|
|
Originally Posted by Starcheck102
(Post 1684688)
I just spoke with a buddy on the Scheduling Committee. He says the participation rate for the ongoing Rotation Construction Survey is hanging around 24 percent.
I am sure that all the commuters wouldn't mind if the guys who live in base had all the input, and vice versa. Get off your butts and fill out the survey.
Originally Posted by finis72
(Post 1684699)
There are 3 sides to every story; one side, the other side and the truth.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1684598)
Jerry, profit sharing will probably never exceed 10% even in the very best year. I think we are on track for 9 to 10 this year. If we could convert that to 8% in pay I would take it. This assumes we get that as a additional raise. Raises compound and are there regardless of profits. Record profits can turn into record losses in months in this industry.
That is the problem with profit sharing - how do we convert it into pay without the company trying to count it as a raise? Once we started with profit sharing we are kind of committed. I am not willing to convert profit sharing into pay and then have the company count that as a raise. OBTW - I was told that we would see 12% + this year unless of course those pesky Black Swans strike. Anyone see that new reality show "When Black Swans Strike!" I am firmly in the camp of keeping Profit sharing as it is. We are looking at record profits with a crappy economy - lets not be idiots and terminate our PS now. Scoop |
Originally Posted by Going2Baja
(Post 1684779)
I think Happy learned how to putt. My sched ROCKS!!
Baja. TEN |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1684794)
the increase in jobs verses the increase in block hours do not show any loss of jobs. ...
One more time, crew planning did not making any changes in their staffing formulas for contract 2012. Do you read what you type? Is it really your position that none of the work rule changes we gave up in 2012 have made any difference in our efficiency and productivity? No loss of jobs? Your continued attempts to spin those concessions are astounding. You lose any remaining credibility when you post stuff that defies common sense. Although I guess your analysis is actually excellent news. If you're right, then the company shouldn't have a problem reversing all those changes since none of them have worked. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1684785)
Simply not true Carl. Talk to one of your scheduling reps. It's rare for the company to run a min credit solution. There are exceptions like this summer on some narrow bodies where they were bumping up against the manning formula and yearly ALV average but it's not the norm. In fact in those categories there were lots of complaints because prior to going to min credit they were using input from the scheduling committee and the trips were much better. That applies in most categories.
Given Crew Resource’s more recent projected staffing numbers, and as indicated in many of the latest bid packages, there will be challenges to make many of the rotation changes that have been requested by the RCC and implemented over the past several years. The intent of this survey is to provide both the RCC and Crew Resources the overall desires of individual pilot categories, and within staffing and cost considerations make changes to those pairings where possible. Carl |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1684821)
sailing-
Do you read what you type? Is it really your position that none of the work rule changes we gave up in 2012 have made any difference in our efficiency and productivity? No loss of jobs? Your continued attempts to spin those concessions are astounding. You lose any remaining credibility when you post stuff that defies common sense. Although I guess your analysis is actually excellent news. If you're right, then the company shouldn't have a problem reversing all those changes since none of them have worked. 1) He is getting a rise out of you and me :D 2) 60% of the pilot at Delta agree with him :( I guess we are ONE BIG dysfunctional family that loves each other! TEN |
Originally Posted by TenYearsGone
(Post 1684823)
I can see it now. Sailing is sitting next to the computer busting out, knowing two things:
1) He is getting a rise out of you and me :D 2) 60% of the pilot at Delta agree with him :( I guess we are ONE BIG dysfunctional family that loves each other! TEN Sailingfun is losing the debate when he tries to tell us all that a circle is really a square. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1684806)
ASM's have nothing to do with system block hours or pilot jobs for that matter. Straight from crew resources:
We gave up productivity concessions in C2012 to help fully fund our 4/8/3/3 pay rate increases. This is why our pilot jobs rate of growth is less than the airline's rate of growth. You and alfaromeo are trying very hard to ignore the airline's growth and just run with the increase in pilot jobs claiming C2012 is the cause. That's incorrect to do so. It would be just as incorrect for me to blame C2012 for a loss of jobs if management had decided to shrink the airline during this time frame. I know why you and alfaromeo are doing it, I just can't imagine why you think people can't see through it. Carl |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1684794)
Carl, the increase in jobs verses the increase in block hours do not show any loss of jobs. We did not even start to grow until last November 18 months into the contract and never saw the CA displacements. One more time, crew planning did not making any changes in their staffing formulas for contract 2012. Our total system block hours are actually up only modestly at this point since the contract was signed yet the have now posted bids for almost 900 new Captains.
Total block hours are up 1.6% from January 2012 to January 2014 From the Bid Monitor Report: Total pilots required under the staffing formula January 2012 -- 9,219 Total pilots required under the staffing formula January 2014 -- 9,817 Total pilots required is up 6.5% from January 2012 to January 2014 What am I missing? We were told at the roadshows that C2012 would cost us about 125 jobs, given a static number of block hours. |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1684152)
I see what you are saying, but I do disagree.
We have more fleets and that is why management wants to pay band and increase freezes to 5 years if you move between within a band. They stand to gain more than UAL and we will lose many, many jobs. Large stagnation will result. If pay banding didn't cut UAL training costs in half, why did UAL management want it? I got this number directly from a UAL MEC member. The next day I hear RA wants to cut our training costs in half. How is going to do that without pay banding? What I see, is the usual suspects saying pay banding is no big deal. Which means we should do it for a bag of jelly beans. Hopefully like sailing said I just made it up and it will not be in C2015. Time will tell. Jerry PMFJI, where did you get the info? Fact, or opinion? Just wondering... DFW |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:37 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands