I can see your view. I think it would definitely change pilot behavior. I would think reserve would go senior as most open time that reserves currently cover for straight pay would be picked up for 150%. That would leave most reserves flying very little. I agree less flying would pay 200%, but more would pay 150%. Overall costs for the company to cover flying might actually increase or they could decrease it would depend on how much open time the company plans to cover with reserves vs how much they plan to cover with green slips.

 

Until you have people picking up to ALV + 15 in PCS, then grabbing more off the swap board. It’ll drive some to flying more (gotta pay for that second vacation house with its boat) and probably staffing lower. Because there will always be those that max it, especially with a new 50% kicker.

 

PWA is already too complicated....let's not make it more so.

Leave the ALV and LCW as is...I don't think the +/- 7.5 window it that unreasonable and the company has to have some wiggle room.

Whatever amount of credit you get awarded is your personal premium threshold....bid min or max credit if you like, but what you are awarded, that's your premium threshold.

Then anytime you help out the company, via what is now a WS, or a GS, it pays 200% (assuming over your personal premium threshold), but regardless of how you got it (WS or GS) its counts as your #1...lets call it Premium #1 or P#1

if you choose to pick up a sure thing via WS, you still get them awarded in seniority order (just like now), when ARCOS calls for a GS, you are already at P#1

 

That is a different provision.

Extra reserve days can be picked up but the company never publishes any in iCrew. Maybe someone can offer some insight or history as to why?

 

I don’t know, but I’ve got a couple of theories. One, the company would only ever post them on days that are critically short. Those are the types of days that lend themselves to GS opportunities so senior pilots would never pick them up knowing they can land a GS, and junior pilots are probably already working that weekend or holiday anyways. Anyone else who picked something up would probably be used. If you want to work and things are super short staffed you could probably YS a trip on your X days anyways. Plus a pilot picking up a single day of RES by itself really is almost no use to the company. It’d really only help if the extra day (or days) was tagged onto the front or back of an existing reserve block.

 

This!



If we went to something like that, we'd need to change the manning formula. If we suddenly have a bunch of people WSing like crazy, we'd ness less pilots in category. Stagnating in your current seat for who knows how long is a big unknown cost. We then look back to Leines post above.

 

I think the positive space commute debate is flying in the blind right now. Discussing this in the context of contract negotiations is premature until the following is clarified:
1) how much, in revenue and scheduling gains, has the company benefited from the positive space commuting experiment we have now?
2) how many times has it been used, and what has been the cost per pilot or per use?

If the company is benefitting from the experiment and making gains already, it is silly to debate this as something we should ask for. If it’s already net positive for the company, and we go into negotiations like it’s a big “ask”, we are getting something they would give us anyway.

Until I see the average cost per positive space commute, it’s impossible to gauge where it fits in.

To illustrate, what if Delta says it costs $250 per round trip positive space commute on average in lost revenue? That would be very helpful information for our infighting and negotiations. What if the numbers show it has no impact on revenue, and has significantly lowered missed commutes? We can move on to debating something else.

Debating it publicly or privately, without running the numbers and presuming it’s a concession by the company, is not good negotiating.

 

First, Delta isn't EVER going to share an analysis with the union or labor that PS to work is cost neutral or saves them money. It is likely that pilot and FA reliability has improved. It is also difficult to calculate cost vs savings because those flights were likely going out with a certain percent of empty seats. When seats are removed from inventory, does the booking AI adjust the fares? Or is it considered a loss and a "business expense."

No matter how wet discuss it, the company is going to come to the table and slap down some outrageous calculation of PSC cost based on next day Y class fares

 

Not so sure about that, also ALPA has a pretty good bench when it comes to "costing". They've been doing it for sometime.

I think PSC is a given, we shouldn't BTFO other QOL items though as the kompany will try to drag us into that mudpit. Focus.

I have faith in the negotiating team they'll do what's right for us. And then we all get to vote.

 

here's my thoughts on reroutes:

I'm pretty practical when it comes to bidding. I have a feeling most of us are. I bid for QOL layovers. I know where I like to layover, and I bid accordingly for it.

So you can imagine my frustration when I go from a nice 18 hour layover in a city I desire, like LAS, to a min-rest layover in MCI or SNA. And I can't refuse it unless I'm sick or fatigued. And sure, we get the RR pay on our timecards, but are we literally just being bought to staff the airline? I think the answer is absolutely we are.

My solution is simple - if you get rerouted, everything you do while rerouted goes above guarantee at 2x (or greater) pay until you're back on your original rotation or you're done. We must punish the company for understaffing. It's that simple.

Let's see if DALPA is willing to lob these grenades at the company. I am not optimistic.