|
|
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1646400)
What I find fascinating is how you see a lost set of usual suspects while I see a group of Delta pilots debating an issue near and dear to their hearts, about which no one has much definitive information.
Seeing those political boogymen again in every post? |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1646418)
I am still confused. If they fly them as turns they need more pilots not fewer. In addition if they pull the long legs out for turns it increases credit on the longer trips. I learned that when we tried to build better trips then the company in SLC.
3 pilots flying a leg is more then two pilots flying a leg. Pilot jobs come down to block hours. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1646418)
I am still confused. If they fly them as turns they need more pilots not fewer. In addition if they pull the long legs out for turns it increases credit on the longer trips. I learned that when we tried to build better trips then the company in SLC.
3 pilots flying a leg is more then two pilots flying a leg. Pilot jobs come down to block hours. This is not my area of expertise but let me take a stab..... SWA is successful because they keep their airplanes in the air more than other domestic airlines. This is true of pilots as well. It is nice to be productive but not if it causes added fatigue and a reduction in required pilots leading to further stagnation. I believe Delta would augment only the single round trip eliminating the longer layover/hotels, then dump the extra guy off for use elsewhere. All three pilots are then flying the next morning instead of two pilots on the ground sitting in a hotel for 30 hours plus. Hotel rooms are potentially not needed at all if those pilots overnight back in their home base. The costs savings and increased pilots utilization is increased even further when you talk about a destination that does not operate daily. Potentially, augmented flights are used in concert with CDO’s. This is great for the company…do more with less! Bottom line it reduces the total number of pilots required. Let’s say for arguments sake 20% of all layovers are hindered by the now Part 117 “10 hours sleep opportunity” rule causing increased 30 hour layovers. Augmentation/CDO's sharp shoot the flight crew who normally gets in late on a Thursday and takes the early flight out on Saturday. Nip those in the bud and staffing decreases. |
It hasn't been said in a while, so I would like to remind APC land, "the devil is in the details."
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1646418)
I am still confused. If they fly them as turns they need more pilots not fewer. In addition if they pull the long legs out for turns it increases credit on the longer trips. I learned that when we tried to build better trips then the company in SLC.
3 pilots flying a leg is more then two pilots flying a leg. Pilot jobs come down to block hours.
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1646309)
I am amazed we are even having this conversation. I have received 3 emails from friends already laughing their asses off about the responses.
We get paid by the flight hour. Each flight hour generates 2 hours of flight pay in a 2 man operation and 3 hours in a 3 man operation. That's 22 hours of pay if flown with 2 guys and 33 hours if flown with 3 on a 11 hour turn. Not sure where you get this 4 pilot thing. It's 2 guys flying out and 2 guys flying back with a layover or if a turn 3 guys flying out and 3 guys flying back on a turn. I don't know what else I can say. • Provides augmentation for a non-ocean crossing FDP. I'm going to take this to mean it can be a domestic turn such as ATL-SFO which has 7 flights going and 7 coming back per day (and let's just say that's what it is everyday) and let's for arguments sake say it averages out to 5.15 each way. Now what you are seeing is: • You will need 1 CA + 2 FO on each flight x 7 flights per day, figure $219/hr for A and $150/hr for B x 365 days per year the company with the TA will now shell out $6.97M to do this route, • Current PWA is 1 CA + 1 FO x 7 flights per day x 365 days per year the company shells out $4.96m to do this route, thus the pilots gain $2M more per year in salary on this route alone. • And for the pilots they can be done after 7 days of work (73.5 hours) and we will net for this route alone 2200+ more credit hours thanks to the 3rd FO. Actually the airplanes fly 2237 hours per month on this route regardless but with our current PWA we get 4474 credit hours and with the TA 6711. Big win, amirite? You see big gains across the board, more pilots, less days working, more money? But I see it a different way. Currently even with short overnights it would take 12 crews to complete all 14 flights per day between ATL-SFO because none of these 2-man crews can turn that jet around and fly home. • Why 12? The first two crews of the day could do the first two ATL-SFO flights and the last two SFO-ATL flights. But you would need 5 additional crews to do the middle of the day stuff. • So right now per month you need 12 Captains snoring at the hotel and 12 FOs in the room next to them to complete 1 day of ATL-SFO-ATL flying. With the TA you need 7 Captains and 14 FOs per day to complete a day of ATL-SFO-ATL flying. So we lose Captains and total pilots but we as a group gain credit hours (even though aircraft hours remains constant) by adding that 3rd FO. So yes the pilots make more money but that is offset by reducing Captains required and pilots required. in the interim the company saves money on hotels, upgrades, training and hiring which as a wag given its SFO that would be a huge money saver. What is a hotel for SFO for an airline? $75/day? 75 x 24 guys x 365 days = $650K? What's fewer Captains upgrading and going through CQ save? I figured the drop in As and increase in Bs but loss in total pilots alone washed out to around $300K gain in our favor but I think the company comes out ahead after its all said and done. ymmv. This is back of the napkin math here but your turn, would augmented crews on a non ocean crossing FDP reduce Captains and total pilots required on routes like ATL-SFO? Still waiting for the details, this is all going off the MEC letter for now. And are we still required to do talk about other mans trash? Fine... http://www.contactmusic.com/pics/ln/...he_3794042.jpg |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1646473)
From our Chairman's letter:
• Provides augmentation for a non-ocean crossing FDP. I'm going to take this to mean it can be a domestic turn such as ATL-SFO which has 7 flights going and 7 coming back per day (and let's just say that's what it is everyday) and let's for arguments sake say it averages out to 5.15 each way. Now what you are seeing is: • You will need 1 CA + 2 FO on each flight x 7 flights per day, figure $219/hr for A and $150/hr for B x 365 days per year the company with the TA will now shell out $6.97M to do this route, • Current PWA is 1 CA + 1 FO x 7 flights per day x 365 days per year the company shells out $4.96m to do this route, thus the pilots gain $2M more per year in salary on this route alone. • And for the pilots they can be done after 7 days of work (73.5 hours) and we will need for this route alone 2200+ more credit hours thanks to the 3rd FO. Actually the airplanes fly 2237 hours per month on this route, currently pilots fly 4474 but with the TA 6711. Big gain. Amirite? You see big gains across the board, more pilots, less days working, more money? But I see it a different way. Currently even with short overnights it would take 12 crews to complete all 14 flights per day between ATL-SFO because none of these 2-man crews can turn that jet around and fly home. • Why 12? The first two crews of the day could do the first two ATL-SFO flights and the last two SFO-ATL flights. But you would need 5 additional crews to do the middle of the day stuff each way or 10 more crews in total for the middle of the day stuff. • So right now per month you need 365 Captain signatures and 365 FOs signatures on a release (731 total based on 12 crews per day) to complete ATL-SFO-ATL vs 213 Captain signatures and 426 FO signatures (639 total based on 7 crews per day) with the TA. We lose Captains and total pilots but we all gain credit hours (even though aircraft hours remains constant) by adding a 3rd FO but the monetary gain as a whole (as to what goes into our pocket) is offset by reducing Captains required and pilots required. The company saves money on hotels, upgrades, training and hiring which as a wag given its SFO that would be a huge money saver. What is a hotel for SFO for an airline? $75/day? 75 x 24 guys x 365 days = $650K? What's fewer Captains upgrading and going through CQ save? I figured the drop in As and increase in Bs but loss in total pilots alone washed out to around $300K so the company comes out ahead even though we as pilots get more money from them as compared to what we get now. ymmv. This is back of the napkin math here but your turn, why with record profits are we reducing Captains and total pilots required on some routes? Why is this better? For all we know it is a staffing increase of 500 pilots if you use imaginary numbers and circumstances. So I'll ask the same nonsense question the other direction: why is the company increasing staffing at a time of record profits and tight manning situations? Why is this better? I'll wait for the details, but I expect and have faith that my MEC would not approve (or recommend for approval) a negative LOA at this point. I do not think the NC is even permitted to bring back any TA that is a negative for the pilot group. |
FTB. Check your PM's in a few. Quick question. :D
|
FTB as usual sees thru the BS and doesn't just write "I don't expect the company to use this...", "I don't see a way the company would REALLY gain from this, it's just a once in a while thing on a rare international trip", and he sees closer to what the company MAY DO.
THAT worst-case risk management is what I pay my agent to do for me. And what every person associated with them almost seems to NOT want to do, rather they already want to sell me on all the goodness and downplay the risk. The company will gain productivity from this, and that will further stagnate us and cost POTENTIAL JOB INCREASES, that is it will REDUCE the numbers of folks Delta will have to hire--which is bad. --- Push for memrat --- based on the info we have now, much less info than DALPA does have but chose NOT to give us (we're not smart enough to read the real language), vote "NO" and push stance for your reps in case of no memrat. DALPA, want us to be in favor of this? THEN DO YOUR RISK MITIGATION JOB and give me a full analysis of worst case, and GIVE ME THE TA TEXT to read for myself! In business, when your agent keeps secrets from you and tries to sell you on the adversary's position, you plan for the worst and hope for the best. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1646473)
From our Chairman's letter:
• Provides augmentation for a non-ocean crossing FDP. I'm going to take this to mean it can be a domestic turn such as ATL-SFO which has 7 flights going and 7 coming back per day (and let's just say that's what it is everyday) and let's for arguments sake say it averages out to 5.15 each way. Now what you are seeing is: • You will need 1 CA + 2 FO on each flight x 7 flights per day, figure $219/hr for A and $150/hr for B x 365 days per year the company with the TA will now shell out $6.97M to do this route, • Current PWA is 1 CA + 1 FO x 7 flights per day x 365 days per year the company shells out $4.96m to do this route, thus the pilots gain $2M more per year in salary on this route alone. • And for the pilots they can be done after 7 days of work (73.5 hours) and we will net for this route alone 2200+ more credit hours thanks to the 3rd FO. Actually the airplanes fly 2237 hours per month on this route regardless but with our current PWA we get 4474 credit hours and with the TA 6711. Big win, amirite? You see big gains across the board, more pilots, less days working, more money? But I see it a different way. Currently even with short overnights it would take 12 crews to complete all 14 flights per day between ATL-SFO because none of these 2-man crews can turn that jet around and fly home. • Why 12? The first two crews of the day could do the first two ATL-SFO flights and the last two SFO-ATL flights. But you would need 5 additional crews to do the middle of the day stuff each way or 10 more crews in total for the middle of the day stuff. Or 24 guys at hotels each day, 20 of whom when they get there cannot fly until the next day vs 0 if you go 100% augmented crews. • So right now per month you need 365 Captains snoring at the hotel and 365 FOs in the room next to them to complete 1 day of ATL-SFO-ATL flying (731 total based on 12 crews per day). With the TA you need 213 Captains and 426 FOs (639 total based on 7 crews per day) to complete a day of ATL-SFO-ATL flying. We lose Captains and total pilots but we as a group gain credit hours (even though aircraft hours remains constant) by adding a 3rd FO but the monetary gain as a whole (as to what goes into our pocket) is offset by reducing Captains required and pilots required. The company saves money on hotels, upgrades, training and hiring which as a wag given its SFO that would be a huge money saver. What is a hotel for SFO for an airline? $75/day? 75 x 24 guys x 365 days = $650K? What's fewer Captains upgrading and going through CQ save? I figured the drop in As and increase in Bs but loss in total pilots alone washed out to around $300K gain in our favor but I think the company comes out ahead. ymmv. This is back of the napkin math here but your turn, why with record profits are we reducing Captains and total pilots required on some routes? Why is this better? Still waiting for the details, this is all going off the MEC letter. And are we still required to do talk about other mans trash? Fine... http://www.contactmusic.com/pics/ln/...he_3794042.jpg Nice work. Might need to move "the gif" over from the Alaska thread. Perfect for what might need to be accomplished to those that implement any cram down if it comes to that. :D |
shiznit== downvote
Ed Grimley & FTB == upvote Pineapple Guy == upvote We need upvote/downvote buttons activated for this version of vBulletin, amirite? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:31 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands