|
|
Originally Posted by duder
(Post 1873468)
NYC A goes just shy of 11,000. (10,950)
|
Originally Posted by CheapTrick
(Post 1873473)
12 to 18 sickouts a year seems to get their attention. And they have looked at every quantifiable aspect of the issue. Sickouts by base, age, seat, category, day of the week, holidays, super bowl...
"ENTITLED" I could run with that, but I shall refrain. When I told him about the kids, he said, "Ok, I understand. The company is cracking down on sick leave, they want me to call in anyone who's had more than 3 sickouts in a year, you are just barely over that, so no biggie, see you later." One of the reasons we moved to Florida was so the kids could get outside more, they were locked indoors at school with all the germs, all winter, when we lived in NH and I was sick about 3-4 times every winter. |
WRT
Originally Posted by CheapTrick
(Post 1873428)
When asked what the company wanted, RA started with removing inefficiencies from the contract. The first (maybe only) inefficiency mentioned was FOs bidding w/LCAs.
So I'd guess that DAL will be asking DALPA amend that portion of the contract. We all know that DALPA will be happy to throw that small bone the company's way. DALPA isn't going to fight for something that affects a tiny number of pilots. DALPA will give it up with a few other tiny inefficiences, negotiate a new sick leave bank, and agree on industry leading pay rates. We'll be voting this fall.
Originally Posted by CheapTrick
(Post 1873433)
It won't work. I felt like you do. Then I saw the data. I came away going "No wonder the company is ****ed about sick leave." The stats are damning. And surprizing.
I don't doubt that there are sick rate abusers, but the fact that there would be abusers doesn't mean the entire system is broke, and looking for an overall fix. The company wants to reduce expenditures, and you're just pushing an argument that tangentially helps. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Exhibit B is the OE issue. You're an enlightened guy, and you "get" the sick issue because you've seen the data, but your analysis is that the OE issue is "tiny" a mere "small bone" ALPA is sure to give away? On the one hand, you are the guy that's trying to tell us that OE concessions are the biggest thing ("maybe the only thing") RA asked for, and yet... it's no big deal. On the one hand, you wish it weren't so (that a deal on OE concessions and Sick changes is a foregone conclusion), but on the other, this is where we're naturally headed. You seem to me to be much smarter than your two posts above. Because I think you know better, it gives you the appearance of being duplicitous. Not the best day, in terms of your credibility.
Originally Posted by CheapTrick
(Post 1873469)
But RA himself mentioned this tiny little good deal in our contract. Isn't that weird?
|
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1873481)
WRT
and this: Put me down as incredulous. I don't doubt that there are sick rate abusers, but the fact that there would be abusers doesn't mean the entire system is broke, and looking for an overall fix. The company wants to reduce expenditures, and you're just pushing an argument that tangentially helps. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Exhibit B is the OE issue. You're an enlightened guy, and you "get" the sick issue because you've seen the data, but your analysis is that the OE issue is "tiny" a mere "small bone" ALPA is sure to give away? On the one hand, you are the guy that's trying to tell us that OE concessions are the biggest thing ("maybe the only thing") RA asked for, and yet... it's no big deal. On the one hand, you wish it weren't so (that a deal on OE concessions and Sick changes is a foregone conclusion), but on the other, this is where we're naturally headed. You seem to me to be much smarter than your two posts above. Because I think you know better, it gives you the appearance of being duplicitous. Not the best day, in terms of your credibility. Not so weird as you hammering the point for the third time, really. Let the negotiators negotiate privately. Carl |
Originally Posted by Cubdrick
(Post 1873447)
Fair question: how does the Company show younger FO's are abusers?
I'm one of the younger FOs. I also have young kids in daycare that are walking Petri dishes. I get sick. I presume many of the younger FOs at Delta are at a similar stage in life with young kids. If the PWA says I get 100 hours of unverified sick leave in addition to a little more verified time, I am ENTITLED to use 100% of my PWA sick leave if needed. Interested in seeing how and when the Company defines sick leave abuse. And Cheap Trick, don't hold back on my use of the word "entitlement." I'll look forward to it. Carl |
Originally Posted by MSP7ERB
(Post 1873477)
I'm around 11,000. Just before the bid closed it showed only a few people senior to me bidding NYC 717A. NYC-A might fall to 2010 hires this bid.
im around 11250 and as this morning I had 57 bids ahead of me for NYC 717A with 10 of those as 1st choice |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1873492)
Exactly correct. This is no different than any other section of the contract to which you are entitled to. Any management type that tries extra-contractual methods to stop the proper use of a contractual entitlement is in the wrong.
And Cheap Trick, don't hold back on my use of the word "entitlement." I'll look forward to it. Carl Exactly. I see this just like vacation (not as a time to get days off but as a paid days off under medical situations). Just because I do not take a vacation during my vacation does not mean that I am abusing a negotiated part of the contract. After 100 the sick pilot should get verified if they want to get paid Verification is in the CBA so I have no problem going to the doc and having the doc state that I am sick and not fit to fly. If the company has a problem with my verified sick leave to bad. |
Originally Posted by CheapTrick
(Post 1873433)
It won't work. I felt like you do. Then I saw the data. I came away going "No wonder the company is ****ed about sick leave." The stats are damning. And surprizing. I was very irritated that I had to sit in a sick leave abuse briefing and I came out the other side realizing I was wrong. We've got some guys impressively abusing the sick leave benefits. And the worst abusing categories are younger FO's and anyone over 64.
I don't care what you do, you will always have a few abusers. I'm just tired of hearing it from DALPA. The *****ing about it ought to be coming from the Company. This is a case of DALPA doing the Company's job. DALPA's job is to represent us. End of discussion. |
Originally Posted by orvil
(Post 1873497)
I'm surprised it's 64. I would think anyone over 60. What's the Company going to do? Fire them? Please... The Company got what they wanted. No pension, no leash. Unintended consequences go both ways.
I don't care what you do, you will always have a few abusers. I'm just tired of hearing it from DALPA. The *****ing about it ought to be coming from the Company. This is a case of DALPA doing the Company's job. DALPA's job is to represent us. End of discussion. I told you guys that is what is on their radar! I couldn't care less on fixing their "problem," though. :) |
Originally Posted by LeineLodge
(Post 1873365)
Awesome post. I agree with everything within - even the part about agreeing with PD :p
So how about a different topic since Timbo and Sink have said just about all there is that needs to be said on this one: How junior will NYC A go on this AE? Any takers on 11,000? 2014 hire? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:23 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands