Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gearjerk (Post 1679319)

Jerry,

First of all, thank you for the reply PM. I agree that we must stand strong AGAINST concessions for C2015. In this time of record profits and industry health, I don't believe we should have to "trade" anything for contract improvements either.

Secondly, ya gotta stop using the previous six months of this year's retirements as a "data point" to "cost future retirements." :) It just doesn't hold water.

I mentioned in a previous post, you then replied, it IS NOT a linear curve, especially based on only the previous six months. Mandatory retirements are listed below:
2014: 62
2015: 170
2016: 229
2017: 287
2018: 416
2019: 511
2020: 613

With what you've stated, we should have 4576 retirements between 2014 & 2020? I wish, :D but that's not a realistic number.

As someone else posted, it normally averages the mandatory retirements, PLUS 1% of the seniority list. (~120) With 62 mandatory retirements this year, plus ~120 pilots, I expect to see ~182 pilot retirements for 2014. Approximately 71 remaining retirements for 2014. (Average six/month for remainder of the year, might be slightly low.) Next year, 170 mandatory retirements, plus 120 pilots lends to the possibility of 290 (2015) pilot retirements.

It's all a guess until it's in the past, but having our reps take a doubled number of retirements to the negotiating committee calling it "costed data" is doing nobody any good.

Thanks for your concern, at your seniority level. (I mean that.) :)

Kyle

The reason the numbers don't work is each time a pilot leaves early yup have to remove him from the age 65 year that was his mandatory retirement. If 170 pilots leave early this year who would have gone out in 2015 then you are now at zero planned retirements for 15.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 1679523)

So, if you are at the bottom of a list -- let's say the 747-400 -- and you are on reserve 12 months out of they year, how is this proposal to their benefit?

Ie., how exactly do they get a raise?

SWA reserves get 6.5 TFP for a day of reserve now. Sounds good to me for DAL to do the same. You can sit less days or make more for the same days.

Plus, reserve and commuting is a choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1679442)

Well, I posted this a few days ago and nobody said anything. Guess I was too much of a wuss.

Carl

Actually I was thinking of your post and of SWA....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flamer (Post 1679561)

SWA reserves get 6.5 TFP for a day of reserve now. Sounds good to me for DAL to do the same. You can sit less days or make more for the same days.

Plus, reserve and commuting is a choice.

And I meant to say 6.45 a day not 6.75, same thing but didn't mean it to be.

For a line pilot it'd be the same concept, work less, and while you're at work yes you would probably fly more but we could argue that we want line construction rules to prevent some of that increase in work.

For a reserve it could mean only working 11-12 days a month. Albeit those might be full days but the nature of RES is you are covering for things and not all of those trips can be 8 hour days. So it's a decrease in days and possibly an increase in staffing? maybe?

For a line pilot it would probably be more flying while at work but 15 days worked a month would be a pay increase at 6.75 vs 5.15 ADG. It'd be a 30% increase at the end of the year.

But you could do something like Carl said, ADG first then pay raise.

As for a 747 guy in De-twa' or a 330 guy out of SEA, I don't know how much would really change as far as trying to cram in more flying into a 4-day. but maybe I am wrong.

You still have legal rest requirements to meet (albeit I don't have a clue at what you guys have for rest requirements) but a 24 or 25 hour 4-day to Asia would become a 27 hour 4-day.

I'm just batting this around looking for the issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy (Post 1679334)

Good point, Kyle, and I agree, that Jerry's assumption is way off.

Would you agree that we have had 111 retirements year to date? Per our DALPA website?

Do you agree with Kyle we will have only 183 by year end?

Mind you I realize the company will argue that there is a pilot shortage and we need more productivity and more time at work and there's your pay raise. :rolleyes: you don't even need more money per hour, at the end of the year you are paid more!

Just thought it was time for the safety video, from Air New Zeland:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1679559)

Good Point. But all the earlies are not necessarily 64.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1679568)

Would you agree that we have had 111 retirements year to date? Per our DALPA website?

Do you agree with Kyle we will have only 183 by year end?

I agree we've had 111 thus far. 56 of those were age 65 mandatory. We'll have another 62 mandatory and probably 60 other, for a total of approximately 230 this year, and while that happens to be 2x the mandatory as you mention, it also happens to be mandatory plus 1% of the list.

In the coming years, with the bulge of pilots over age 60, I suspect the 1% non-mandatory group will be slightly larger, but it won't be 2x the actual, so if you're looking for predictions:

2015: 300 (170 age 65 plus 130 more)
2016: 370 (230 age 65 plus 140 more)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd149 (Post 1679312)

I will say this about profit sharing. I'm the only guy on here who thinks it's a bad thing..............so what does that tell ya:D

Sorry to burst your bubble. You are a not alone. I share your view about profit sharing.

I am not management. I am not a stockholder. I am an hourly wage worker. I do not change how I conduct my little operation based on corporate profitability.

I want this compensation in my pay rates and work rules. Both for the good years and bad years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by orvil (Post 1679590)

I disagree. I want to keep the profit sharing but not because we happen to be making record profits at the moment. Rather, I believe management will always be willing to pay more, in the long run, when a portion of it is tied to profitability, because they know they can afford it.

They still remember C2K, where we continued to take 4.5% raises while the company was losing literally billions, so they will be hesitant to pay us what we "deserve" without the flexibility to reduce it when the bad times come. So, I'm willing to risk the downside, but keep the upside when its here. It is also a way to pay us more without looking like our payrates are outliers compared to our peers.