|
|
Originally Posted by TOGA LK
(Post 1675201)
I am starting to agree with Sailing, T and Alfa. We need to buy mom a widebody next contract.
|
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1675154)
Rich
Let's say we have 900 retirements in 12 months. Each retirement results in 6 initial training events. 5400 initial training events. Pay banding will mitigate this in a huge way. Again I estimate 8 to 10 initials per retirement. The major point is why make concessions during record profits? Jerry If you start a negotiation by telling the counter party that you aren't going to listen to their problems, then there is very little incentive for that side to engage in any meaningful negotiations. The company today is different than it was 3 years ago and it will be different 3 years from now. If you expect management to just have to live with our contract as an unmovable object, then they would probably accept that proposal. We only have to look at the very recent past to see pilot groups that have gone over a decade without a pay raise. We are in an up negotiating environment. That means that any change to our contract will be a net positive. It is in our direct interest to have a deal done sooner rather than later. "I will get 100% retroactive pay" has turned into a completely empty promise. Wimpy never repays you on Tuesday the nickel that he borrowed to buy a hamburger today. Negotiating an up contract doesn't mean you don't engage in solving some of the Company's problems. That is why it is called negotiations and not a hostage taking. I seriously doubt you can ever find a successful negotiator that will advise you to stiff arm the other side. It is not productive bargaining, it is simply listing demands. We will take many more steps forward than backward. If you concentrate only on the backward steps then it will drive you crazy. I have never seen a contract that went only one way. Even in bankruptcy we obtained concessions from management. |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1675210)
Negotiating an up contract doesn't mean you don't engage in solving some of the Company's problems. . The company didn't give two sh!ts about the pilots' problems when times were bad. Why are you so worried about solving management's problems now? The only thing I took away from your post is that we best get ready for more concessions. When the company is making record profits. After the sacrifices much of this pilot group has made to enable this record profitability, you want to talk about concessions. |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1675158)
Happy to hear you won't be advocating concessions. Hope it's contagous.
So is the bet on? Or is it somehow OK to slander me whenever you talk about me? Gutless keyboard warrior. I'll pony up the money in an escrow account, we'll get the wager in writing, sit a jury, and you can spew whatever venomous propaganda and lies you want to whenever the TA is reached. I'll simply stick to the facts. |
Originally Posted by UncleSam
(Post 1674410)
Hey T, it's not pretty with regard to medical insurance. Anytime before 62 you are stuck with the retirement plan policy or some other personal plan that you find yourself. Once you hit 62 you are on Medicare and whatever secondary insurance you find. I think the retirement plan insurance runs around $900/mo for you & the spouse with all the standard deductibles. There has been a tax credit for several years for folks like us that retired from a company that filed Ch 11 but that credit has fluctuated from year to year depending on congressional action. You can call the DALPA office and ask for retirement folks and they can give you better details.
|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1675216)
So is the bet on? Or is it somehow OK to slander me whenever you talk about me?
Gutless keyboard warrior. I'll pony up the money in an escrow account, we'll get the wager in writing, sit a jury, and you can spew whatever venomous propaganda and lies you want to whenever the TA is reached. I'll simply stick to the facts. He's been called out for flouting the company's stock purchase embargo for pilots, and freely brags about how much money he stands to make from his ill-considered purchases. I suspect he'll make a far more money when the stock goes up due to a concessionary or cost-neutral contract than he could with a big contract that lowers the stock price. |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1675210)
As I said in a previous post, eliminating a training event does not equate to saving a pilot job. It is merely the fraction of the year that the pilot is in training. 5400 initial training events seems a little high, that is 450 per month. Maybe that is the correct number, I really don't know. Even if you accept 450 per month and you save 1/3, you end up at 150 jobs saved, which is far away from 1800.
If you start a negotiation by telling the counter party that you aren't going to listen to their problems, then there is very little incentive for that side to engage in any meaningful negotiations. The company today is different than it was 3 years ago and it will be different 3 years from now. If you expect management to just have to live with our contract as an unmovable object, then they would probably accept that proposal. We only have to look at the very recent past to see pilot groups that have gone over a decade without a pay raise. We are in an up negotiating environment. That means that any change to our contract will be a net positive. It is in our direct interest to have a deal done sooner rather than later. "I will get 100% retroactive pay" has turned into a completely empty promise. Wimpy never repays you on Tuesday the nickel that he borrowed to buy a hamburger today. Negotiating an up contract doesn't mean you don't engage in solving some of the Company's problems. That is why it is called negotiations and not a hostage taking. I seriously doubt you can ever find a successful negotiator that will advise you to stiff arm the other side. It is not productive bargaining, it is simply listing demands. We will take many more steps forward than backward. If you concentrate only on the backward steps then it will drive you crazy. I have never seen a contract that went only one way. Even in bankruptcy we obtained concessions from management. Contrast that with:
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1675212)
"Solving the company's problems." Truly unbelievable.
The company didn't give two sh!ts about the pilots' problems when times were bad. Why are you so worried about solving management's problems now? The only thing I took away from your post is that we best get ready for more concessions. When the company is making record profits. After the sacrifices much of this pilot group has made to enable this record profitability, you want to talk about concessions. |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1675191)
Just to be clear, my guess at 150 is simply a guess. I don't have access to any current data. Maybe it's more or less. My point was to show that if you want to calculate the savings, start with the number of pilots in training in any one period, figure out the savings created with pay banding (surely much less than 100% savings), and then figure out the jobs saved.
In your example, you save 500 training events at 5 weeks per event. That means that each training event costs Delta 5 out of 52 weeks of pilot productivity or 9.6% of a pilot's yearly productivity. Multiply 9.6% x 500 saved events and you come up with about 48 pilots. I would think the actual number is north of that savings. As you said, there is surely better data out there and that would be the best starting point to have an intelligent discussion about which way the pilot group wants to go. The other issue to discuss about pay banding is the cost savings to the company for stuff that does not affect pilot staffing. For example, they would save in simulator time, hotel costs, DGS staffing, and many other items that Delta spends money on, but doesn't end up in a Delta pilot's pocket. That was one of the items exploited in C2012. The reason we ended up 41% ahead of our industry competitors was because much of the money to fund our contractual increases came from entities that Delta would have paid money to other than pilots. DCI contractors, engine overhaul, fuel expense, landing fees, and many other items were saved by the shift from DCI to mainline, meaning we use fewer airframes to fly the same or greater capacity. This shift in funding gave us returns that were as far ahead of industry average as I have ever seen any pilot group. Good cogent discussion on the topic, however why are we going down this road? There has been no contract survey to judge pilot sentiment on this, the Reps have not given direction to pursue this. Where and from whom does this originate? Obviously this is someone's idea for an early negotiating opportunity to solve the companies problems and exchange productivity for pay/TVM. The yang to this is the company caused this themselves in large part and why are we rushing in to fix something they have not asked for (?). For discussion let's even say its a significant net positive above the productivity traded for a "bigger piece of the pie", productivity still means we work more/harder with less pilots. Maybe that's not what this pilot group wants. Maybe they would prefer QOL with the ability to have more flexibility. We don't know yet. It seems putting the cart way before the horse, and managing the discussion and context ahead of any official setting of negotiating priorities. It might even be a valid discussion to have, but I'm missing the bottom up part. |
Originally Posted by OceanCrosser
(Post 1674850)
I am in my 36th year and have had ALPA Loss of License insurance since the beginning. I even carried the Harvey Watt lump sum coverage until I was canceled this month at age 60.
Is it worth it??? Depends, I am sure there are other programs or policies that "may" be better, but in 1978 when I enrolled, there weren't a lot of options. What it did offer was peace of mind. I knew if I couldn't return to work, then I was going to have a smooth transition to another career field. In my case, I considered it worth every penny. Fly safe, OC Remember, DPMA lasts for 1 year (per event). The ALPA insurance has a 1 year waiting period. Without any additional insurance, you go to half pay. And yes, it can happen to you. Ax me how I know. R1 |
Originally Posted by Fly4hire
(Post 1675239)
Alfa,
Good cogent discussion on the topic, however why are we going down this road? There has been no contract survey to judge pilot sentiment on this, the Reps have not given direction to pursue this. Where and from whom does this originate? Obviously this is someone's idea for an early negotiating opportunity to solve the companies problems and exchange productivity for pay/TVM. For discussion let's even say its a significant net positive above the productivity traded for a "bigger piece of the pie", productivity still means we work more/harder with less pilots. Maybe that's not what this pilot group wants. Maybe they would prefer QOL with the ability to have more flexibility. We don't know yet. It seems putting the cart way before the horse, and managing the discussion and context ahead of any official setting of negotiating priorities. It might even be a valid discussion to have, but I'm missing the bottom up part. A better way of saying what I am trying to say is not to let the rhetoric that is thrown out there become a "fact" without verification. 1800 pilots for example. Where did he get that number? If that is not challenged, and disputed or verified with fact, it becomes de facto "fact". gszg lives to divide this pilot group contrary to what he will say and accuse me or anybody else of. This is a small window into that. I will give him a small modicum of credit in that he has, in the past put out a good number or two, but never with any source behind it. I trust him as far as I can throw a baggage cart, because he relies on hyperbole more than fact. So like the boy who cried wolf... you can make your own decision on his legitimacy. We have a long way to go before section 6. There will be plenty of time for billboards and informational picketing and getting everybody fired up to go on strike and burn down the village. I think it's a colossal waste of time to start doing all these things that the fearless keyboard warrior wants to do. If you disagree, ask yourself this: Do you think 11,000+ pilots are going to get as angry as PD and gszg appear, and more importantly, STAY that angry until we negotiate a contract? I know I won't, and I know LOTS of other pilots that just aren't that interested at this juncture. YMMV, but I hope for your sake it doesn't. sorry for the long rant |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:52 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands