Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)
-   -   Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

tsquare 12-11-2013 07:19 AM


Originally Posted by cni187 (Post 1537484)

is it (10% of 2.5 Billion) + (20% of .1Billion)?


This one ^^^^^^^^

fisherpilot 12-11-2013 07:23 AM

Could someone verify the DAL company contribution to 401k? I see on the APC profile page that it is 2%. I have a few buddies at DAL and thought one of them told me that it was around 13%

Just curious. Thx!

tsquare 12-11-2013 07:25 AM


Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 1537485)
Part of the problem with pilots having this attitude versus that regarding overtime flying is the unclear coding and ramifications in DBMS.

For example, a "G" means a green slip. If the pilot getting the GS is a regular lineholder, it is fairly straightforward. He is working on his otherwise days off, permanently solves the company's critical staffing need, gets compensated double pay for it, end of story.

However, if the pilot is on reserve (see ATL 320A) the ramifications for the company are completely different. He is flying a GS on his reserve days off, and gets paid for the trip flown above the reserve guarantee...AND gets the days off paid back! He has not permanently solved anything for the company (and good on him), just their problem that day. But since due to the x-day payback he will no longer be available to them on the days he otherwise would have been, now they have yet another problem to solve a few days later.

A reserve GS, though coded "G" in the DBMS daily trip coverage, functions far more like a green slip with conflict (GSWC, coded "C" in daily trip coverage) than a straight green slip. In fact, I have always wondered why the DBMS trip coverage designator wasn't a different letter for GS flown by reserves vice regulars.

So what? He has still solved their problem "for that day". Look, as I have stated a million times, I couldn't care less about this, but if there are guys on furlough, and a pilot exercises his contractual right, guys need to **** about it unless you change the contract. That is all I am saying. It is only altruism to forego your contractual right under the auspices of bringing back a furloughee earlier. The fact is, the company will bring them back whenever it is economically viable to do so, and not flying GSs will not bring them back any sooner when they can use reroutes or IAs to do the same thing. What ticks me off is the guilt trip that is laid on the senior pilots about this as if they were scabs. Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. I'll give somebody else the last word on this.

Dorfman 12-11-2013 07:25 AM


Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1537494)
I'm just saying that whenever there are furloughs, there is always an uproar against senior guys flying GSs while junior guys are flying IAs. IOW, senior guys are being pressured into foregoing their contractual rights while the junior guys take advantage of it. I couldn't care less either way frankly, but I get sick of hearing how the senior guys are keeping furloughees on the street when junior guys are every bit as "responsible".

The problem is GS is an option to fly, a right by the contract but optional none the less. IAs are not, if they get a hold of you, i.e. don't answer your phone.

We as pilots are our own worst enemy when it comes to this. If I were king for a day we would adopt a hard cap of 75 hours with pilots on furlough. No white slips, green slips, or any other flying that takes someone above 75 hours.

slowplay 12-11-2013 07:29 AM


Originally Posted by fisherpilot (Post 1537505)
Could someone verify the DAL company contribution to 401k? I see on the APC profile page that it is 2%. I have a few buddies at DAL and thought one of them told me that it was around 13%

Just curious. Thx!

Total company retirement plan contributions as of January 1, 2014 are 15%. We currently have 2 separate plans (401K and DC) that are being merged into one (401k). No pilot contributions are required to get the 15%.

tsquare 12-11-2013 07:31 AM


Originally Posted by Vikz09 (Post 1537462)
T

The problem is the company is leaving no wiggle room for the, what if. You know as well as I do, that Murphy's Law seems to apply to aviation on a daily basis. How about the numerous times you are asked to turn 30 right for spacing. I have flown into BOS on a clear day and been told to hold over Norwich when I can see the airport 50 miles ahead. Slow as much as practical as Atlanta is switching airport configuration. I could go on and on. The real issue is if you over block that first leg by the small buffer, your done!

Not your problem then. And they know that. However... if you flew .75M all the way, and THEN get holding they KNOW that too.... can you justify it? I'm not saying that they will go that route, and I believe it foolish for them to block trips so close to the limit, but they have reams of data on how long it should take to go from point A to point B. Don't you find it amazing that we can fly for 5,6, 12 hours and be within 10 or 15 minutes of the prediction on the flight plan? I certainly do. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

tsquare 12-11-2013 07:35 AM


Originally Posted by Dorfman (Post 1537509)
The problem is GS is an option to fly, a right by the contract but optional none the less. IAs are not, if they get a hold of you, i.e. don't answer your phone.

Irrelevant. Guys DO answer their phone, or their kids do... get grabbed in the jetway.... or whatever. Not all, but some. I see no difference in asking to fly a GS or accepting an IA when you KNOW it is skeds on the phone. It doesn't matter. You are pressuring one pilot to forego his contractual right while rewarding another for doing the same thing.

flyallnite 12-11-2013 07:36 AM


Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1537515)
Not your problem then. And they know that. However... if you flew .75M all the way, and THEN get holding they KNOW that too.... can you justify it? I'm not saying that they will go that route, and I believe it foolish for them to block trips so close to the limit, but they have reams of data on how long it should take to go from point A to point B. Don't you find it amazing that we can fly for 5,6, 12 hours and be within 10 or 15 minutes of the prediction on the flight plan? I certainly do. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.


I think the FAR's are clear enough as to whom is the final authority WRT operating the aircraft in a safe manner. I'm sure they could ask the question, but the answer would always be "I operated it per the FOM, and FAR's." Short of putting a mgmt. cop on the JS, there's nothing else they could do.

Herkflyr 12-11-2013 07:39 AM


Originally Posted by Dorfman (Post 1537509)
The problem is GS is an option to fly, a right by the contract but optional none the less. IAs are not, if they get a hold of you, i.e. don't answer your phone.

We as pilots are our own worst enemy when it comes to this. If I were king for a day we would adopt a hard cap of 75 hours with pilots on furlough. No white slips, green slips, or any other flying that takes someone above 75 hours.

I had a long commentary disagreeing with you--until I saw the point of "with pilots on furlough." I tend to agree with you there. Absent that however, guys should be free to fly--or not--any way they wish if the contract provides for it.

fisherpilot 12-11-2013 07:39 AM


Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1537511)
Total company retirement plan contributions as of January 1, 2014 are 15%. We currently have 2 separate plans (401K and DC) that are being merged into one (401k). No pilot contributions are required to get the 15%.

So how would that look for a new hire? Not premerger DAL or NWA


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:28 AM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands