Originally Posted by LeineLodge (Post 1870844)

Does it help? Who knows

Can it hurt? Nope.

I fill them out because I have seen (first hand) politicians inquire as to how many of our members support a given issue. It gives our government affairs guys more ammo when they are in there dealing with (sometimes) irrational, (nearly always) short-sighted, self-serving politicians that only seek to please the highest bidder OR the one that can offer them votes/influence/support.

We are at a severe disadvantage in DC because "they" will always have deeper pockets. We need every edge we can get, and then it still might not be enough.

Good on you Diesel for seeing the importance of these issues, even as a "Delta noooob." I think we may have met about a month ago. War Eagle?:D

Ten, thanks for filling it out again. It is a pita, but worth our time.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1871011)

Ok Carl, so how do you explain the huge increase in pilot costs over the last 3 years or is Delta management forging their financial reports?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1871021)

Focus now sailingfun, I want you to really focus: Where does Delta management list pilot costs in their financial reports?

Carl

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1871062)

It's in the reports the company is required to file.
2.1 billion in 2011
2.25 in 2012
2.78 in 2013
2014,looks like tp it will come in above 3.

Originally Posted by CheapTrick (Post 1870892)

Andy Dufresne? Same Andy Dufresne that were abused by the Sisters down in the laundry? The guy that spent all that time down in solitary and was hung by the shirt collar four stories up. The Andy that was rich lawyer and then a forgotten convict? The one that crawled through a mile of human dung? The poor soul that caught Susan Sarandon on the downside? No, I don't want to be like Andy.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1871063)

Where sailingfun? Where in the company's financial reports does it list pilot costs?

Carl

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1871071)

Do you dispute those numbers Carl?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1871076)

What numbers sailingfun? Exactly what are the numbers you're stating and exactly where are they located in the company's financial reports?

Carl

Originally Posted by flyallnite (Post 1870197)

Yet it appears that scope concessions are going to be part of any deal presented to us, if this article is to be believed. The fact that TSA and SKW have both aircraft already ordered would lead me to think that a deal has been informally agreed upon, and the details are all that's left. After all, our 717 order was contingent upon our agreeing to a contract. Here it would appear that agreement, in principal, has already been reached... these orders are booked.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1870982)

Some of our politicians are still fighting the good fight. I know my representative personally. He is often under attack because he's not on the take. He is a signer of our fair open skies letter. A republican and a legitimately good and smart man.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1871081)

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...20AIRCRAFT.htm

I know you will say the numbers are wrong but they match up with the numbers I have seen going back to 01.
Again anyone with two touching brain cells can look at the increase in hourly rates combined with manning staying the same relative to block hours and know things are not cost neutral. When you add in the increase in PS to be cost Nuetral Delta would have had to furlough several thousand pilots.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1871095)

I know it's likely everyone sees this, but notice how sailingfun starts off with stating pilot costs from forms computed by Delta, but ends up showing the same discredited MIT study as his source.

Then sailingfun discusses how contract 2012 vastly increased pilots costs by gathering data from an outside study that...ends in 2013.

Here's what the sailingfun's refuse to admit: We made some gains in pay rates in C2012, but we also agreed to significant concessions that offset those pay rate gains. It offset it to the point where Ed and Richard called the pilot's contract cost neutral and the additional savings could be used to invest in initiatives that benefit other employee groups at Delta.

Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1871095)

I know it's likely everyone sees this, but notice how sailingfun starts off with stating pilot costs from forms computed by Delta, but ends up showing the same discredited MIT study as his source.

Then sailingfun discusses how contract 2012 vastly increased pilots costs by gathering data from an outside study that...ends in 2013.

Here's what the sailingfun's refuse to admit: We made some gains in pay rates in C2012, but we also agreed to significant concessions that offset those pay rate gains. It offset it to the point where Ed and Richard called the pilot's contract cost neutral and the additional savings could be used to invest in initiatives that benefit other employee groups at Delta.

Carl

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1871225)

What were those concessions Carl? It was not manning. It is obvious to anyone who can read the monthly reports from crew planning or just pick up the phone and call crew planning.
I think it really bothers you that ALPA nailed it with the timing on contract 2012 putting us in a near perfect position for this contract.
You would have preferred that we were mired in the NMB process like so many other airlines so you could puch your DPA agenda.

Originally Posted by 3 green (Post 1871242)

Didn't we have profit sharing concessions? We also had scope concessions again. Remember in order to get the 717 aircraft we had to give up larger RJ aircraft to the regionals and the company said 50 seaters would be phased out quickly..Last I have seen the 50 seaters are still flying around.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1871225)

What were those concessions Carl? It was not manning.

Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 1871248)

I wouldn't normally jump into a Carl/sailing debate, but c'mon man.
Sometimes you post stuff that is just blatantly wrong and misleading.

There were numerous concessions in C2012 that reduced manning. I'll just remind you of the biggest one. The one that really hurt us the most and really burned me up because we gave it away for zilch:

Turning July and August into 30 day months.
That was a HUGE win for management. Those two months have always been the drivers of pilot hiring. The summer was our pilot job creation machine. Not any more. ALPA fixed that little problem.

Originally Posted by Trip7 (Post 1871264)

Wait, in 2014 Delta hired the most pilots in company history due to mainline growth but concessions, Scope give aways, and job loss from 30 day months is being brought up?

Originally Posted by Schwanker (Post 1871268)

Yes. This modification in isolation has a very negative impact in staffing.

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1871266)

Sailingfun can't even call them "concessions." Management has directed him to label them "offsets."

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1871277)

In isolation is the key word. Fortunately DALPA demanded and got concessions from the company in other manning areas.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1871303)

Assumptions going in:

717s were coming anyway negotiations should only cover pay rates on any new plane...not whether the plane is being bought.

Profit sharing funded "raises" all other increases were inflation adjustments to bankruptcy rates.

The company now does have more planes than at the merger, in numbers. There are significantly fewer of the biggest jets.

Hiring frenzy is at least 80% a result of retirements...compare post merger to current day.

30 day months account for a 3% manning cut.

DALPA neither demanded or got anything except furlough protections. They only got lucky with a smokey back room promise of growth vis a vis 717s. They caved hard on scope.

Our gauge is smaller.

New hires, don't get caught up in what happened before you got here. Whether it is better than the military or your last regional/airline has nothing to do with whether concessions occurred. We have fallen far. It was way better before, do not be afraid to vote it back to how it was and should be.

I am sure I have left some things out that were clear concessions in my view. Did some good come? Absolutely. Not nearly enough.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1871225)

What were those concessions Carl? It was not manning.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1871303)

Assumptions going in:

717s were coming anyway negotiations should only cover pay rates on any new plane...not whether the plane is being bought.

?88 717s would come anyway...and quickly... to overfly RJ routes while still operating the RJs? Capacity purchase agreements weren't real? And RA tooo dumb to have plan B. Wouldn't rehab old jets? Nope, never done that before...

Profit sharing funded "raises" all other increases were inflation adjustments to bankruptcy rates.

?Pilots portion of 125M funded 20% increase in payrates?

The company now does have more planes than at the merger, in numbers. There are significantly fewer of the biggest jets.

?Biggest change in big jets? 747-200s which were toast? Older 767s going. No real replacement available for 757s except 739/321.

Hiring frenzy is at least 80% a result of retirements...compare post merger to current day.

Retirements are just starting. Standby for more hiring.

30 day months account for a 3% manning cut.

? I don't know. Show math please!

DALPA neither demanded or got anything except furlough protections. They only got lucky with a smokey back room promise of growth vis a vis 717s. They caved hard on scope.

?...neither demanded or got anything? This is utter nonsense.

Our gauge is smaller.

?We don't control fleet plan. Lottsa markets upguaged to mainline 717 vs RJ. Shoulda got 76 seaters on mainline... maybe as furlough protection. Some widebodies retireing. 60 on order.

New hires, don't get caught up in what happened before you got here. Whether it is better than the military or your last regional/airline has nothing to do with whether concessions occurred. We have fallen far. It was way better before, do not be afraid to vote it back to how it was and should be.

I'm gonna actually agree. Things aren't as good as they used to be. A lot has happened in my almost 30 year career. Anyone who thinks they'll have a 30 year career with zero changes or adaptations to the business or your contracts is delusional. Its life. Most recently the entire industry went bankrupt. We had to adapt. We've now adapted and C15 needs to be pretty good.

I am sure I have left some things out that were clear concessions in my view. Did some good come? Absolutely. Not nearly enough.

Originally Posted by trico (Post 1871335)

I don't know the about manning on a macro scale, but I just finished an 88 hour domestic reserve month because of the +15 hour concession, which was sold as a help to the company in international categories. It affected my wife's manning :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by trico (Post 1871335)

It affected my wife's manning :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1871313)

You really need to get on the phone with flight operations and let them know about the windfall in manning they don't seem to know about.
As far as big airplanes we don't control the fleet plan. As of 31 June 15 we will be down a net of two large airframes. Widebody block hours however which is the key to jobs are up.

Originally Posted by OldFlyGuy (Post 1871362)

Not nearly enough. It could always be better. 2/3 of the folks thought it was enough at the time. The company was still recovering. Shareholder equity was a negative number. No one else in the industry was moving the bar at all and everyone's negotiations were proceeding at a snail's pace. We are back for round 2! My only advice to new hires is to read everything and vote with your brain. OFG

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1871442)

My math on 3% manning adjustment is in a 31 day month, each day is approximately 3%/day. Subtract a day of the month, you need 3% fewer people.

I don't dispute that we are back in negotiations. I don't dispute the state of the industry. I also don't dispute that while I've been here, DALPA has traded our only true leverage-able section of the contract (section 1) for a weaker and weaker position. I've said it before, I don't know why the company even wants to negotiate with us, we have no leverage, we pi$$ed it away.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1871225)

What were those concessions Carl? It was not manning. It is obvious to anyone who can read the monthly reports from crew planning or just pick up the phone and call crew planning.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1871251)

Go back and read my other posts. There were offsets to those changes that kept any manning losses to a very small number the biggest of which was counting all known absences for when a reserve was full. Again crew planning did not make any manning assumption changes with contract 2012 and the monthly reports show there was no pilot job loss relative to block hours flown. The result is the hiring we have seen.

Originally Posted by Omar 111 (Post 1871396)

Trico,

I understand it sucks to work 88 hours on reserve, my sympathies. That being said, I think it would be constructive for ALPA to put out just how many reservists have flown over ALV in the last three years, broken down for domestic and international. I understand the long international trip argument, but I think it is abusive domestically when it is so easy for schedulers to break up trips.

FWIW, I have never seen anybody over 80 hours on the reserve available list in my category. For tomorrow in MSP, these are the hours flown to date: 36/20/3/46/31/32/42/38/42/38/16/67/36/45.

Omar