|
|
Why do I hve a feeling on average reserves fly well below 60 hours a momth.
My bet, current PWA rules prevent them from getting 60 hours out of us, so the new TA will help get us up to 60 hours. Thats my bet. |
Originally Posted by FIIGMO
(Post 1201609)
seriously It took you that long???????:D
My kids get $10/hr for CQ and still only ends up costing me $15... |
Originally Posted by Opus
(Post 1202325)
So, being a product of the public schools, the way I see it is the company is offering us a 16% raise in next 18 months without a fight. Keeping it simple, from the "Art of War"... fight no fight unless the outcome is assured. I say vote yes. Rome wasn't built in a day.
I keep hearing this from individuals trying to defend this TA, but people defending this thing say that a vote decision should come from a logical, unemotional place, while looking at reason. I wholeheartedly agree with the path each individual must take when casting their vote, so I'm not sure why individuals deciding that this TA is not in their best interest must be labeled as hard-nosed, concentrics only looking for a fight? It just business, nothing personal, and for the most part, it is the only say we pilots get to have until the next amendable date, so it behooves us to make carefully. Rome may have not been built in a day, but it certainly wasn't built on political postulating alone. Rome was built on the back of it laborers and the blood of it's soldiers. If we are going to build Rome, we must first draw our principles. |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1202365)
Look around at the other legacies. How are they doing? We all want restoration, but when you're the only one fighting for more, while the others are fighting each other, then your leverage is weakened tremendously. The raise is actually 19.7% over 3 years, along with lots of other improvements. If you want a 40% raise and park every RJ, it's just not going to happen. Negotiations will hault, and the NMB will get involved and tell us to get real. They already said pattern bargains will rule the day, with UA/AA/US being the only ones to pattern off of, no retro pay, and to get in line (over 100 current mediation cases in front of us) to get it done. That could take more than 2 years. Call any rep and ask about that.
If our fellow pilots at UA/AA/US are struggling under the weight of their own contracts, striving for improvements in scope, compensations, and work rules, that is all the more reason to say NO and push for something better. If we are supposed to stand along our fellow brothers and sisters at other carriers than we should not be looking down at them while selfishly compromising our individual principles for weak/questionable advancements. We are not at the fight point at this thing, and I sincerely hope it doesn't get to that. While I admire the negotiating in good faith it is not reason alone to accept subpar improvements. |
11,998 pilots on seniority list. Keep on shrinking
|
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1202289)
Can all you guys that are reserve tell me how many times you've broken guarantee in the last 12 months? Systemwide the average is less than 5%, and most of those were created through yellowslip situations according to the data we were provided.
The ALV system was designed for the Delta network of 2004/5. That network had about a 14-15% swing in flying from peak summer to trough winter flying. The new Delta network has a 22% swing from peak summer to winter trough. That left us very short of reserves in the summer and very fat on reserves in the winter. Our productivity is down from 66% in 2006 to 59% now primarily due to changes in the network and how our workrules interact with that network. SWA's productivity is at 72% by comparison. I may be mistaken but it appears you're looking at ALV + 15 in a vacuum. It works in conjunction with a whole bunch of other things. 1. TLV got raised by one hour to 75-80 hours system wide. That means reserve guarantee should pay 75+30 on average (ALV-2). Anytime you go above ALV-2 you're costing the company additional money beyond guarantee. They'd rather split the trip or do something with someone that has guarantee to burn. 2. All known absences are now figured into each individual reserve guarantee. That reduces the amount of guarantee you have left when you're on reserve (2nd example you quoted). 3. The staffing formula requires additional staffing when reserves average over 60 hours. An extra body for a year costs way more than a greenslip. 4. Reserves have 6 extra X days off per year, reducing their availability. There's some more, but I think I've made the point. ALV+15 will be used the most in short staffed categories with long trips. An example would be reserves that used to not be available for a 12 day NRT because they'd flown a turnaround at the beginning of the month. Great argument for an overstaffed airline, but not for one that is going in to a period over the next 10-20 years where they will be perpetually trying to play catchup with retirements. The intent may have been for the shorter staffed categories, but it did not stipulate a staffing level. It applies to all. |
Originally Posted by Rogue24
(Post 1202423)
Great argument for an overstaffed airline, but not for one that is going in to a period over the next 10-20 years where they will be perpetually trying to play catchup with retirements.
The intent may have been for the shorter staffed categories, but it did not stipulate a staffing level. It applies to all. Very true. Right now we see 22% swings in the block hr plan from summer plan to winter plan. In two years we will see a 12% or so point swing. Everyone will probably fly 30 more hrs a year, of five more days. It does not seem like a lot on the face of it, but when you multiply it by 10500 active line pilots, that real jobs and progression. The early out will take care of the short term over staffing the work rules create, and as a result there will not be a linear bump to the list. Going forward the jobs and positions will be lost and that's a gift that keeps on giving. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1202289)
Can all you guys that are reserve tell me how many times you've broken guarantee in the last 12 months? Systemwide the average is less than 5%, and most of those were created through yellowslip situations according to the data we were provided.
The ALV system was designed for the Delta network of 2004/5. That network had about a 14-15% swing in flying from peak summer to trough winter flying. The new Delta network has a 22% swing from peak summer to winter trough. That left us very short of reserves in the summer and very fat on reserves in the winter. Our productivity is down from 66% in 2006 to 59% now primarily due to changes in the network and how our workrules interact with that network. SWA's productivity is at 72% by comparison. I may be mistaken but it appears you're looking at ALV + 15 in a vacuum. It works in conjunction with a whole bunch of other things. 1. TLV got raised by one hour to 75-80 hours system wide. That means reserve guarantee should pay 75+30 on average (ALV-2). Anytime you go above ALV-2 you're costing the company additional money beyond guarantee. They'd rather split the trip or do something with someone that has guarantee to burn. 2. All known absences are now figured into each individual reserve guarantee. That reduces the amount of guarantee you have left when you're on reserve (2nd example you quoted). 3. The staffing formula requires additional staffing when reserves average over 60 hours. An extra body for a year costs way more than a greenslip. 4. Reserves have 6 extra X days off per year, reducing their availability. There's some more, but I think I've made the point. ALV+15 will be used the most in short staffed categories with long trips. An example would be reserves that used to not be available for a 12 day NRT because they'd flown a turnaround at the beginning of the month. So why not make it voluntary? Nu |
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 1202451)
So why not make it voluntary?
Nu |
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 1202451)
So why not make it voluntary?
Nu Nu, From what I was told by the SLC rep, was that they did demand things like make it voluntary, or pay it at 150%. Two sides of the table, I am not sure what was bantered back and forth. It is a negotiation and I am certain that many many details of this TA did not go as we planned (some are very obvious) and some did. I just think it is way over simplified to ask such questions when we are almost certain it is all about give and take. The reps answered a lot of these questions for me with specific details and contractual language. I am on reserve and I will live by these rules. These are good work rules regarding reserve. Pilots that have not worked at any other airline before coming to DAL have issues with it. (no such thing as reserve in the military as far as schedule coverage as far as I know ) I totally get it and we should make it even better here. Reserve sucks no matter what. Increased block hours at mainline, less block hours at DCI and improved reserve work rules are an important start. From my perspective, the longterm looks a lot better and even more scope capture and pay increases over a given set of time than any other carrier. As I have said, I have not voted yet, and I will still listen to all arguments. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:21 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands