|
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1059581)
No, I don't think they'd throw it out. It'd be leverage in front of the NMB and company, IMHO. (I could be incorrect)
In fact, I think they catered to some of the forum/zealot crowd(me included) with some of the questions, i.e. holding company/"air carrier" scope. |
Clemson is solid today my wife is verrrrry happy
ClemPson |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1059499)
Shiz;
I like your input. You are often direct and correct. However, we are limited on our comments to 750 characters. The instructions in the survey says to judiciously use absolutely critical. Overall, the survey gets a B+, but the criticisms are so far fair and correct IMO. I does appear that the survey has some carefully crafted language that omits important factors and/or manages expectations. It may be a case of "how do we ask this question best?" If we were growing organically, there would likely be less criticism, but we are not. I haven't budged in what I can bid/hold in years, with at least several more years ahead where that continues to be the case. Love is lost. I am not interested in getting into the "what this profession has historically paid" discussion, but I grow weary of the bankruptcy standard we have accepted for far too long. DAL employs argueably the best pilot group available. Our negotiators know this. That is all the leverage we should need. The 750 character limit I'm sure was very deliberately chosen. There HAS to be a limit, and it needs to be a manageable limit so that there is the ability to read and note 12,000 different notes, in 5 areas. That is 60,000 possible notes to read. At 750 characters, that is 60,000,000 characters. Essentially equivalent to reading War and Peace more than 19 times!!!! (Or reading the Bible 11.6 times.) We exchange openers in 7 months.....How to they potentially read MORE than that AND craft a coherent strategy and argument to achieve the aims of our desires? Be brief, concise, and clear. It's not that hard.... And you can still email your reps or the NC at any time...... I think 750 characters in 5 areas per pilot is rather generous all told...... |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1059563)
That's 737 Age 65 retirements in the next 4 years. That doesn't include early retirements, LTS, military leave, etc. We have guys leaving prior to 60 years old. Had insurance been provided in a early out package I guarantee there would have been more early outs this last time around. Now look at 2017-2033. That's massive. You can't really hire as people retire, you need to hire in anticipation of them retiring so that the training center doesn't bottleneck and the operation doesn't suffer.
Look at AA. They are very close to hiring off the street, but now they have had to delay recall classes because they had 111 guys retire in one day. All on September 1st. So now there training is overloaded and they have to delay recall classes. I don't have the exact numbers but I do know that the vast majority of NW captains that said they would retire early directly following the merger have not done so. I think that given the stock market, loss of retirement and such we will see very few early retirements as a whole. There will always be a few that go early and I do not discount that. But, it is to easy to stay and pad your savings. Ultimately, only time will tell what will happen but if Delta continues on it's current course and company model, I believe the company is unconcerned about the retirements because they do not intend to replace all of them on a 1 for 1 basis maybe a 1 for 3 or something. I truly hope I am wrong, but I suspect I am not. I just think that people counting on progression over the next half decade are not being realistic in their expectations. I could see moving up 1000 numbers and still having the exact same number of guys behind you that you have today. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1059588)
So you think then that if every single pilot chooses absolutely critical for every single response, the survey will be worth something. Really? And then you turn around and keep saying that we have negotiated the best contract in awful times.. better than our peers, etc etc.. and that holding your breath and stamping your feet will do nothing to change economic conditions.. how is this any different?
|
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1059590)
Clemson is solid today my wife is verrrrry happy
ClemPson After much discussion, they decided on the name Clemson University. When asked to explain the added letters in the change, they said that the S is for "Shivalry", the O is for "Onor", and the N is for "Nowledge".:D |
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1059416)
Interesting. I agree. I went through it thinking that not everything or even most things could be of critical importance, that I had to be reasonable with myself. After all, I can't "have it all" it's either one or the other. Similar to ordering at a restaurant with the kids: "You can only want one thing the most."
Total expectation management. Where's the question about pay: "Is it of critical importance to you that pay at least matches that of SW and soon to be Airtran?" Where's the comparison to AF/KLM btw? As far as your question about SW, not every pilot here cares about SW in particular. Maybe some of us think SW is too low, and FedEx is more pertinent. Whatever. Everyone is smart enough to take out a calculator, and figure out their number. It takes about 24% more for me (if I were on the 737) to match an equivalent longevity F/O at SW. Everyone got to answer what kind of raise they require, no matter how they derive it. The real problem I saw with the survey is that it asked, for example, if I want item A. I say "strongly oppose". Same for B. But I strongly favor C and D. Then I'm asked to rank priorities between A, B, C, D. I can't simply list C and D as 1 and 2, because it won't let me move to the next question. So now I have to rank A and B, which I'm dead-set against, and here they end up, on my "wish-list", just below C and D. That's bogus. I would also have liked to rank each major area against the others, not just each section of a major area against the others. Otherwise, a pretty straight forward survey. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1059590)
Clemson is solid today my wife is verrrrry happy
ClemPson |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1059604)
Hmmmm..... we'll just see if Scambo posts this evening. ;)
Smarta$$! I gots me sum planz:D |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1059604)
Hmmmm..... we'll just see if Scambo posts this evening. ;)
No offense Scambo.... |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:26 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands