![]() |
Originally Posted by dalad
(Post 791358)
Don't waste an APD when there are more peeps avail than required. Just put in a PD and see if you get it.
|
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 791336)
I would first check reserve availability in DBMS. You may be able to move the day. If not, call the CPSC. Talk to Baker. He will do what he can without making you use you PD.
|
So I seriously think I learn the most here reading the back and forth between Alfa, Bar and Slow.
|
Originally Posted by freightguy
(Post 791365)
Or better still, move the reserve day as someone already mentioned. That way you won't lose any pay at all. Plenty of reserve coverage in MEM....it should be approved provided you fulfill all contractual obligations in the request....it can be a little tricky. Please refer to moving off day ssection in our pilot contract available in deltanet.
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 791361)
Delta said its system-wide traffic increased 3% from a year earlier as capacity fell by 1.6%. The percentage of seats filled increased 3.7 percentage points to 84.2%.
In the U.S., traffic increased 2.8% on a 0.8% decrease in capacity, while 85.4% of seats were filled. International traffic increased 3.3% on a 2.8% drop in capacity, and 82.2% of seats were filled. |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 791312)
The pilot contract will also be a finite amount of money. We all want the amount to be higher but Delta will gross $30B in revenue this year. Our contract will be some number below $30B in value. If you figure that Delta has to pay for fuel, airplanes, other employees, and other essentials. The number available to pilots starts to get bracketed in to some range pretty quickly. That is where pilots have to view this as a business transaction the most. You see the APA try to justify their contract demands on the basis of inflation, CEO salary, housing prices, etc. That is an emotional argument that they are losing with the NMB right now. They are parked in nowhere land. If we are going to win, we have to continue to view this as a business transaction.
If we increase that number from present then some of that increase can go to any or all sections of our contract. Pilots and their MEC will have to work out where those increases go in an orderly fashion. That is how labor contracts have been negotiated since the formation of unions. Decisions have to be made. So you bring up some research done by eggheads 30 or 40 years ago and try to infer that we are falling off their slippery slope. That is just nuts. What you are saying is the only way to avoid IBB trap is to pretend that you have unlimited resources and work from that assumption. That is clearly the way to caught up in an emotional train wreck when the world collapses around these irrational assumptions. You seem to be stating that our piece of the pie is somehow determined after the other "essentials" eat at revenue. While I agree with the idea that funds available for the company's expense are finite in the long-term, I certainly hope you're not suggesting we patiently wait in line to see what might be left for us. I also hope you don't somehow suggest that it is Mangement's prerogative to determine what is appropriate as a total pilot expense. It may have worked for the company in front of Prudence, and with a semi-cooperative effort in front of the Creditors' Committee, but never again do I want to see any semblance of agreement between the company and the union as to what a pilot contract should righftully cost. This isn't just about deciding how the morcels are distributed among us, but also about carving out a large enough slice that we can subsist on. The size of that slice is not determined solely by a rational, businesslike, yet passive approach. It is the result of grabbing enough, upfront, and letting the other participants (vendors, management, other employees) figure out how to make do with the rest. I don't fault APA for being aggressive, and for making arguments about what they should rightly be paid. I only fault them for letting their emotions cloud their strategy. The resulting tactics, of course... |
thanks for all the help guys. I changed it from an APD to a PD. Before I had the chance to go into icrew and request to just move the day they had already approved my PD. That was fast!!!
I really appreciate the help. I'll know better next time. Leinelodge, you are probly thinking of someone else. don't remember having dinner with anyone at CQ. I was a check airman at my last job on the EMB145 but spent most of my time on the hiring/interview board. It was last Sept when I was at NATCO so maybe I just don't remember. But that happens as I get older. Thanks again guys! |
Originally Posted by iaflyer
(Post 791388)
Also, after you put in to move a day (or for PD) - if it gets denied, leave it in. The PCS computer will look at it three times a day (at each run) so if reserve coverage changes, you may get the day moved or the PD approved, even if initially it was denied.
NU |
Heyas,
Rumor today that any hiring plans are on indefinite hold. Sorry for the bad news. Nu |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 791395)
Without getting in the middle of an argument I have no interest in, and without standing in the way of what is otherwise a very convincing post, I have some reservations about some of your argument:
You seem to be stating that our piece of the pie is somehow determined after the other "essentials" eat at revenue. While I agree with the idea that funds available for the company's expense are finite in the long-term, I certainly hope you're not suggesting we patiently wait in line to see what might be left for us. I also hope you don't somehow suggest that it is Mangement's prerogative to determine what is appropriate as a total pilot expense. It may have worked for the company in front of Prudence, and with a semi-cooperative effort in front of the Creditors' Committee, but never again do I want to see any semblance of agreement between the company and the union as to what a pilot contract should righftully cost. This isn't just about deciding how the morcels are distributed among us, but also about carving out a large enough slice that we can subsist on. The size of that slice is not determined solely by a rational, businesslike, yet passive approach. It is the result of grabbing enough, upfront, and letting the other participants (vendors, management, other employees) figure out how to make do with the rest. I don't fault APA for being aggressive, and for making arguments about what they should rightly be paid. I only fault them for letting their emotions cloud their strategy. The resulting tactics, of course... |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:50 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands