Yes, but the entire offensive team lost that game. Two fumbles in the red zone (should have at least been field goals) and Farve got beat up. He was hit just too many times. All in all, it was a great season for the MN Vikings and as I told my son last night, "they are fun to watch and cheer on, but whether they win or lose, it will not change what we do tomorrow".

It was a great game to watch.

While we are talking executive compensation being way out of line, we should be talking about how out of line DALPA MEC and Committee Chairman compensation is with the line pilot compensation. Take the time to call the DALPA office and ask for Kingsley. Ask him about how it works. He's very upfront about it. You would be shocked to discover how much more they are making than you are, the line slug. They even get a special bonus to pay for the yardwork.

I know, they work really hard for their money. At 92 hours a month, they better be working hard.

I've got to mull this one over. I'm torn. I like TEN, but it would be good to see N.O. win tis one. Except, the N.O. coach crossed the picket lines of the 1987 strike. Decisions, Decisions.....

Funny stuff... Go Colts. Even though there are more Vols on the Saints (3)than the Colts (1)... :D, I gotta go with Peyton. Besides, I've had enough hearing about the Saints.

Yeah, you got me. It was just a superficial analysis for which ALPA took the companies word...every trip for a which a pilot called in sick was a low credit double all nighter with tag-on flying. Most pilots who called in sick for those crappy trips were commuters from city pairs that went to RJ service or had a mainline base close down. The statistics meant nothing, because sick leave isn't actually a cost, it's just part of the contract. And pilots don't actually use sick leave when they're sick, they use it for schedule modification.

ygtbsm.:rolleyes:

Yeah, you hit a hot button.:mad: And you guys call me arrogant and codescending...truly analyzed...

Interesting question.
The marginal cost of most sick calls is zero. Not one dime.
The flying gets covered by a reserve. Sucks for him if he didn't want to be flying, but the cost to the company is zero.
White slips cost money. Green slips and assignments cost even more.
But when reserve coverage is there, most sick outs don't cost the company anything on the margin.
More reserves required overall is arguably a cost but they would be there anyway in most cases for irregular ops. (weather, etc.)

It wasn't missed. The comparison was year over year for active pilots (same group). Those that left the active pilot list for any reason except transition to LTD/medical leave weren't counted (retirees, furlough returns, new hires, etc.). The drop was surprising and reflective of miraculous healing, substantially improved health, or a change in behavior.

Hey Check, could you get me some background on your statement? I wanna make sure it was "truly analyzed"...:p

All my analysis is done on the back of Spondivit's bar napkins.
It doesn't get any more scientific than that.

DISCLAIMER FOR THE POWERS THAT BE: I have never called in sick when I wasn't.


Herc & Slow,

Doesn't your exampe only work if the company is having to actually have to "pay" claims out? I think you guys are gonna have to explain to me how the company is losing money when a pilot calls in sick if he is on a fleet that has a ton of reserves that will cover his flying? They were going to be paid 70 or 75 hours anyway, right? Doesn't it all depend on IF the company has to change their staffing formula at a later date based on their historical data?

Also, if this discussion began because you think Carl said that the post bankruptcy contract gains were accomplished because of sick calls costing the company too much money and those guys who called in sick were "thieves," I think you should consider one thing: NWA management had just scored a HUGE gain in being able to force all pilots to fly 88-89 hours per month. Excuse me, I should have made FORCE bold and underlined it. I have no facts or figures, but IMO I would guess that the gain realized by being able to put an extra 20 hours on each pilots line far exceeded the loss of a few guys calling in sick. And slow, while I'm not informed on how your 1113 negotiations went, shouldn't management be required to show the gains they have made that might have contributed to the increased sick call usage? Is it not fair that they get to claim the bad and hide the good?

I will say though, that the New Delta contract in many ways is better than what we had at NWA. Being able to drop trips and other things are perks we didn't have. So, maybe some DAL-N guys will take advantage of those things, instead of calling in sick. A lot of them just lost 2000 plus hours in their sick bank though. So, those guys might be a little sour to the idea of not calling in sick. Who knows? This merger is a process and the two groups and their way of doing things will not be melded together overnight. But I think that we should at least try to understand each other.

From my perspective, I think there are too many labels being thrown around and I think it's counter productive. Everything is not black and white and we shouldn't try to make it that way. The more "captains discretions" we have in the K, the better.

New K Now