Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
12-28-2010, 04:34 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
I know you probably didn't intend your post to be flame But, at this point, because the issues have been discussed, debated, and fought over, for over two years, words like:
* "As a senior North pilot"
* "over 500 South pilots hired after me who were placed ahead of me on the combined seniority list."
....are flamebait.
I agree that the fences aren't going anywhere though.
12-28-2010, 04:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,386
Post Chapter 11 the average pilot is generating 800 block hours a year and generating about 1100 hours of credit or total pay. We are still well below the 1000 hours allowed. Very few pilots are hitting the block hour limits.
The increase from 600 to 800 hours per year of hard time was the big driver in the loss of pilot jobs at Delta. We should work in the next contract to get pay raises and get back some of those jobs.
12-28-2010, 05:00 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
You know I honestly don't ever think of the fences, they're just as much a part of the here and now as the paint scheme, bases and the fact that don't let your girl see Newk in a double breasted uniform because you can't compete.
12-28-2010, 05:08 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
12-28-2010, 05:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,415
Pre 2004 the average Delta pilot flew about 600 hard hours a year but generated just over 1050 hours of credit or pay.
Post Chapter 11 the average pilot is generating 800 block hours a year and generating about 1100 hours of credit or total pay. We are still well below the 1000 hours allowed. Very few pilots are hitting the block hour limits.
The increase from 600 to 800 hours per year of hard time was the big driver in the loss of pilot jobs at Delta. We should work in the next contract to get pay raises and get back some of those jobs.
Post Chapter 11 the average pilot is generating 800 block hours a year and generating about 1100 hours of credit or total pay. We are still well below the 1000 hours allowed. Very few pilots are hitting the block hour limits.
The increase from 600 to 800 hours per year of hard time was the big driver in the loss of pilot jobs at Delta. We should work in the next contract to get pay raises and get back some of those jobs.
I don't mind min staffing formulas (which more often than not in the long run helps the company out by making them actually develop a staffing plan as opposed to endlessly chasing fires), and we MUST have strong work rules for the trips as they are constructed and as we fly them. However, featherbedding for the sake of featherbedding never creates jobs--just the illusion of them.
I'm always struck by the guys who want the company to be forced to hire lots of pilots due to formulas never notice that the companies that adhere to that mentality almost always have guys on the street/stagnation the longest, whereas SWA has always used their productivity (though coupled with a strong contract) to increase profits, thus more growth, thus more pilots jobs.
12-28-2010, 05:25 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Posts: 1,044
I get that. And we will hire, a lot, over the coming years and decades. What I don't think we need to do, however, is to force additional hiring to cover the exact same amount of flying just for the sake of hiring. Is there a seniority based benefit to hiring for the sake of hiring? Sure. But there is a cost to that that is proportional, and that price will come out of somewhere else anyway, negating the bump in seniority for sliding up to a slightly higher pay rate a little bit sooner than one otherwise would. Forcing extra hiring for the same amount of flying is expensive and will come out of pay, benefits, maybe scope and of course QOL elsewhere.
Some things will result in more pilots needed, such as the new flight time/duty time rules...assuming its not just a "hey let's gut the relief pilot positions to pay for slight improvements to the regionals" which I'm suspiscious it will be, but some needed improvements in reserve rules and other work rules as well. But we're kidding ourselves if we don't recognize that productivity is vital to each pilot getting as big of a piece of pie as possible.
If we even mention SWA narrowbody rates or JetBlue 100 seater rates in the negotiating room, management will fire back instantly that productivity is the reason for that, and to a significant extent they will be right and everyone knows it.
C12K will be an increase, and that increase will be substantial. The checkbook will be opened. Period.
How much we will be able to get will be applied to various areas. 50 million per year more? 500 million per year more? 2 billion per year more? Whatever the number is that we get, I just don't think spending that on fake mobility is the answer. If we can force raises by more hiring and therefore more opportunities to bid up, we can simply take that money and put it into additional pay rates, retirement, scope and work rules to begin with.
Some things will result in more pilots needed, such as the new flight time/duty time rules...assuming its not just a "hey let's gut the relief pilot positions to pay for slight improvements to the regionals" which I'm suspiscious it will be, but some needed improvements in reserve rules and other work rules as well. But we're kidding ourselves if we don't recognize that productivity is vital to each pilot getting as big of a piece of pie as possible.
If we even mention SWA narrowbody rates or JetBlue 100 seater rates in the negotiating room, management will fire back instantly that productivity is the reason for that, and to a significant extent they will be right and everyone knows it.
C12K will be an increase, and that increase will be substantial. The checkbook will be opened. Period.
How much we will be able to get will be applied to various areas. 50 million per year more? 500 million per year more? 2 billion per year more? Whatever the number is that we get, I just don't think spending that on fake mobility is the answer. If we can force raises by more hiring and therefore more opportunities to bid up, we can simply take that money and put it into additional pay rates, retirement, scope and work rules to begin with.
12-28-2010, 05:35 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Just to go back a little bit the question really is the current system vs a 1.5>80 system moving forward.
The overall big picture is for many of us we would not want a system that would decrease the need for current pilots below the current level.
I just thought about looking at one mature category to compare and picked the 320 in MSP. There are 546 pilots. 320 are Captains with 288 regular line holders and 32 on reserve with an ALV of 72 in Jan. FO's come in at 291 with 258 regular and 33 on reserve with an ALV of 77 in Jan.
Now right there you can see... oh btw I'm talking out my butt because I am such an outsider to the "system" it's not funny... but there are 29 fewer FO's flying the same trips thus by increasing the ALV by 5 hours you equal out the 29 pilot difference.
Another words, 5 more hours on the ALV decreased the need for pilots by nearly 30. Increase it by 15 hours and you've got 90 A320 guys that are not needed on the line holders alone.
So if you remove the ALV and have a system that encourages pilots to fly more for $$ and the ALV would probably find itself at say 83 hours (equals average month with FAA max of 1000 hours a year) and that would mean about 60 pilots less are needed on MSP320. That's 10% fewer than currently exist and take that system wide that's 1000 pilots (working off the 10,500 line flying pilots not the 12000 number) assuming reserve levels stay at the same numbers and not just a percentage.
Right or wrong about those numbers, just eyeballing it I don't want to see any more "efficiency" in the staffing numbers for a lot of reasons from the MD's it'd create in every category to the inability of the company to remotely handle even a minor IROPS to the detriment of the airline and us. Sometimes you have to have people, you just do.
The money should come from the pay tables and while it may for senior pilots not be as lucrative as 1.5>80 system I can live with that.
The overall big picture is for many of us we would not want a system that would decrease the need for current pilots below the current level.
I just thought about looking at one mature category to compare and picked the 320 in MSP. There are 546 pilots. 320 are Captains with 288 regular line holders and 32 on reserve with an ALV of 72 in Jan. FO's come in at 291 with 258 regular and 33 on reserve with an ALV of 77 in Jan.
Now right there you can see... oh btw I'm talking out my butt because I am such an outsider to the "system" it's not funny... but there are 29 fewer FO's flying the same trips thus by increasing the ALV by 5 hours you equal out the 29 pilot difference.
Another words, 5 more hours on the ALV decreased the need for pilots by nearly 30. Increase it by 15 hours and you've got 90 A320 guys that are not needed on the line holders alone.
So if you remove the ALV and have a system that encourages pilots to fly more for $$ and the ALV would probably find itself at say 83 hours (equals average month with FAA max of 1000 hours a year) and that would mean about 60 pilots less are needed on MSP320. That's 10% fewer than currently exist and take that system wide that's 1000 pilots (working off the 10,500 line flying pilots not the 12000 number) assuming reserve levels stay at the same numbers and not just a percentage.
Right or wrong about those numbers, just eyeballing it I don't want to see any more "efficiency" in the staffing numbers for a lot of reasons from the MD's it'd create in every category to the inability of the company to remotely handle even a minor IROPS to the detriment of the airline and us. Sometimes you have to have people, you just do.
The money should come from the pay tables and while it may for senior pilots not be as lucrative as 1.5>80 system I can live with that.
12-28-2010, 05:41 PM
Inventory survival kit ..
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: Seeking no jacket required rotations
Posts: 1,069
12-28-2010, 05:44 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
If we staffed at the PBS min staffing formula there would be issues with convering the schedule.
I think the point of a GS is that it allows guys to fly that want to fly, but it does not effect the staffing formula. All of the trips that are in to pot are there due to IROP, sickouts, or PBS not being able to construct a legal line for the rotations left. This leaves trips open for pick up. When scheduling cannot cover them via WS, or reserve pilot, they opt for the premium pickup green slip. All of this is done after the min staffing for the seat is determined based upon block hrs.
The argument that GSing tips until you are blue in the face, may minimally effect staffing of a seat but not to the extent many think. The company still needs to hit the PBS staffing formula(easy), and build LOT's with the trips in the initial pot. The coverage we are looking at is due to an IROP. If you want to see what true coverage is, look at the reserves avail versus required is prior to the start of the month. That will let you see how the seat is staffed.
Of course the company can opt to carry more pilots as to never give out a green slip, and that is their option. It is cheaper to a point to do that. When premium pay get more expensive that it costs to hire, they hire. What 1.5 over 80 does is lower the PBS reserve staffing formula over time. As more guys pick up trips at premium pay, the reserves required number will go down, and as a result the staffing in a given seat goes down.
Many have issues with how the GS award process is done, but what it DOES DO is make the airline staff its seats relatively close to projected block hrs. GS's can be assigned before reserves under 12 hrs but the reality is that when GS's go out all of the reserves are used, and as a result the min staffing number edges up because of this.
Make sense?
I think the point of a GS is that it allows guys to fly that want to fly, but it does not effect the staffing formula. All of the trips that are in to pot are there due to IROP, sickouts, or PBS not being able to construct a legal line for the rotations left. This leaves trips open for pick up. When scheduling cannot cover them via WS, or reserve pilot, they opt for the premium pickup green slip. All of this is done after the min staffing for the seat is determined based upon block hrs.
The argument that GSing tips until you are blue in the face, may minimally effect staffing of a seat but not to the extent many think. The company still needs to hit the PBS staffing formula(easy), and build LOT's with the trips in the initial pot. The coverage we are looking at is due to an IROP. If you want to see what true coverage is, look at the reserves avail versus required is prior to the start of the month. That will let you see how the seat is staffed.
Of course the company can opt to carry more pilots as to never give out a green slip, and that is their option. It is cheaper to a point to do that. When premium pay get more expensive that it costs to hire, they hire. What 1.5 over 80 does is lower the PBS reserve staffing formula over time. As more guys pick up trips at premium pay, the reserves required number will go down, and as a result the staffing in a given seat goes down.
Many have issues with how the GS award process is done, but what it DOES DO is make the airline staff its seats relatively close to projected block hrs. GS's can be assigned before reserves under 12 hrs but the reality is that when GS's go out all of the reserves are used, and as a result the min staffing number edges up because of this.
Make sense?
12-28-2010, 05:46 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
FtB;
To do a 1.5 over 80 it would be done after the initial pbs award process, but not before the reserves are utilized, and as a result the need for reserves in the reserves required figure goes down over the three year averaging of the figure. If anything the GS process adds jobs to the list.
To do a 1.5 over 80 it would be done after the initial pbs award process, but not before the reserves are utilized, and as a result the need for reserves in the reserves required figure goes down over the three year averaging of the figure. If anything the GS process adds jobs to the list.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
