|
Originally Posted by Rudder
(Post 1134431)
I like how the company made 593 million in 2010 and paid out 313 million in profit sharing but in 2011 made 854 million but only paid out 264 million in profit sharing.
|
I was copying what an article printed, should have done more research, damn reporters! But as an aside, what was the percentage for last year, was it 4.85% or different? thanx for the info slow.
|
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1134425)
In reality the picture looks like this for the next year:
39 DAL 46 AFKLM/AZ 85 Total Thanks for your informative posts. Are you sure about the above proportions? I thought the balance was determined in passenger-kilometers, or some smilar measurement. I thinkt hey use MUCH larger gauge on average than we do. Using the above, we'd probably have pax/km at a ratio of 60 : 40 AF/KLM : DAL, don't you think? |
Originally Posted by ranger3484
(Post 1134416)
Yes you can. Not sure what LOA covered it but it's in the current FOM now. 4.1.2
Deviations from Scheduled Deadhead Deviations from Scheduled Deadhead A pilot who utilizes an off-rotation deadhead to travel from a domestic airport or an airport in the Hawaiian Islands (other than his base) in the vicinity of his permanent residence at the beginning of a rotation will be provided positive space on-line transportation if: • Company Business travel can be booked in TravelNet without overbooking • the routing does not pass through the pilot's base • the routing does not exceed the number of deadhead segments originally scheduled • the routing is scheduled to arrive at a reasonable time before his required report • the routing provides for a subsequent flight that is scheduled to arrive at a reasonable time before his required report • A reserve pilot must receive permission from Crew Scheduling to deviate at the beginning of a rotation. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1134440)
George,
Thanks for your informative posts. Are you sure about the above proportions? I thought the balance was determined in passenger-kilometers, or some smilar measurement. I thinkt hey use MUCH larger gauge on average than we do. Using the above, we'd probably have pax/km at a ratio of 60 : 40 AF/KLM : DAL, don't you think? I just wanted to show that since we are talking percentages, it takes fewer slices of pie to get into compliance when the total pie is smaller, or maybe smaller slices of pie... Bottom line, there is less pie! Cheers George P.S. Should Delta ever get larger gauge jets the number of widebody pilots required will diminish. The 777-300 is one of the biggest threats in that scenario, because it has a larger cargo capacity than either the 747-8 or the A380. Cargo is part of the EASK formula and accounts for the "E" ;-) |
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1134427)
Timbo, I made a distinction between timing and luck.
You might say Luck places one at an advantageous position on the seniority list. I called it timing, whatever the term, no argument there. On the other hand we need to make seniority progression not a matter of luck. And contrary to your assertion that we have zero control, we do hold quite a bit of control over that throughout ALPA via Section 1 of the PWA, changes to the retirement age, or telling the company to sweeten the pot for early-outs. Make sense? Cheers George Ok, I think I understand what you are saying...but you'll have to elaborate just a bit on your definition of seniority progression. How do we control that? Even if we told ALPA to negotiate a -sweet- early out program, how do you 'force' the most senior guys to take it? |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1134423)
What is this - short attention span theatre? No part of my post said that you were OK with outsourcing. Read it again if you don't believe me. I quoted your exact words from a post on another thread. Here it is again for your review...emphasis mine:
Now do you see where on Earth I got the idea that you said we would shrink like you cannot believe if we ever got SWA's scope clause? No leap of logic required tsquare. Only a leap to the thread where you made the statement you made. If you don't like what you wrote, then edit it. But don't make the blatantly false claim that I said you were OK with outsourcing. Pay attention. Carl Oh, and besides, the the DAL thread. If you wanna talk about the plague, let's go over to the doughnut thread where you can hold them up on high or to their thread... /out |
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1134412)
Look, I'm just jerking your chain, but maybe there is a lesson here:
Massive pay sacrifices have been made. What's a little harder to see is that seniority sacrifices have been made as well. Prior to 2000 Delta was an airline growing organically. 1980-1990 the fleet nearly doubled in size 1990-2000 the fleet grew in execs of 50% During those years the vast majority of aircraft had a 3-man crew Now with exception of the long-haul fleet, we are down to 2-man crews and the fleet is shrinking.As a result the opportunities for seniority advancement have reduced drastically. There are Delta pilots hired just a few years after you that can't hold captain, relegated to FO pay, so they are making 40% less than you. Capacity constraint works for the company. If the fleet size will stay flat or further reduce in the upcoming years. If we replace 75 and 76 with 737 aircraft even with all upcoming retirement we will all see seniority inflation. I'm not advocating forcing the company to hire more pilots just for the heck of it, but this is an issue that is brewing and will need to be addressed. Seniority determines pay and just a captain upgrade will be an instant 40% raise for some of our pilot population that has been in limbo for the past 15 years. You are lucky to hold captain. Good timing placed you on the list that lets you be 320A, but Luck shouldn't have anything to do with seniority progression... Cheers George Didn't intend to come across as whining. You are absolutely right about those hired fairly shortly after me. My apologies, sincerely. Back in 1995 Delta had roughly 130 727s and about 50 L-1011s. (That's from memory, so I am likely off a bit). The total mainline fleet size was about 540 aircraft and so the cockpits requiring flight engineers were only about 1/3 of the fleet. I was here during the 1990's and do not recall growing by 50%. I saved the Aviation Week Issue that discussed the takeover of Pan Am. (These numbers include the 49 aircraft that came with that acquisition.) As of 11/1/91 Delta had 525 aircraft in the fleet and "orders" for 196. I put orders in quotes because of what didn't happen. We never took delivery of 57 737-300s (IIRC we got 5), and similarly we didn't take 50 MD-90s (IIRC we got 16). In terms of aircraft options, again on 11/1/91, Delta had options for 281 aircraft. But the majority of those didn't materialize either. In addition to the orders for 737-300s Delta had options for 56 more. Delta also had options for 110 additional MD-90s and 31 MD-11s. None of those aircraft were delivered. So of the orders we took about half and of the options less than a third. Over the course of the decade we also got rid of a bunch of aircraft: All the DC-9s, all the Pan Am A-310s, a bunch of 737-200s, quite a number of 727s and some L-1011s as well. |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1134448)
Ok, I think I understand what you are saying...but you'll have to elaborate just a bit on your definition of seniority progression.
How do we control that? Even if we told ALPA to negotiate a -sweet- early out program, how do you 'force' the most senior guys to take it? |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1134448)
Ok, I think I understand what you are saying...but you'll have to elaborate just a bit on your definition of seniority progression.
How do we control it ? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:24 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands