Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
ATL A320 B
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
From: No longer MEM or 9, but still a guy.
If we want to spend negotiating capitol on something, let's spend it on book rates and make every hour worth more, not just "high time."
My goal is to make more for the same amount of days away from home, not to make more by working even more.
At first glance, I was for adding some kind of 1.5x trigger to our current system as you suggest. However, the more I thought about, the more I felt like this would only encourage people to pick up more time and try to fly even more per month then they already do further reducing staffing needs in each category. More stagnation...
If we want to spend negotiating capitol on something, let's spend it on book rates and make every hour worth more, not just "high time."
My goal is to make more for the same amount of days away from home, not to make more by working even more.
If we want to spend negotiating capitol on something, let's spend it on book rates and make every hour worth more, not just "high time."
My goal is to make more for the same amount of days away from home, not to make more by working even more.
I'm fine with max flight hours is ALV. No ALV+15, no swaps, none of that. I know, then it's not an ALV but a CLV, for capped line value.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
From: 320A
ATL 717A-155 senior with 84 first choice to sen#64xx
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Here's the simple math:
Flying 5 more hours, on average, ie. 80 instead of 75, adds 6.66% productivity, which is how the company wants it. To US, that means 5hrs. mo'money, but it also means they need 6.66% less pilots to accomplish the same amount of flying. On a 10,000 pilot list, that equates to 666.66 fewer pilots needed to do the same amount of flying.
Now, ramp that up to 85, from our old baseline of 75, that's 13.33% or 1,333 less pilots needed. Want to fly 90 a month? If everone does, that means 2,000 less pilots required, vs. a 75 hr. cap. The company will love you! DALPA will love you (the guys who's pay is based on the average pilot's hours), but the bottom 2,000 may not think it's so wonderful.
Now you see why we've had stagnation and a shrinking seniority list, vs. hiring.
Here's a little something else that's hurting our needed numbers. Why do you think the company wanted to combine the 767Er and 767 Domestic? Because now they won't need as many reserves to cover both categories, they can use all 767 Reserves for both Domestic and Int. flying, which requires less reserves overall.
The only bright spot for us is, Richard seems content to keep bringing in new fleet types, which requires more guys off the line, going to training, and will require more reserves spread into yet another aircraft category. It may replace the overages caused by combining the 767ER+Dom, but at a much reduced pay rate (717 pay vs. 767 pay) and after all the DC9's are parked, it will wash out to less pilots needed overall.
Flying 5 more hours, on average, ie. 80 instead of 75, adds 6.66% productivity, which is how the company wants it. To US, that means 5hrs. mo'money, but it also means they need 6.66% less pilots to accomplish the same amount of flying. On a 10,000 pilot list, that equates to 666.66 fewer pilots needed to do the same amount of flying.
Now, ramp that up to 85, from our old baseline of 75, that's 13.33% or 1,333 less pilots needed. Want to fly 90 a month? If everone does, that means 2,000 less pilots required, vs. a 75 hr. cap. The company will love you! DALPA will love you (the guys who's pay is based on the average pilot's hours), but the bottom 2,000 may not think it's so wonderful.
Now you see why we've had stagnation and a shrinking seniority list, vs. hiring.
Here's a little something else that's hurting our needed numbers. Why do you think the company wanted to combine the 767Er and 767 Domestic? Because now they won't need as many reserves to cover both categories, they can use all 767 Reserves for both Domestic and Int. flying, which requires less reserves overall.
The only bright spot for us is, Richard seems content to keep bringing in new fleet types, which requires more guys off the line, going to training, and will require more reserves spread into yet another aircraft category. It may replace the overages caused by combining the 767ER+Dom, but at a much reduced pay rate (717 pay vs. 767 pay) and after all the DC9's are parked, it will wash out to less pilots needed overall.
Doing Nothing
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,316
Likes: 0
Most of those 242 Capt.s slots are in the 717, my guess is most of those will be filled by MD's, from higher paying equipment, or from the DC9, but not A/E's. And remember, some of the senior DC9 guys don't have to go to the 717 either, they can bump up to what they can hold above that, pushing people off the bottom, down to the 717.
New categories are filled in straight seniority order. It does not matter whether it is an advanced entitlement bid or a displacement. And category freezes also do not apply. It is open for all bidders and it is filled strictly based on seniority.
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
If nobody senior to you MD's or AE's into it, you may get it, don't hold your breath.

Oh, and 'My Theory' is not a theory at all, it's just how the system works. I've been displaced more than a few times in the past 27+ years, so I know how it works.
Here's the simple math:
Flying 5 more hours, on average, ie. 80 instead of 75, adds 6.66% productivity, which is how the company wants it. To US, that means 5hrs. mo'money, but it also means they need 6.66% less pilots to accomplish the same amount of flying. On a 10,000 pilot list, that equates to 666.66 fewer pilots needed to do the same amount of flying.
Now, ramp that up to 85, from our old baseline of 75, that's 13.33% or 1,333 less pilots needed. Want to fly 90 a month? If everone does, that means 2,000 less pilots required, vs. a 75 hr. cap. The company will love you! DALPA will love you (the guys who's pay is based on the average pilot's hours), but the bottom 2,000 may not think it's so wonderful.
Now you see why we've had stagnation and a shrinking seniority list, vs. hiring.
Here's a little something else that's hurting our needed numbers. Why do you think the company wanted to combine the 767Er and 767 Domestic? Because now they won't need as many reserves to cover both categories, they can use all 767 Reserves for both Domestic and Int. flying, which requires less reserves overall.
The only bright spot for us is, Richard seems content to keep bringing in new fleet types, which requires more guys off the line, going to training, and will require more reserves spread into yet another aircraft category. It may replace the overages caused by combining the 767ER+Dom, but at a much reduced pay rate (717 pay vs. 767 pay) and after all the DC9's are parked, it will wash out to less pilots needed overall.
Flying 5 more hours, on average, ie. 80 instead of 75, adds 6.66% productivity, which is how the company wants it. To US, that means 5hrs. mo'money, but it also means they need 6.66% less pilots to accomplish the same amount of flying. On a 10,000 pilot list, that equates to 666.66 fewer pilots needed to do the same amount of flying.
Now, ramp that up to 85, from our old baseline of 75, that's 13.33% or 1,333 less pilots needed. Want to fly 90 a month? If everone does, that means 2,000 less pilots required, vs. a 75 hr. cap. The company will love you! DALPA will love you (the guys who's pay is based on the average pilot's hours), but the bottom 2,000 may not think it's so wonderful.
Now you see why we've had stagnation and a shrinking seniority list, vs. hiring.
Here's a little something else that's hurting our needed numbers. Why do you think the company wanted to combine the 767Er and 767 Domestic? Because now they won't need as many reserves to cover both categories, they can use all 767 Reserves for both Domestic and Int. flying, which requires less reserves overall.
The only bright spot for us is, Richard seems content to keep bringing in new fleet types, which requires more guys off the line, going to training, and will require more reserves spread into yet another aircraft category. It may replace the overages caused by combining the 767ER+Dom, but at a much reduced pay rate (717 pay vs. 767 pay) and after all the DC9's are parked, it will wash out to less pilots needed overall.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
At first glance, I was for adding some kind of 1.5x trigger to our current system as you suggest. However, the more I thought about, the more I felt like this would only encourage people to pick up more time and try to fly even more per month then they already do further reducing staffing needs in each category. More stagnation...
If we want to spend negotiating capitol on something, let's spend it on book rates and make every hour worth more, not just "high time."
My goal is to make more for the same amount of days away from home, not to make more by working even more.
If we want to spend negotiating capitol on something, let's spend it on book rates and make every hour worth more, not just "high time."
My goal is to make more for the same amount of days away from home, not to make more by working even more.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post


my bad. Thanks.


