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. 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 Hillbilly (Post 1675296)

For DPMP, if you retire before 60, you pay 100% of the premiums. After 60, you pay 51% of the premiums. No change at 65. I don't think you can elect any coverage after you reach Medicare eligibility age.

Originally Posted by boog123 (Post 1675278)

Funny how "Guess" "Sake of discussion" and "estimate" quickly go to "facts"

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. 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 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.

Originally Posted by NuGuy (Post 1675311)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you are going to negotiate pay banding, and it results in even a single job loss, then you are selling jobs for pay.

The only question at that point is to what degree ("insert joke here").

Simple as that. Once you cross the moral hurdle, all you have to do is practice that innocent look in the mirror to convince yourself you're OK with it. Obviously, some people are more OK with it than others, and they can lather up a good dose of self-justification and rationalization.

Spin it, polish it, run it through the cleanse-a-rama machine, spray it down with "Guilt-be-gone", or whatever, it's still the same. Pay for jobs. Not just new hires, but every category takes some kind of hit, including WB & Left seats.

If you traded 2 jobs for a $2000/pilot raise or 2000 jobs for a $2/pilot raise, it's still the same, only the numbers and the amount of rationalization you need to do is different.

If you are OK with that, then we can all proceed with the conversation. But everyone should be comfortable with calling it what it is. Pay for jobs.

If you're not OK with this, then there is no point in going forward with any conversation at all.

Nu

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1674617)

Actually, Carl, I'm buying it. As a line pilot, I have no access to costing sheets put together by ALPA any more than I do to those put together by the Company. Have you seen their numbers?

The fact is that my reps, who did have access to every bit of data, looked me in the eye and told me exactly what Shiznit is saying here -- that our net increase in cost to the Company, after the pay rate increases, profit sharing decreases, vacation and CQ training pay increase, shift in bid periods, ALV expansion, etc., etc., was around $400M per year.

I believe them.

And you don't think that management has reason to spin data? The very people that need to justify to the BOD and Wall Street why they've just given the most expensive pilot group in the industry another $400M a year? You don't think they have any need for spin?

Really?

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1674617)

Yes, we're seeing the Company give pay raises to the other employees. Welcome to the anti-union initiative. Are they back to pre-BK wages? I don't know. What does that even mean? We were back to pre-BK (but post-LOA #46) prior to C2012. So what?

And do you really think they needed concessions from us to be able to afford to give raises after the profits we've been generating recently?

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1674618)

Wrong. They were largely (but not completely) offset by revenue enhancements from the fleet upgauging that may or may not have happened anyway, and from maintenance savings on 50-seaters that they might or might not have parked anyway.

The $400M in increased pilot costs is a net figure as far as what we directly cost Delta.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1675302)

I don't think anyone is going down any road. This started because gzsg said the job loss would be 1800 pilots. I thought that was wildly high and I offered some alternative way to look at the problem from an analytical point of view rather than just making up a number. As far as I know, this discussion was started by the guy that didn't want it. So yes, if there is going to be a discussion about this then let's have the full discussion. One of the problems I have seen is that if you start the discussion you are automatically assigned ulterior motives.

ALPA put out a bunch of pieces designed to give the pilots the same frame of reference as their MEC reps about airline finances, fuel hedging, how negotiations proceed, and many more. Each one was greeted with howls of protest about how they were managing expectations. I am not sure how to win, if you don't talk about something you are not "bottom up" if you do talk about something so pilots have a "bottom up" knowledge you are "managing expectations". Quite the conundrum.