Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-02-2012 | 02:10 PM
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
Clamp,
No. But Sailing does have a very valid point here. If 300 Pilots age 63 and 64 years were to have taken the early out then all Pilots junior to them would see a temporary advance in Seniority. Temporary in the sense that the seniority bump would evaporate over the two years when anyone over age 63 would have hit the mandatory retirement age regardless.
This would yield a temporary bump of 300 for lets say an average of 1.5 years yielding a gross total 450 pilot years of advantage. ** If however 191, but lets just use 200 for even numbers, dudes retire early at an average age of 60 that would yield an average of 200 times 5 years for a gross total of 1000 pilot years.
In the above example 1000 is greater than 450 and I believe that is what Sailing was referring to.
To summarize 300 very old (average 63.5 years old) gives a larger temporary seniority bump but for a much shorter time. 191 old (average 60 years old) gives less of a bump but provides the benefit for a much longer time.
I would like to point out that both of these advantages are just temporary and yield down to a zero benefit in about 5 or so years. The work rules that we gave up are forever, or until "We get em next time!" So while better than nothing, early retirements are like getting that third shot of espresso in your Starbucks - it feels good but does not last!
** These numbers all assume that you are junior to the early outs. Obviously if you yourself are a geezer
and are senior to half of them you would only receive half the benefit.
Scoop
No. But Sailing does have a very valid point here. If 300 Pilots age 63 and 64 years were to have taken the early out then all Pilots junior to them would see a temporary advance in Seniority. Temporary in the sense that the seniority bump would evaporate over the two years when anyone over age 63 would have hit the mandatory retirement age regardless.
This would yield a temporary bump of 300 for lets say an average of 1.5 years yielding a gross total 450 pilot years of advantage. ** If however 191, but lets just use 200 for even numbers, dudes retire early at an average age of 60 that would yield an average of 200 times 5 years for a gross total of 1000 pilot years.
In the above example 1000 is greater than 450 and I believe that is what Sailing was referring to.
To summarize 300 very old (average 63.5 years old) gives a larger temporary seniority bump but for a much shorter time. 191 old (average 60 years old) gives less of a bump but provides the benefit for a much longer time.
I would like to point out that both of these advantages are just temporary and yield down to a zero benefit in about 5 or so years. The work rules that we gave up are forever, or until "We get em next time!" So while better than nothing, early retirements are like getting that third shot of espresso in your Starbucks - it feels good but does not last!
** These numbers all assume that you are junior to the early outs. Obviously if you yourself are a geezer
and are senior to half of them you would only receive half the benefit.Scoop
My seniority number has gone up, but I'm more junior than I was in 2008.
09-02-2012 | 02:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,105
Likes: 100
Clamp,
No. But Sailing does have a very valid point here. If 300 Pilots age 63 and 64 years were to have taken the early out then all Pilots junior to them would see a temporary advance in Seniority. Temporary in the sense that the seniority bump would evaporate over the two years when anyone over age 63 would have hit the mandatory retirement age regardless.
No. But Sailing does have a very valid point here. If 300 Pilots age 63 and 64 years were to have taken the early out then all Pilots junior to them would see a temporary advance in Seniority. Temporary in the sense that the seniority bump would evaporate over the two years when anyone over age 63 would have hit the mandatory retirement age regardless.
Now, I say the above in jest (well, not really). The way the convoluted rationale that some of the cheerleaders are so desperate to push trips over itself is really kinda funny (well, not really).
As for the oil thing...remember, a LOT of Wall Street only looks at things from one end...their money train. Commodities to them, whether it's gold, home heating oil, cotton or frozen concentrated orange juice, are just entries in a ledger somewhere. Sometimes I wonder if they really understand that some people who "order fuel" actually expect to take delivery of it at some point, because they, um, burn it and stuff.
Nu
Last edited by NuGuy; 09-02-2012 at 02:24 PM.
09-02-2012 | 02:16 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,070
Likes: 1
From: Urban chicken rancher.
But you forgot about the time value of money! That temporary seniority bump pays off right away, and you need to calculate what the lost increase in your pay rate might have provided had those folks really taken the early out.
Now, I say the above in jest (well, not really). The way the convoluded rationale that some of the cheerleaders are so desperate to push trips over itself is really kinda funny (well, not really).
Nu
Now, I say the above in jest (well, not really). The way the convoluded rationale that some of the cheerleaders are so desperate to push trips over itself is really kinda funny (well, not really).
Nu
Carry on.
09-02-2012 | 02:20 PM
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
09-02-2012 | 02:22 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,105
Likes: 100
09-02-2012 | 03:12 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,876
Likes: 193
It still doesn't make his statement not downright stupid. All the early outs have gone to the same age range, so 300 would be better than 191. As per your example, this "bump" will evaporate over 3-5 years... and to top it off, they didn't backfill beyond one layer either.
My seniority number has gone up, but I'm more junior than I was in 2008.
My seniority number has gone up, but I'm more junior than I was in 2008.
Except for one fact. Everyone wants to quote the ALPA number. That number depending on who put it out was 250 to 350. The official communication actually listed 250. They were targeting and expected almost all those retirements to come from pilots 63 to 65. That is what they put out. The reality is that they got 191 pilots however the biggest majority were in the age 59 to 61 bracket. I put that out earlier and it was disputed by some but others posted the exact ages and it backs up what I stated to the letter.
So ALPA was wrong in their forcast. The program actually turned out better then they expected for Delta pilots. The side benefit is all those pilots 63 to 65 who were expected to go but did not will also be leaving soon anyway. I understand that 8 pilots who retire before next June did not even take the program.
09-02-2012 | 03:22 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
Sailing;
We get it and FWIW, you are correct.
Only time will tell if the retirees are fully backfilled. In reality, I do not expect them to be fully backfilled. Do you?
We get it and FWIW, you are correct.
Only time will tell if the retirees are fully backfilled. In reality, I do not expect them to be fully backfilled. Do you?
09-02-2012 | 03:30 PM
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
Except for one fact. Everyone wants to quote the ALPA number. That number depending on who put it out was 250 to 350. The official communication actually listed 250. They were targeting and expected almost all those retirements to come from pilots 63 to 65. That is what they put out. The reality is that they got 191 pilots however the biggest majority were in the age 59 to 61 bracket. I put that out earlier and it was disputed by some but others posted the exact ages and it backs up what I stated to the letter.
So ALPA was wrong in their forcast. The program actually turned out better then they expected for Delta pilots. The side benefit is all those pilots 63 to 65 who were expected to go but did not will also be leaving soon anyway. I understand that 8 pilots who retire before next June did not even take the program.
So ALPA was wrong in their forcast. The program actually turned out better then they expected for Delta pilots. The side benefit is all those pilots 63 to 65 who were expected to go but did not will also be leaving soon anyway. I understand that 8 pilots who retire before next June did not even take the program.
09-02-2012 | 04:22 PM
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,263
Likes: 105
From: DAL 330
It still doesn't make his statement not downright stupid. All the early outs have gone to the same age range, so 300 would be better than 191. As per your example, this "bump" will evaporate over 3-5 years... and to top it off, they didn't backfill beyond one layer either.
My seniority number has gone up, but I'm more junior than I was in 2008.
My seniority number has gone up, but I'm more junior than I was in 2008.
This is a different but still a very valid point. I liken it to climbing up a rope burning from below. If you are one foot from the bottom and climb 10 feet yet 10 feet of the rope has burned you are still - 1 foot from the bottom!
But seriously, early retirees generally benefit the top 1/3 more than any one else. For example lets look at a pilot group of 100 of which 25% retire early:
100-75% Sitting on the beach somewhere with umbrellas in their drinks.
75-50% - Now the top 1/3 huge QOL improvement.
50-25% - Now the middle 1/3 moderate QOL improvement.
25-0% - Still the bottom 1/3 complaining about the reserve bucket system.
Early retirees with no hiring definitely has some value, and could at times prevent and /or lessen furloughs but the benefit is not evenly spread throughout the Pilot group.
This is exactly what happened around 2005 with the Lump sum departures. Thousands of Pilots left early and many of the more senior Pilots moved up nicely, but the bottom dudes were still on the bottom.
Now it was definitely a benefit - look at the AMR and UAL situation and you will realize this, but the bottom line is when you are on the bottom of the list given a choice you would definitely want new hires below you not early retirees off the top.
Scoop
09-02-2012 | 04:24 PM
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,263
Likes: 105
From: DAL 330
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
