I would expect it to go extremely junior. I'm also very interested to see how junior NYC320A goes. I bet we will see some surprises in that category, like " I bid it, but I never thought I'd actually get it!"

 

They are doing this for a reason. The second round of consolidation is coming, supposedly from SD's mouth.

 

This is why its not a good idea to get contract questions answered here. There is no QA. The committee section on the DALPA web site is the best place for any contract questions since they will be answered and QA's by people who really understand the contract.
In the case of Co-terminal operations the contract is very specific. Only the NYC airports allow a pilot to measure availability by his choice of airport. For the LA co-terminal operations all reserve availability is measured by report time to LAX. This is contained in section 23.

10. In pilot bases with co-terminal airports, a short call pilot’s availability will be determined
26 as follows:
27
Co-Terminal Airports Airport Reserve Availability
Determined From
LAX, ONT, SNA, BUR, LGB from LAX
DFW, DAL from DFW
EWR, JFK, LGA from EWR, JFK or LGA

 

What do you think will happen to the west domiciles (LAX, SEA, SLC)? More senior by a bunch? status quo?

 

The idea of extra pay based on cost of living was discussed many times over the last 25 years. There are a lot of problems with the concept. At one point it was looking like we would get a stipend in NYC. The LAX crews however started screaming that on paper LA was more expensive place to live and they deserved more. In the end nothing was done and there was a very valid point brought up. The bases tend to self provide extra pay by the seniority in each base. NYC will be a very junior base always because of the cost issues. Pilots there enjoy greater seniority and pay then they would at other bases. Should a pilot flying as a Captain out of NYC get extra pay over a pilot of the same seniority who chooses to fly as a copilot out of ATL for less money because it is more desirable from a cost and location standpoint? Everyone will have a different answer to that question however NY has always been the junior base and paid extra.

 

When you fill out the card you can preference both percentage and number of where you want to end up. That is what you should focus on. Determine what your minimums are and make sure your card reflects this. How seniority will shake out in the base should not change what you put on your card.

 

That's what I kind of figured. (I was actually just waiting for Buzz to jump on the idea.) Any discussion of extra pay for the NYC base would eventually become a discussion for extra pay for LAX pilots, too.

Then you could also bring up cost of living expenses. At Northwest, when we had a HNL base, I believe the pilots got extra pay because of the high cost of living there. What if we open up HNL again?

So, the discussion could go on and on for a long time. I think where we will wind up is dealing with what we have. But, if we can get to a point where we make enough money, paying for the extra expenses in these cities won't be such a big deal.

 

I would agree with what you are saying. Regardless of what people think the pot of money to pay pilots is somewhat finite. We could spend money on a stipend but the end results is less somewhere else in the contract.
If we are going to have a special interest carve out in the next contract so to speak here is where I think the money should go.
We should change the FO payscales so they go out to 15 years. The percentage of Captains pay should go up to 75 percent at the 15 year point. This would reflect the new realities of the industry and Delta and slower then the historical norm in career advancement. It also gives the company some incentive to grow the company. If they can keep all copilots under 12 years they reduce their crew costs.

 

That is managing expectations. There is NOT a finite amount of money given to pilots. That is the pie method, you get your slice, and that's it. No, an increase is the cost of doing business. Are you setting this up for an eventual letdown? The quickening pace if TAs probably is for a reason, like more consolidation, and knowing that is leverage. Keep the TAs coming, but then ask for WHAT WE DESERVE. If ALPA screws this up, the number 4000 will grow to 7000, and $38 million a year will go away from a group's coffers.

 

You seem more focused on your anti ALPA stance then getting the best possible contract for Delta pilots.
The pot of money is as I stated somewhat finite. There are points for both sides beyond which they are not going to go. That is why accurate costing is such a big part of the overall contract process. The company does not give a damn what our hourly pay rate ends up being. What they care about is the total pilot block hour cost. In most cases we as a union choose how that money is going to be split up within some norms and limits where management feels it might have other impacts. (example would be to redirect pilot pay from new hires to Captains. Even though total cost might remain the same the company with the coming possible pilot shortage might balk and say no wanting to keep new hire pay up and make the job more attractive when recruiting.)
To state that each section of the contract stands alone on a cost basis simply makes no sense and is not true. They are all related and in the end produce the total pilot block hour cost. That is also the number that if we end up in mediation the NRMB will be looking at the hardest. How we arrive at that total pilot cost will again for the most part be up to us as a pilot group.
If you believe the pot of money for pilots is unlimited and simply a matter of demanding what we want then you have never run a business on your own. Cost is king and pilots in the end are simply another cost to be managed by the company. The RLA sadly gives management a huge toolbox to manage that expense.