Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 932719)

Ferd,

I don't mind looking at individual areas of the contract that need to be tuned up, or destroyed altogether. I was drawing a contrast between a great post that stated workrules improvements shgould be the backbone of a good next contract, and the other post which was not constructive in any way because it was a wholesale statement about one contract (that no longer exists) being better than another.

My point remains that we can discuss all contracts, existing or hypothetical, when looking at where we want to go next. We don't need to get mired in divisive and unproductive history lessons about one specific contract. You could expand hour upon hour trying to convince the opposite group in a merger that you really had the great contract, and you really had the advancement locked in, and the W-2's, and never ever get anywhere. But let's assume for argument's sake that you could, with an insane amount of effort, convince the other group that a defunct contract was better... what would you have accomplished, since it's not the contract in front of us?

So again, I'm all for looking at individual aspects of what we have, or even aspects of contracts, real or imagined, including the fNW contract, that we should have in 2013. So I agree 100%: bring in the individual items. But I see no benefit in making blanket statements about which contract is better.

...

As far as how to approach the overtime, my philospophy is that overtime flying should be occasional, and targeted to unusual events (as opposed to a device to compensate routinely for poor staffing decisions). It should be very expensive for the company. Now, the problem is that we allow, with various practices and loopholes, for individuals to routinely exceed TLV's. The people that rely on this become focused on payrates only, and on using artificial techniques to make this more rewarding. The thing is, we should make enough when flying the ALV's throughout the year (i.e. flying the TLV), to make enough. That's what I want: a contract where we make enough flying a "normal" schedule. Now, I do agree that the trip coverage sequnce is insanely cumbersome, and the application of overtime flying is far too inmpredictable. I'd rather we gutt the coverage sequence, and remove scheduler discretion, so that we all could intelligently bid for overtime flying. This should be leveraged through technology. We essentially should be able to look at trips available in real-time, the number of GS and WS and Reserves, and bid for the time, in a way that enables commuters to plan accordingly.

BTW, I live in base, and I can't remember my last GS. A lot of the commuters I fly with have a very good sense for when to put them in, and have good strategies. They know when to stay an extra night night in the crashpad, with a high probablility of success. Seems to me that anyone who uses the GS as an occasional tool has the opportunity. The only people that hurt are the people that have to have a steady diet of overtime, and can't afford to wait for the vaguaries of the sytem to make things come their way.

Originally Posted by JABDIP (Post 932794)

Duty and trips rigs would be major areas that increased the days that I work here. Higher line values would explain alot of the lower w-2 values especially with lower hourly rates. In general we flew more hours per day and probably more total hours per month than we do now at DAL. Alot of guys took pay cuts because of the 70 reserve guarantee as opposed to 75 hours. Sick leave being 100% pay vs a step down to 75% makes a difference as well. The way our patterns were built vs they way rotations are built now have an affect as well(D**m computers) as well as the differences in our computer bidding programs. Point being, you are correct and know way more about where the fDAL contracts have been and you probably do have way more insight to the DAL contract, I have a lot to learn. I am not saying that the NWA contract is better than the current DAL contract, Just that in first 2 years of being under the DAL contract working for near the same or a little less money for 40 days more per year makes me prefer the old contract, that is all and in no way profess to know everything about the way forward. I wish I did, I would share it with everyone.:)

Originally Posted by maddogmax (Post 932799)

Looks like 6.5% of W2 for the profit sharing check. That is unless you are former IAM or AFA then you get 3.2%. Welcome to the Delta Family. Didn't they all work for the same company in 2010?

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 932839)

On the other hand, if you work more days for less total hours, which is a durty rig / trip rig problem, then that's of obvious interest for all of us. What kind of trip rigs and duty rigs did you have?

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 932839)

Once upon a time, we had something called Variable Minimum, and I'm pretty sure we got no less than six hours per day. I can't even explain it offhand. Does anyone have the old rigs for C2K in digital format to post here?

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 932839)

Once upon a time, we had something called Variable Minimum, and I'm pretty sure we got no less than six hours per day. I can't even explain it offhand. Does anyone have the old rigs for C2K in digital format to post here?

Originally Posted by DeadHead (Post 932834)

I think it's more about self-preservation in their eyes.

Originally Posted by Ferd149 (Post 932838)

...I wish we made more money per hour with strict limits on overtime/high time/greenslip etc too. But, the reality is this industry "mans" for winter and relies on overtime to make it through the summer. I'm sure there is a happy medium in there somewhere but I'm not sure what it is when the total compensation package is looked at per pilot. Who knows, maybe we're at it now. I actually used to do well in my Wage and Salary Administration classes in college so I understand how complicated all this is, especially when you add in the crazy seasonal swings this industry has.

Plus, you know my opinion on the "profit sharing" scam:D

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 932847)

Not correct. The Variable Minimum (VM) would flex between 4 and 6 hours, so long as the average of all of them was at least 5. Without delving into all the dirty details, I admit that at times VM was superior to our current Duty Period Average (DPA, which is 5.15 a day), but overall I find the DPA to be superior pay-wise.

Example, under the VM system we had lots and lots of trips that flew slightly less than or right at 10 hours, and paid...10 hours. Those same trips now pay 10.30. The two day trips to BOG and SJO come to mind.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 932678)

We may have had some other active bases. I was NYC based and flew it to the end there. DBMS shows my last NY flight was in 2000 so NY was not open in 2001. I don't think LAX was open in 2001. CVG and SLC your probably correct but CVG I think shut down in 01.