|
|
Originally Posted by EdGrimley
(Post 1872699)
It's interesting that most of the rumors regarding work rules put the pilots in the defensive position. Where is our offense? Where is our list of improvements to work rules? I realize the union has decided to not publish survey results (I think this is a mistake and removes solidarity but a topic for another day) but why can't we take better control of the narrative in the public arena?! Why don't we leak some of our must haves and discuss those.
It just seems when it's time to raise the bar on our already gutted contract Ford and Harrison on behalf of Delta Air Lines gets us chasing our tales when we should be moving our agenda forward and building an army of soldiers determined to move the offensive forward. Btw, I don't blame guys for mentioning rumors. I do believe they are being leaked by the powers that be. Our union needs to implement a strategy to rally the troops behind core work rule improvements and get that information out there. Hiding the data from those they need support from does not help. 1. holiday pay for duty on holidays, 2. an additional APD's, like one per quarter, 3. the ability to take sick leave to help a family member who is sick or injured, and 4. an annual set of positive space r/t passes for immediate family members. I have no idea if ALPA asked for any of that, but I'd like to see it in the contract as well. So your right, if QOL items are up for discussion, there are some of the ones that we should demand. |
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1872676)
Agreed... Do the people who chatter about this realize that ALPA fought to have that provision restored just recently (July 2011)!
Scheduling Alert 11-05 explained the improvements ALPA negotiated in LOA #29. Section 23.G.5 - First Officer Removal for OE is the very first item shown. It was a piece of contract restoration that pilots had been asking for, and it was accomplished. DALPA already used leverage in the last 5 years to get it back, I would be really surprised to see it negotiated away (and would vote accordingly). The high paid FO's aren't a a surprise to anyone in management. Just because some FO's are making a killing on it doesn't mean anything... The highest paid pilot at DAL (and any other airline) has almost always been a WB FO. The recovery that was done away with in 2011 was particularly onerous in that you went out on reserve first and the assigned trip was of course almost always much more painful than the one you had taken. |
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1872676)
Agreed... Do the people who chatter about this realize that ALPA fought to have that provision restored just recently (July 2011)!
|
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1872694)
Why do I get/have the feeling we are closer to a deal than not.....
Denny |
Originally Posted by full of luv
(Post 1872713)
OK, I think our QOL should include
1. holiday pay for duty on holidays, 2. an additional APD's, like one per quarter, 3. the ability to take sick leave to help a family member who is sick or injured, and 4. an annual set of positive space r/t passes for immediate family members. I have no idea if ALPA asked for any of that, but I'd like to see it in the contract as well. So your right, if QOL items are up for discussion, there are some of the ones that we should demand. 6. International override for all international cities. 7. GS pay for any rotation that has a layover in GDL at the Hampton Inn. 8. Flight pay for the van ride to San Ramon 9. Annual Hat cleaning allowance |
Originally Posted by duece12345
(Post 1872521)
I agree with this. Am I for recovery obligations? Hell no. But I could care less about protecting a good deal for a small number of pilots that should move on anyways. I know, I know. Choices, and that opens up capt seats to jr guys, you can do this too when you are a senior FO, etc. maybe this will creat faster upward movement for the "other" 90% of F/Os. Whether you like it or not, there are quite a few jr FOs that I know of that agree with this.
Think about what the company is looking at in the next 10 years, manning wise. Huge retirements. Huge training. Huge hiring. Take a look at the A/E that is posted today. Imagine if all of those positions did NOT require double manning for IOE flights. How many bodies does that save the company from hiring? If the company is allowed to pull trips out of the bid package, and hold them back for 'IOE', that's a lot LESS manning they need in every category. Captains as well as F/O's. New Captains need IOE too you know. What if the company pulls all of those 'training trips' from the bid package and never awards them? Yeah... they don't need XX% pilots to cover that flying.... which will then be covered by IOE's. :rolleyes: This is less about guys sitting home and getting paid, then it is about how many guys the company needs to staff every category. You guys are only looking at the short term; who gets to stay home and get paid. The Company is looking at how many guys they will need to staff every category going forward. THEY KNOW who is retiring, and when, THEY KNOW how many pilots they will need to hire to replace them, and how many guys are going to sit home for IOE's. MANNING is what this is about. HIRING is what this is about. ADVANCEMENT is what this is about. |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1872768)
This will NOT create faster upward movement for anyone. This is about MANNING.
Think about what the company is looking at in the next 10 years, manning wise. Huge retirements. Huge training. Huge hiring. Take a look at the A/E that is posted today. Imagine if all of those positions did NOT require double manning for IOE flights. How many bodies does that save the company from hiring? If the company is allowed to pull trips out of the bid package, and hold them back for 'IOE', that's a lot LESS manning they need in every category. Captains as well as F/O's. New Captains need IOE too you know. What if the company pulls all of those 'training trips' from the bid package and never awards them? Yeah... they don't need XX% pilots to cover that flying.... which will then be covered by IOE's. :rolleyes: This is less about guys sitting home and getting paid, then it is about how many guys the company needs to staff every category. You guys are only looking at the short term; who gets to stay home and get paid. The Company is looking at how many guys they will need to staff every category going forward. THEY KNOW who is retiring, and when, THEY KNOW how many pilots they will need to hire to replace them, and how many guys are going to sit home for IOE's. MANNING is what this is about. HIRING is what this is about. ADVANCEMENT is what this is about. Carl |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1872768)
This will NOT create faster upward movement for anyone. This is about MANNING.
Think about what the company is looking at in the next 10 years, manning wise. Huge retirements. Huge training. Huge hiring. Take a look at the A/E that is posted today. Imagine if all of those positions did NOT require double manning for IOE flights. How many bodies does that save the company from hiring? If the company is allowed to pull trips out of the bid package, and hold them back for 'IOE', that's a lot LESS manning they need in every category. Captains as well as F/O's. New Captains need IOE too you know. What if the company pulls all of those 'training trips' from the bid package and never awards them? Yeah... they don't need XX% pilots to cover that flying.... which will then be covered by IOE's. :rolleyes: This is less about guys sitting home and getting paid, then it is about how many guys the company needs to staff every category. You guys are only looking at the short term; who gets to stay home and get paid. The Company is looking at how many guys they will need to staff every category going forward. THEY KNOW who is retiring, and when, THEY KNOW how many pilots they will need to hire to replace them, and how many guys are going to sit home for IOE's. MANNING is what this is about. HIRING is what this is about. ADVANCEMENT is what this is about. Pretty enlightening right there Timbo. |
Timbo wins.
|
Thanks guys, but it's not Rocket Surgery.
It the Company wants it, 99.9% of the time, it's BAD for the pilots. With an upcoming "Pilot Shortage", everything they want, is aimed at reducing the number of retiring pilots they will need to replace. It's not about money, they have plenty of money, what they are worried about is having enough pilots. If every pilot is flying 92 hours hard time, vs. sitting home for IOE, or flying 75, well, that's 21% less pilots they need to hire. 21% less 777 Captains, 21% less A350 Captains, 21% less A330 Captains, 21% less replacements for the retiring 747 Captains, etc. All the way down the list. Now, what if they didn't have to staff for IOE? What if every pilot had to FLY 92, rather than sit home for an IOE? With our 12,000(+) pilots today, that's 2,500 less pilots they need to fly the same block hours. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:30 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands