Are you a redditor?

Im guessing the ALV increases and or headcount cost is big. I think ALPA said that the contract requires 270 fewer pilots. Im not sure what our average pilot cost is. About 140 a year plus medical etc. cost at a minimum.

270 X 140,000 = 37,800,000

3 years X 37,800,000 = 113,400,000

So by reducing the pilot headcount by 270, the company saved 113 million throughout the life of the contract? These are obviously rough numbers, just trying to illustrate that the reduced pilot jobs is a huge savings for the company. I'd love to see the amount of $$$ required for each section of our contract.

FYP


Public Math:


At $1.8B profit, the PS percentage is roughly 7.28% under the 15% plan.
At $1.8B profit, the PS percentage is roughly 4.85% under the 10% plan.

Total pilot payroll costs will be roughly 15% more in 2013 (pay tables 12.84% and let's be conservative and say 2.16% work rules/soft time).

Old PWA: $100k plus 7.28% bonus = $100,000 + 7,280 = $107,280
New PWA: $115k plus 4.85% bonus = $115,000 + 5,577 = $120,577


You see a pilot making $1,803 LESS in 2013 with the new agreement.

I see that same pilot making $13,549 MORE in 2013 with the agreement.

Was the PS change worth it?

Very impressive. Statistically speaking.
We still gave back money. Possibly big money.

Just please be wary of all those numbers, charts and graphs.
I sometimes worry that alfaromeo has hypnotized you guys.


http://www.whdnj.com/images/hypnotic_pattern.gif

Instead of "public math" you should have called it "public spin". The profit sharing change was NOT worth it, because we shouldn't have given a single concession in this contract. ALPA saw differently on that matter.

Question with regards to uniforms:
I was walking around in Terminal C yesterday and I saw plenty of pilots who work for express carriers walking around with no hat and an appearance I would assume Richard would not approve of. You contrast that with the pilots who are walking around in Term A and B and we look better. I will admit we have our guys who dont wear hats and look bad (it is far less than the express carriers) but how can Flight Ops make us dress the part (which I agree with) and then have our passengers connect to Term C where those pilots there are not held to the same standards?
Either we change the express uniforms so they dont look like our mainline ones, or we have them dress to our standards.
It seems to me this is a glaring hole in Richards and FLt OPs communication in regards to appearance standards.
Thoughts and input?
Thanks

THIS is an EXCELLENT point. Connection carriers represent the Delta brand as well.

They do, as the public doesn't really even know who they are flying on with their "Delta" ticket. But that's part of the problem, not the solution. We need much stricter language to control this false advertising than we have. That was brought up by some during the last negotiations but little was done about it.

Tiny little "operated by" stickers aren't sufficient. I'd be in favor of contract language forbidding a common paint job and forcing all itineraries that don't touch mainline to generate tickets with exclusively the OAL name(s) and logo(s) with "Delta" only being in tiny fine print with asterisks and ball flags leading you to the back of the ticket to figure that part out.

I'd also insist on prominent PA's that emphasise the OAL carrier exclusively. As for uniforms, we don't want ACMI cheap labor providers being seamless for the customer. We want the opposite. So WRT uniforms, its a good thing that ours is distinctive and, honestly, better by quite a bit compared to most of the fake virtual airlines our company is allowed to "partner" with without using our pilots.

Connection carriers operate a completely substandard operation where professionalism and product is put behind cost. The result is a circus that should embarrass everyone involved. It really is sad that you try so hard to give your customers a good trip and then they encounter the Connection product. It is a lot more than just hats, its the employees, work ethic, management, etc.

This is what happens when you outsource.

Gloopy - I agree. I'd rather see the connection carriers have their own company names on the side of their aircraft. Treat them like a JV...PA: "Skywest 200, in partnership with Delta Air Lines."