Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom

With regard to the Negotiator's Notepad:

I am extremely disappointed with DALPA and the negotiating team. We have been working under essentially bankruptcy forced work rules and pay rates for the better part of ten years. (Yes, there have been a few increases, but depending on one's sources, they haven't kept up/barely kept up with inflation.)

We have been told by numerous sources that ALPA "get's it"... We have been told that we have leverage...

And this is what they have negotiated? This is ALPA "getting it"? YGTBSM!!!

I don't need to see the whole contract because there is enough there now for me to say to say no.

I'm somewhat surprised this hasn't been pointed out, but under the proposed changes to reserve, crew scheduling can "park" a pilot just under the ALV so he/she is still on the hook and wait for a high time trip and fly them right up to ALV+15.

Sure there are a few minor improvements, but to me anyway what has been negotiated so far are significant productivity concessions. WHY ARE WE GIVING UP ANYTHING?

Lastly, from previous experience, I think the remaining negotiations will go something like this: Company playing hardball on the big stuff and the negotiating team being "burned out", agreeing to insufficient increases in pay rates, scope, etc. They'll say "Gee fellas we did the best we could. You can't reject this or we'll have to start all over. We'll get 'em next time...."

In the case of these expedited negotiations they'll play the "time value of money" card.

I don't want to wait (again) for "next time".

Originally Posted by tsquare

You are gonna have to 'splain that one to me.. The issue that needs changing in THIS particular regard is the required/available section. The company has the advantage to use a reserve to cover from any base at no harm/no foul. That way they can overstaff someplase.. like ATL.. and understaff someplace else.. like NY. So NY lineholders cannot drop, but the company has the base covered with a 2 hour deadhead... IT's crap, and needs to be changed. If the system wide reserve availabiity is good for the company, it should be good enough for us.

Originally Posted by georgetg

Ding Ding Ding...

This is a big deal, it neads to be fixed and it's pretty invisible to most...

It hurts lineholders and reserves alike, just that the effects are felt in different bases. Right now there can be a base with lots of flying and no reserves, while at the same time another base has no flying and everybody on short-call. The first base has the lineholders hurt because there is no way to swap because there are no reserves. The second base is hurt because there are fewer lines and tons of reserves stacked on short-call to cover for the fleet...

Either the ALV and reserve count is fleet-wide, or the ALV and reserves count is by base, but not mixed and matched as is the case right now...

Our min reserve formula is poor as well. The min requirement is well below the real-world reserve requirement which is why we are running out of reserves regularly these days, well before the summer peak.

The proposed ALV +15 cap will actually require 25% fewer real reserves compared to right now because there are more "reserve" hours for each reserve pilot. No need to increase the reserve count and thus no benefit to line-holders for PCS purposes. Best case is the new rules approach the current limits of the current reserves staffing formula while giving scheduling 25% more slop in hours.

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by tsquare

I would say that is about as much braggadocio as your blatant desire to see ALPA fail and everyone involved to get a huge assessment.

Originally Posted by tsquare

I'm guessing you will be thrilled when/if it is...

Originally Posted by gloopy

Based on what I've seen and heard so far, including the latest NNP, I do not expect to be able to vote yes for what appears to be a net POS.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

I'll give up transforming 1 70 seat jet for 1 76 seat jet if:

a) All 50 seaters are parked and their number capped at 1. Just to remind us what happens when we give up scope.

b) Alaska codeshare gone. If we merge in next 5 years all of DCI parked.

c) Whatever George says to do about the JVs.

d) All of DCI pilot positions must be transferred from non Delta pilots to seniority list Delta pilots, with seats open for bidding and training in house, by 2015.

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44

This might be true, but it is in our favor. I would rather have a min reserve requirement that is too low than too high. It lets lineholders use PCS and lets greenslips go out. I also would rather fly than sit short call, but I prefer long call. The only time the reserves run out is on weekends. This is because lineholders whiteslip less on weekends and sick calls increase.

Originally Posted by georgetg

The reserve staffing formula is what I was talking about. The effect of that is bodies in base... higher is better and the current formula is crazy low.

The reserves required is a different story altogether. Lower is better and the current formula is about right, especially with recent changes.

PBS and better trip/duty rigs are the real solution to better QOL, PCS is a bandaid to fix things when circumstances change

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44

Lol. The ever optimist.