On the above items, you are preaching to the choir. Actually, if you look back to some of my posts, I think you are preaching to the preacher.

I was just pointing out that the identity of Ts and sailing are pretty much known to everyone who have been on here for a while. They aren't really hiding behind their screen names.

 

Good post Jerry, maybe you are trainable. :-)

 

Thank you!

 

I'm not trying to change the topic, but I do have a proposal for C2015:


While our reserve system is much better than it has been, it still isn't as good as I think it can/should be. I would love it if reserves could:


1.) Pick up trips from open time before they are assigned a day out. I think United pilots can pick up trips 3 days out.

2.) Yellow slip for trips that are not in their silos and get them over pilots who have no yellow slip preference in.

While #1 might be a longshot, #2 shouldn't be.

I know the company thinks they want to match with reserves according to what silo they are, but in my category, I've seen a lot of pilots get assigned trip back to back to back, while others just sit there. There were three trips I YS'ed last week that went to reserves in the 4 day silo while I sat in the 5 day silo. All three of them were later called in fatigued (and after looking at the pilots schedules, I don't blame them.). What I'm seeing is that FAR117 is making fatigue calls more likely.

Maybe allowing pilots to YS trips outside of their SILO might help everyone.


Any thoughts?

 

Not sure on 1, but I definitely agree with number 2, newK!

 

Edit: Too, radical. I'll repost it later.

 

Jerry I don't like the concept of pay banding but 1800 jobs? Lets be honest here. You posted the amount of training you expect from 800 retirements a year and translate that to job loss. What you don't factor in is how many training events there would be with pay banding. Pilots will still move for many reasons. Trips on equipment, pay raise to a new band, bored ect... I suspect that in the end the difference in training via pay banding into 4 groups verses what we have today might be a 10 percent reduction in training events. That would not translate to much of a job loss in most years even the peak.
I don't want pay banding because I think when you divorce yourself entirely from the revenue generation capabilities of the airframes you make it harder to generate future raises. Yes pay banding will cost jobs but nothing like 1800.
Pay banding was floated by Leo Mullins around 2000 and it went over like a lead ballon. Taxi speeds dropped to a crawl for a few days and management quickly retracted it. The rates they offered were good so it was the concept not the rates that were rejected. I don't see the pilot group going for it today.

 

So anyone who doesn't gleefully promote a "burn down the house/full pay to the last day/liquidation, not humiliation!" (I've seen and heard all of them) is an "advocate for concessions and helping management"????

Evidence? I can claim that the moon is made of green cheese, but I better have a slice of it to show you. Most guys on here are just guys who take an interest in their career and find this forum more congenial and less toxic than others--such as the DALPA forum that posts such as yours (and Buzz's equally toxic counterposts) helped render inconsequential.

I agree that the C2012 sell job was over the top. That said I voted for it, and would again. It was a good--not great--agreement. If I had a crystal ball I would know how to bet at the horse races. I don't, and given lots of things, I would vote for it again.

We didn't. DALPA has done a great job getting us lots of incremental gains compounded on top of each other. You attack Sailing's posts, but he is spot on. Work rules, pay and retirement contributions are all far, far improved from our lowest points 8-9 years ago. What has the APA accomplished? Very little, until recently. USAPA? What a joke.

.

Probably a bit of an oversell on DALPA's part. But do you think voting No would have given us a markedly improved contract? I don't.

For nothing? Are you kidding me? Do you even read the contract or know what is in it? How about a permanent increase to the reserve guarantee? How about vacation, mil leave, etc, applying toward when a reserve is full for the month? That alone was a huge quality of life improvement--one that C2K never had, nor ever envisioned.

Like most pilots, you don't realize that profits are, by definition, the property of the shareholders. That is why Apple (beloved by many mgmt and DALPA-bashers) has $130 BILLION dollars in cash just sitting there--not one penny of it is going to the employees. Where is the hate? Microsoft had a $54 billion hoard a few years ago and actually told the employees that they (the employees) had to pay more for health care because "Microsoft couldn't afford it." When the $54 billion was brought up, their CEO (Steve Ballmer at the time) replied, "that's not your money, that's the shareholders' money." Microsoft then proceeded to get rid of all of the cash with a special one time dividend and stock buyback--none of it went to the employees. While that is cold, heartless, and something that I do NOT embrace, remember that next time you accuse DALPA of a "sellout" because mgmt allocated cash to the shareholders and not us. Any money we get from the company has to be strongly wrested from mgmt. They and the shareholders that they represent don't just hand it over because an internet message board loudly proclaims that they are suppose to. Given that, I think our DALPA negotiators have done a great job the past few years, one relatively small gain at a time, many times, each compounded on top of each.

That doesn't mean that I want profit sharing reduced, but management is "giving" anything away with dividends and stock buybacks. The shareholders, represented by the BOD are entitled to it, if they wish in that form.

I think I know who Sailing is. He isn't "connected" or "influential." While I find some of his posts a bit haughty, I also read that he just stays engaged, informed, and doesn't pull factoids out of his derriere to support the quickly-forgotten argument of the moment.

Source? Since we just negotiated to wrest back our sick leave into it's current and decent form from the BK trashing it took, I think it would be mighty astounding for mgmt to try and take it back down a notch or two.

You may be right on the other two, but just because they propose it doesn't mean much, especially in this huge profit era.

I disagree with your first statement. I and everyone else on this seniority list agree with the second.

Even if your number is correct, have you forgotten to add back all the gains? And for what it's worth, while the C2K pay rates were great, you can have the work rules. Our work rules are much better now. Or do you want...

Reserves are guaranteed a Duty Period Minimum of 2 hours, and other than trip and duty rigs that may or may not mean anything, NOTHING else--no Average Daily Guarantee, no Duty Period Average.

No Average Daily Guarantee at all.

No Vacation Slide. By God, every vacation will start on Sunday, end on Saturday, and you are going to like it.

No Bidding for CQ. You will go to CQ when the company, not the pilot, says. You can be #1 and by God if the company wants to schedule you for back to back A period sims, which you hate, then guess what That is what you get. (Happened to me many times pre-bidding for CQ, hasn't happened yet since).

I agree--and we don't have much of one any more. It is far far better than what it was 8-9 years ago. It is not the same contract by a light year. That said we still have a ways to go on the pay side, though lately I've flown with a lot of guys recently saying something like "I was pleasantly surprised by my 2013 W2."

I can agree with you there. I disagree with your method. You seem to think that constant conflict, automatically voting No on anything, and publicly insulting the very guys who are putting their lives on hold for a couple of years on all of our behalf is somehow effective. The APA and USAPAs of the world show that that is not necessarily the case.

After some intellectual "waffling" I am "all in" in favor of DALPA's current approach, because it currently is working. That is due in part to a good management team that wants to get along and prosper together.

I realize that these conditions won't always exist, and there most likely will be a time to think of taking very hard-nosed, threatening positions. I just don't think it necessary to do so now, as long as keep getting contractual improvements year after year, as we have ever since the merger, and even slightly prior to that.

 

Isn't that special?

 

blah blah blah..... dounghnut talking points all around.


When's the vote Jerry?