Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-24-2012 | 06:19 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 5
Why exactly did we negotiate pay rates on the 717 that are well below the rates AT pilots will be fluing them at? By the time we get all of them the AT pilots flying them will be making the same as the SWA 737 pilots?
05-24-2012 | 06:30 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Well I think if AT 717 pilots were on SWA 737 rates right now and we voted this contract in then that's exactly what would happen for a 12 year FO under our new TA.
I think by the time 2015 rolls around and 717s come over it'll be a $12K difference for a Captain. But that is if AT pilots by then are on 737 rates and SWA never gets a raise.
05-24-2012 | 06:34 AM
On Reserve
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 0
From: MSP7ERB
Elvis,
I know you did not write this but here is my view on one point. (check my math it is eary)
UAL will never get a 43% pay raise in the next three years to beat this TA.
12 yr
Current UAL 747 rate $190
Current DAL rate 226
end of 3 years with 20% in this TA
DAL $271
UAL to Match 190*1.43
I dont like this TA either, but does anyone think UAL will get a 43% pay raise to match us in the next 3 years? Do we send this back? Will we get better rates, COLA, Scope? If this TA is voted down what arbitrator will say "your right 20% pay raise was not enough, DAL cough up more!" ****History is not in our favor. The question I have to ponder is what are the alternatives, pluses and minuses to a yes or no vote. The comparison math has to be a factor in looking forward as well as contract language.
I hope the debate stays the course here on APC, get informed look at the big picture, stay respectful. These are opinions, questions and points of view. Change and open minds with intellect not insults.....
**** I assume here the company drags this out the old fashion way and we are sitting here 3 years later at the table of an arbitrator. At that time he awards us 15-20%, but for 3 years we gained nothing. Just may be the risk we have to take.
I know you did not write this but here is my view on one point. (check my math it is eary)
UAL will never get a 43% pay raise in the next three years to beat this TA.
12 yr
Current UAL 747 rate $190
Current DAL rate 226
end of 3 years with 20% in this TA
DAL $271
UAL to Match 190*1.43
I dont like this TA either, but does anyone think UAL will get a 43% pay raise to match us in the next 3 years? Do we send this back? Will we get better rates, COLA, Scope? If this TA is voted down what arbitrator will say "your right 20% pay raise was not enough, DAL cough up more!" ****History is not in our favor. The question I have to ponder is what are the alternatives, pluses and minuses to a yes or no vote. The comparison math has to be a factor in looking forward as well as contract language.
I hope the debate stays the course here on APC, get informed look at the big picture, stay respectful. These are opinions, questions and points of view. Change and open minds with intellect not insults.....
**** I assume here the company drags this out the old fashion way and we are sitting here 3 years later at the table of an arbitrator. At that time he awards us 15-20%, but for 3 years we gained nothing. Just may be the risk we have to take.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...5-21-12-a.html
05-24-2012 | 06:37 AM
On Reserve
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 0
From: MSP7ERB
Bar;
Buddy;
Are you crazy?
You and I MUST be reading a different document.
By the way, the line was already at 76 seats.
Now, Republic can upguage LEGALLY beyond 76 seats. Then they codeshare through Alaska and they are flying DAL pax on airbusses and other 130 seat jets.
Buddy;
Are you crazy?
You and I MUST be reading a different document.
By the way, the line was already at 76 seats.
Now, Republic can upguage LEGALLY beyond 76 seats. Then they codeshare through Alaska and they are flying DAL pax on airbusses and other 130 seat jets.
05-24-2012 | 06:42 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From: A330
I was just thinking.....
Hasn't RA said that they only see a need for 100-150 of the 50 seaters due to economics?
If we kept our 255 limit, wouldn't that only be 405 RJs eventually worst case?
I'd be inclined to think that this would be better than the 450 limit. I'm not sure why we would think about helping out with anymore of the 70/76 seat growth.
255 was supposed to be a line in the sand, until I see that in the TA, I will most likely vote NO. I do understand that turboprops, and other technologies are added, but why not let DCI die as it is rather than put them on life support with these larger RJs. DAL has shown no interest in the props, and the GTF technology isn't here yet. There is no hurry to sign a TA now, I'd rather take another 6-12 months and get it right.
Hasn't RA said that they only see a need for 100-150 of the 50 seaters due to economics?
If we kept our 255 limit, wouldn't that only be 405 RJs eventually worst case?
I'd be inclined to think that this would be better than the 450 limit. I'm not sure why we would think about helping out with anymore of the 70/76 seat growth.
255 was supposed to be a line in the sand, until I see that in the TA, I will most likely vote NO. I do understand that turboprops, and other technologies are added, but why not let DCI die as it is rather than put them on life support with these larger RJs. DAL has shown no interest in the props, and the GTF technology isn't here yet. There is no hurry to sign a TA now, I'd rather take another 6-12 months and get it right.
05-24-2012 | 06:43 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
From: 73N CA
3. Verification of sickness under Section 14 F. 2. is required when:
42 a. a pilot has used more than 100 hours of unverified sick leave in a sick leave year,
43 or
44 b. a pilot has been absent on a single sick occurrence for 15 or more than seven
45 consecutive days.
Section 14 – Sick Leave
14-10
1 4. When individual circumstances exist that give the Company a good faith basis to
2 inquire regarding the medical reason for a pilot’s use of sick leave, such pilot is
3 notmay be required to state the nature of his sickness to Crew Scheduling. He may be
4 required to describe his sicknessillness in general terms to his Chief Pilot. Following
5 such discussion, the Chief Pilot may:
6 a. consider the current sick leave occurrence to be verified, or
7 b. require verification of sickness from the pilot under Section 14 F. 2.
8 Note: Such individual circumstances may not be derived solely from the amount of
9 sick leave used by the pilot or the frequency of his sick occurrences.
10 5. In the event the Company requires a doctor’s certificate for verification, a pilot may
11 submit a reimbursement claim through DBMS for any reasonable expense incurred
12 in obtaining such verification.
I personally don't see all the fuss in this. I would expect that such usage highlighted above would most probably already be seeing a Dr. anyway. In the end, if they're requiring the verification, then it appears DAL still has to reimburse you for the Dr. appointment.
42 a. a pilot has used more than 100 hours of unverified sick leave in a sick leave year,
43 or
44 b. a pilot has been absent on a single sick occurrence for 15 or more than seven
45 consecutive days.
Section 14 – Sick Leave
14-10
1 4. When individual circumstances exist that give the Company a good faith basis to
2 inquire regarding the medical reason for a pilot’s use of sick leave, such pilot is
3 notmay be required to state the nature of his sickness to Crew Scheduling. He may be
4 required to describe his sicknessillness in general terms to his Chief Pilot. Following
5 such discussion, the Chief Pilot may:
6 a. consider the current sick leave occurrence to be verified, or
7 b. require verification of sickness from the pilot under Section 14 F. 2.
8 Note: Such individual circumstances may not be derived solely from the amount of
9 sick leave used by the pilot or the frequency of his sick occurrences.
10 5. In the event the Company requires a doctor’s certificate for verification, a pilot may
11 submit a reimbursement claim through DBMS for any reasonable expense incurred
12 in obtaining such verification.
I personally don't see all the fuss in this. I would expect that such usage highlighted above would most probably already be seeing a Dr. anyway. In the end, if they're requiring the verification, then it appears DAL still has to reimburse you for the Dr. appointment.
05-24-2012 | 06:47 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Mod's, any way to move and merge all of these threads to a Delta TA Section 1, Delta TA Section 3, Delta TA Section 23, Delta TA All Other Sections?
We have identical conversations going on in multiple locations.
We have identical conversations going on in multiple locations.
05-24-2012 | 06:53 AM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Do not want to merge yet. Want a sub forum, and have brought it up. To date no decision. I will merge most of this in a day if there is no resolution.
05-24-2012 | 06:55 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
05-24-2012 | 06:56 AM
On Reserve
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 0
From: MSP7ERB
On a different note, did anyone have to deal with the thunderstorms in MSP last night? I sure did. Diverted to Sioux Falls, did a quick turn, flew toward MSP just to go in indefinite hold again, with the Captain telling me, "I've never had to divert TWICE on the same leg before". Well, we came within 1,500 # of doing so, but thanks to coordination with the dispatcher who pleaded our case to ATC, we got in. I got off a 4-day trip after the first day due to "no domicile layover" for Reserves, thinking I might go home today, but thanks to our new reserve system where seniority rules (and I am real junior) I have another 4-day beginning tonight, despite 6 SC's this month. Back to your regularly scheduled contract discussion.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
