Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-21-2012, 07:33 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by tsquare
Supposedly we'll be above WN's current 737 pay in 2015 with this turd... at 216.92 vs. their 216.22. 12 year 777 CA rate= fdx's in 2015.
Wait, what?? If SWA pilots are getting 216.22 and they contribute 10% to their 401k, they are still getting paid 216.22, their hourly rate does not change. Then you add the additional contribution to the 401k that the company adds, and their total goes to
236.76.
If we are making 216.92, and we get 15% added to the DC, that would be that 249.46 that you mentioned.
If you are going to consider 401k pay as total compensation,for them you have to do it for us too.. so the gap isn't nearly as big as you are trying to sell... almost $13... 3 years from now.
Wait, what?? If SWA pilots are getting 216.22 and they contribute 10% to their 401k, they are still getting paid 216.22, their hourly rate does not change. Then you add the additional contribution to the 401k that the company adds, and their total goes to
236.76.
If we are making 216.92, and we get 15% added to the DC, that would be that 249.46 that you mentioned.
If you are going to consider 401k pay as total compensation,for them you have to do it for us too.. so the gap isn't nearly as big as you are trying to sell... almost $13... 3 years from now.
05-21-2012, 07:34 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by exeagle
Nothing against Dci pilots. Hell, I was one. Just irritated that we had to "meet and confer" in the first place.
05-21-2012, 07:34 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by A6danimal
I don't care who's pet project the DCI preference hiring language was, it JUMPED out at me, as I read the TA, as something that wasted at least 5 minutes of my negotiating committee's time (in an "accelerated" negotiation) -on behalf of another pilot group- that would've been better used saying:
"Tell Mr. Anderson that 4% at DOS just is NOT GOING TO PASS WITH THIS PILOT GROUP!"
I am deeply disappointed.
"Tell Mr. Anderson that 4% at DOS just is NOT GOING TO PASS WITH THIS PILOT GROUP!"
I am deeply disappointed.
....
Just saw your post 80, I agree, 35% is just not even worth talking about as it's so low. Don't know why they bothered with it though?
05-21-2012, 07:36 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
That is one oddity here. 35% be DCI. I'd get it if it were 35% be ALPA DCI. But just any DCI? Are they negotiating for the Teamsters too?
....
Just saw your post 80, I agree, 35% is just not even worth talking about as it's so low. Don't know why they bothered with it though?
....
Just saw your post 80, I agree, 35% is just not even worth talking about as it's so low. Don't know why they bothered with it though?
05-21-2012, 07:37 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
Originally Posted by Scoop
Slowplay - If it were only so simple. Am I reading this incorrectly?
Section 1 - Scope
1-24
1 a. 50% the following percentage of themonthly passenger seats may be occupied by
2 passengers traveling under the DL code:
3 1) 50% for flights between SEA and either MSP or ATL, and
4 2) 35% for flights in any monthall other city pairs, or
5 b. a monthly average of 86 passenger seats may be occupied by passengers traveling
6 under the DL code per flight segment, if in the month involved this results in a
7 lesser number of passenger seats occupied by such passengers than under
8 Section 1 O. 5. a.
So, not to mention all the exceptions for LAX and SEA - which are still in the TA - we can go to 50% on the above routes and 35% in others.
LAX, SEA, MSP and ATL can basically be 50% or more (LAX/SEA exemptions) with the rest at 35%. Is this much, if any of a restriction? We can basically fill half to 1/3 of Alaska's flights with DAL passengers and be in compliance.
Is this really the kind of tight Scope language we need?
Scoop
Section 1 - Scope
1-24
1 a. 50% the following percentage of themonthly passenger seats may be occupied by
2 passengers traveling under the DL code:
3 1) 50% for flights between SEA and either MSP or ATL, and
4 2) 35% for flights in any monthall other city pairs, or
5 b. a monthly average of 86 passenger seats may be occupied by passengers traveling
6 under the DL code per flight segment, if in the month involved this results in a
7 lesser number of passenger seats occupied by such passengers than under
8 Section 1 O. 5. a.
So, not to mention all the exceptions for LAX and SEA - which are still in the TA - we can go to 50% on the above routes and 35% in others.
LAX, SEA, MSP and ATL can basically be 50% or more (LAX/SEA exemptions) with the rest at 35%. Is this much, if any of a restriction? We can basically fill half to 1/3 of Alaska's flights with DAL passengers and be in compliance.
Is this really the kind of tight Scope language we need?
Scoop
The "comprehensive" solution promised to Section 1 suggested some time of collar and phase-out of the AS relationship.
There is indeed a reduction from 50% to 35% (except the MSP and ATL carveout) but nothing to really address the domestic codeshare to feed a international JV/codeshare problem at LAX. (flying that completely bypasses DAL pilots).
I would have liked to see 1.P.4. Note Two removed because it will now be used to the detriment of Delta pilots in the last year of the three year compliance period to wipe out accrued flying balance deficits on the DAL side of the ledger.
The new "Profit/loss sharing agreement" language is vague enough to permit just about anything with the exception of a 75% collar on revenue production to be flown by Delta pilots. Basically a 37.5% floor for Delta pilots with the other party subject to an implied 62.5% cap.
The RJ agreement is pretty good.
AS is basically untouched with no provision to prevent the feeder from feeding the codeshare and the The AFJV is lacking because of MOU16.
Cheers
George
05-21-2012, 07:38 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
That's the used car salesman in slowplay coming out...
05-21-2012, 07:38 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by tsquare
Wait, what?? If SWA pilots are getting 216.22 and they contribute 10% to their 401k, they are still getting paid 216.22, their hourly rate does not change. Then you add the additional contribution to the 401k that the company adds, and their total goes to
236.76.
If we are making 216.92, and we get 15% added to the DC, that would be that 249.46 that you mentioned.
If you are going to consider 401k pay as total compensation,for them you have to do it for us too.. so the gap isn't nearly as big as you are trying to sell... almost $13... 3 years from now.
Oh, $13 bucks an hour is over $13,000 per year for the average pilot. No sell, just info.
05-21-2012, 07:40 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by slowplay
I didn't realize the Delta pilots had a lease obligation to Bombardier
05-21-2012, 07:40 PM
New Hire
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 4
New DAL Payrates
New TA Delta Payrates:
V1Rotate.com | Facebook
Feel free to copy images here, I was unable to add them directly.
Hank
V1Rotate.com | Facebook
Feel free to copy images here, I was unable to add them directly.
Hank
05-21-2012, 07:40 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
I thought it was ALPA DCI only...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
