|
|
Originally Posted by 1234
(Post 1199064)
I am trying to figure something out here (sorry if this has been discussed previously, but it is hard to keep up here). We want to get paid as much as the SWA pilots get on their W2's. This TA puts us at their pay rates, however it will give us less W2's. Doesn't that mean that the SWA pilots actually work more that we do. Also, I did the calculations regarding number of pilots per aircraft (using data from airlinepilotcentral.com) and it looks like SWA staff's their a/c at a little less than 11 pilots per a/c while we are at a little more than 16 per a/c. If we had SWA work rules, wouldn't that be a loss of a few thousand pilot positions for us?
They have premium open time - many pilots drop their whole schedule and just fly the premium open time. There are some who work more than us, but depending upon how you define work more (more days per month or more hours per month), they work close to the same hours and fewer days than us. Their average work day is 9 hours between hotels. They are still limited to 1000 hours per year. That equates to 82 hours per month. |
Originally Posted by finis72
(Post 1198598)
There is always risk in voting either way for a TA. If you vote yes and then UCAL comes in and blows our TA out of the water then we are stuck for 3 years or you pore over the 10k data from this year and next and realize we left $ on the table. There is also a real risk in voting no and fear has nothing to do with it. Every decision we make has a risk reward factor. This company has a direction they want to go at a certain cost level. This TA gives them the cost structure they need to execute their plan. A real possibility if we reject this TA is DL will opt to go a different route. DL is projected to make record profits with the current contract in place for the next 2 years so obviously the status qou is not hurting them 50 seaters and all.
The majority rules and right now I think it will be a no vote. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with people that say there is no risk in a no vote or equate risk with fear. This place is depressing beyond words. |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1195599)
It's the military guys that don't think for themselves that are going to vote this in.
|
Originally Posted by MrBojangles
(Post 1199066)
different aircraft types require more crews per plane. maybe if 737's was all we flew it would be a level playing field.
I disagree: My trips are almost all hard time. Other categories have credit time. We have large enough fleets to get economies of scale, but Due to several factors, DAL chooses not to schedule us efficiently because it costs them nothing to use us inefficiently. If we had a 6 hour daily guarantee, that would be us forcing the company to schedule efficiently. As it is today, they only schedule us efficiently if it works for them. Can you imagine keeping the same plane all day, same flt attendants all day, no airport sitarounds, and getting 6 plus hours every day of a trip minimum? DAL can do that today, they simply choose not to. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1199070)
I disagree:
My trips are almost all hard time. Other categories have credit time. We have large enough fleets to get economies of scale, but Due to several factors, DAL chooses not to schedule us efficiently because it costs them nothing to use us inefficiently. If we had a 6 hour daily guarantee, that would be us forcing the company to schedule efficiently. As it is today, they only schedule us efficiently if it works for them. Can you imagine keeping the same plane all day, same flt attendants all day, no airport sitarounds, and getting 6 plus hours every day of a trip minimum? DAL can do that today, they simply choose not to. |
Originally Posted by LivingTheDream
(Post 1198620)
I really don't understand the debate on this TA. In 2015, the 7er will pay $216. In 2004, the 7er paid 267. So 11 years later, it will pay $51 less (or 19% less). 11 years later!
Did anyone think we would have any chance of meaningful restoration without a fight? If we have any hope of truly restoring this profession, we will have to go to the mattresses. Period. (It definitely won't come from a 2 month, Neville Chamberlin, peace in our time, TA. This not an LOA/MOU. This is our 1st section 6 since BK. I would hope our goal would be significant (i.e., large) gains in all areas of the contract. I for one, am not ready to throw the towel in on this profession. I hope that the majority agrees. So do you think that management or the NMB (when and if the time comes) will look at out case for C2K + and say... well... yeah.. even though they turned down rates that were higher than the rest of the ENTIRE INDUSTRY.. we see their plight, and will give them what they asked for... really? Or... do you think that we can use the same play book that the oh so great SWAPA ( you know.. the one that ya'll seem to think hung the moon?) has used for years and years and get a little bit at a time? No.. I see us voting this down, and doing the same old thing, the same old way... and it will take a few years to get back to where we are right now. Cure the "fear tactics" guys in 3...2...1........ |
Originally Posted by LivingTheDream
(Post 1198659)
You're right slow. Let's not even try to return the profession to were it was 8 years ago (11 years ago if this TA passes)...after all, we did go through a whole 2 months of negotiations. :rolleyes:
YGTBKM |
Originally Posted by 1234
(Post 1199059)
I find it amusing that during the merger, the NWA pilots were giddy about the fact that there was a max of six short calls per month. Granted it sucked that the guarantee was only 70 hrs, but at NWA everyday was a shortcall unless you were lucky enough to get a long call, which was assigned each day and long calls were the very first pilots to go out (well, behind those who had recovery rights and our recovery rights sucked real bad and that is a different story). I don't recall ever being able to say that you were full for the month at NWA. I do vividly remember working two months in a row every single day that I was on reserve (18 days each month) and that did not make momma bear all to happy. So we wanted to let the reserves make more money and we have, but now we are upset because they might work more?:confused: Reserves get a pretty nice pay increase with this TA. Possibly 80 hr guarantee a month with the potential to not fly?
|
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1199076)
Another unnecessary NWA reference? Do they ever stop? :confused:
|
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1199016)
Your tucking your tail and running away noted. Typical of the cowardly keyboard kommando.
You've made plain your lack of integrity on this exchange. Have a nice life, and hopefully enjoy the early retirement, sans any Tanksley monies.:p You can't handle the truth. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:22 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands