Search
Notices

1721

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-18-2020, 06:10 AM
  #61  
Gets Weekends Off
 
GucciBoy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: Fetal
Posts: 1,148
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun View Post
Can you explain the screw around with schedules part?

The company wanted to target the ALV cuts, i.e. not cut everyone’s ALV the same amount. They wanted to slash WB ALVs while in the same bid period max out NB ALVs. This is a lose/lose. WB pilots would receive less pay for the same QOL, and NB pilots would receive the same pay for a lower QOL. Every time you make the ALV cut argument as a QOL win, you ignore that the company was unwilling to impose a list-wide ALV cut with a corresponding reduction in on-call obligations for reserves.
GucciBoy is offline  
Old 09-18-2020, 06:15 AM
  #62  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Default

Originally Posted by crewdawg View Post
Some guys just don't want to lose that pay, even if it means letting other not work and get paid, while they do it. Delta definitely sits on a high horse wrt tlo some of this stuff...which is why they have the views that they do wrt mloa.

As mentioned above, the reserves will be working the same amount of days for 15% less, so I'm not sure about the "working less, not working for less..."
Even if they kept the same number of days on call the amount of actually flying a reserve could contractually be used would be reduced by the ALV reduction. With the planned staffing levels reserve utilization is not going to be high and given pilot posts here and in reality, line holders will be picking up a lot of open time further reducing reserve utilization.
I have seen nothing however that indicates we could not negotiate a reduction in on call days with a ALV reduction. As this evolves what your going to start hearing more and more often is this. “Damn, I wasn’t senior enough to hold reserve next month”
sailingfun is offline  
Old 09-18-2020, 06:18 AM
  #63  
Gets Weekends Off
 
wags3539's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Slinger
Posts: 316
Default

Originally Posted by Scoop View Post
I agree 100% it is an honorable solution. It was honorable to take a voluntary 32% pay cut to avoid BK. How did that work out? Pilot don't trust management. This is learned behavior. We lived it.

The problem isn't unethical Pilots the problem is unethical management. No Pilot in their right mind who has been through this before and burned wants to be burned again.

Like I have said before and will repeat ad nauseam - If we had a Herb Kelleher type CEO, I would be all over it.

Scoop
Unfortunately, this sums it up perfectly. I wasn't around for the past, but I'm familiar with it. I was however here to see the SIL's promised and subsequently yanked away so I fully understand the distrust. This is not a problem of pilot's unwilling to negotiate. This is a problem that management created a long time ago. They planted the seed of distrust, and now it's grown into a massive tree that they're trying to pretend doesn't exist. It's very difficult to come back from that...That whole 'fool me once thing.'
wags3539 is offline  
Old 09-18-2020, 06:27 AM
  #64  
Super Moderator
 
crewdawg's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,558
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun View Post
Even if they kept the same number of days on call the amount of actually flying a reserve could contractually be used would be reduced by the ALV reduction. With the planned staffing levels reserve utilization is not going to be high and given pilot posts here and in reality, line holders will be picking up a lot of open time further reducing reserve utilization.
A day on reserve is a day worked, whether I put on a uniform or not. Also in my current category, even with the alv cut, I could still fly 2x6 day trips, which is a normal schedule.


Originally Posted by sailingfun View Post
I have seen nothing however that indicates we could not negotiate a reduction in on call days with a ALV reduction.
I don't disagree that we could have negotiated that and I would 100% have expected them to do that. The words I was passed from a squadronmate who attended a LEC meeting, was that this wasn't the case.
crewdawg is offline  
Old 09-18-2020, 06:43 AM
  #65  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Default

Originally Posted by GucciBoy View Post
The company wanted to target the ALV cuts, i.e. not cut everyone’s ALV the same amount. They wanted to slash WB ALVs while in the same bid period max out NB ALVs. This is a lose/lose. WB pilots would receive less pay for the same QOL, and NB pilots would receive the same pay for a lower QOL. Every time you make the ALV cut argument as a QOL win, you ignore that the company was unwilling to impose a list-wide ALV cut with a corresponding reduction in on-call obligations for reserves.
I am not sure why people keep saying they want to slash widebody ALV’s. With the elimination of the 777 category and the VEOP retirements they are short and have a lot of training to do for both the A350 and A330 on the Captains side. The A350 next summer will fully utilize every airframe. The 330 is projected for high utilization. ALV’s will be high for both. The manning on the widebodies is solved, the only problem is getting more widebody pilots trained.
sailingfun is offline  
Old 09-18-2020, 06:44 AM
  #66  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 631
Default

I still think that if the company wants to cut ALV; fine, make it a LOA (or TA) that makes it permanent. When revenue/traffic returns and the company wants to go back to high productivity, they can negotiate with Dalpa and make it a part of a whole new PWA. Seems simple, what am I missing?
LandGreen2 is offline  
Old 09-18-2020, 06:48 AM
  #67  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Default

Originally Posted by LandGreen2 View Post
I still think that if the company wants to cut ALV; fine, make it a LOA (or TA) that makes it permanent. When revenue/traffic returns and the company wants to go back to high productivity, they can negotiate with Dalpa and make it a part of a whole new PWA. Seems simple, what am I missing?
The company can simply furlough and get a greater cost savings.
sailingfun is offline  
Old 09-18-2020, 06:54 AM
  #68  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Viking busdvr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Posts: 845
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun View Post
The company can simply furlough and get a greater cost savings.
And they probably will...
Viking busdvr is offline  
Old 09-18-2020, 07:00 AM
  #69  
Gets Weekends Off
 
notEnuf's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,034
Default

Originally Posted by StartngOvr View Post
So, the JL memo states “we in good faith committed to reduce the number of pilots at risk of furlough by 220”. There’s no other qualifier or context. Clearly the intended message conveyed is more “permanent” furlough protection. The ALPA comm stated this number is only protected through January.

Somebody is lying. Either JL is lying by omission, or ALPA by overtly stating false information. In this case, I’m inclined to believe ALPA’s version of the truth. Company is simply offering three more months for a handful of pilots. Really it’s just to help themselves with their training crunch and being able to staff the A220 through the holidays. Once they got what they needed out of these guys they will cut them loose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
January and February are the historic lulls so January is a good time to put 220 back on the table if the bookings for summer don't pick up. This is a tactical extension to buy time through the holidays and to measure next summer's demand.

Last edited by notEnuf; 09-18-2020 at 07:19 AM.
notEnuf is offline  
Old 09-18-2020, 07:05 AM
  #70  
Roll’n Thunder
 
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: Pilot
Posts: 3,552
Default

Originally Posted by notEnuf View Post
January and February are the historic lulls so January is a good time to put 220 back on the table if the booking for summer don't pick up. This is a tactical extension to buy time through the holidays and to measure next summer's demand.
We should also have a clearer picture of any vaccine viability by then plus we'll be on the other side of the election.
tennisguru is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices