Kind of like a finders fee. If they get it right in the first place, they would never have to worry about the fee.
The rules should be simplified and the pay should be automated. I know I put that in the survey and it’s not the first time.
11-03-2018 | 12:18 PM
#69
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 382
Likes: 2
From: 737B
I agree with you here. Over the years I’ve wished there was a premium attached to pay if I’m the one who finds it and initiated the correction because the company didn’t pay me correctly in the first place. Kind of like a finders fee. If they get it right in the first place, they would never have to worry about the fee.
The rules should be simplified and the pay should be automated. I know I put that in the survey and it’s not the first time.
The rules should be simplified and the pay should be automated. I know I put that in the survey and it’s not the first time.
11-03-2018 | 03:04 PM
#70
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,264
Likes: 106
From: DAL 330
You may be on to something here. I have been both overpaid and shorted numerous times by the US government, both the military and VA. Since I attribute this to the bureaucratic bumbling of huge organizations it makes sense that the errors would be on both sides.
So like I said you may be on to something, although I have noticed that when an issue comes down to malice or incompetence its almost always incompetence.
Scoop
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
