Here's the problem: Now you can call and have yourself shown FULL when within 2hrs of ALV. This takes you off the hook of phone duty, which takes you off the hook for inverse assignments. So very important to see if one can still show FULL when within 2hrs of ALV.

 

I'm not a stock/market junky, so this isn't a sarcastic question. Would you really want to buy AMR right now? I could see your point WRT SWA, but AMR I'm not sure about. Unless you buy them cheap betting that they'll come out solo and make you some money?

 

Late into this discussion, but I think this is spot on. Our current scope stinks! No protection on the bottom end (50's but also turboprops) and very little on the top end (only AF JV protected) If DCI block hours go down and airframes reduce in number (but 76 seaters increase) and Mainline block hours and airframes increase (717/A319) and this is protected by IRONCLAD language, isn't this a good thing? Remember, current scope I believe allows 255 large RJ's (mix of 70 and 76) but the 76 jets can increase significantly by adding 30 or so ML jets. And how about a JV with Emirites/Etihad et al, that we have no control over. I think we need to remember we need a comprehensive Section 1 and not just emphasize RJ's.

 

OK, today is my 6th and final short call for the month of May. I'm going home to enjoy the rest of the month off. The likelihood of getting a trip on long call, for me anyway, has been very low. Packing up my MSP crashpad, and getting ready to begin ATL ops in June.

 

That's what will bother me the most is the sales job. Necessity to ratify quickly etc...I have felt we are being played with regard to time. I am sure all sides want a contract sooner rather than later, however time is on our side and the company knows it, hence their artificial hurry up, got to have a deal now etc. This same pitch will be followed by our association. What tie up is going to make us that much stronger?...really? And is that little strength gained as a corp. worth the added problems it brings us as a group?

IMO, odds are we will have a Democrat still in the WH the next four years. That is huge leverage. We will also see huge profits over the next few years. Much better negotiating environment. Those two points alone warrant this hurry-up negotiation, got to have a contract nonsense from the company. Unfortunately, it is working because guys I fly with are already counting on the money. The entire reason we settled as a group on the joint agreement was largely because of the negotiating environment. If you remember, that was part of the sales job. They forecasted 2012 would be a better time to capitalize. Well, here we are and what are we about to do?.....**** away the chance to truly restore our profession. Color me pessimistic with Jack and Gloopy, but scope is for sale (ie mo 76ers), and our union is complicit and not maximizing our leverage. I have seen it before from our union...fewer RJs=win. With that kind of logic we could let them fly 777s and it would be a win. Size matters. 76ers are direct 9 replacements. Fly them here or don't fly them. If they won't go for it, let them pound sand and whind the clock just like we do on the line. When you hurry up you usually f#€k up wether it's negotiations or flying an airplane.

 

Lots of junior guys here understandably don't have enough knowledge of the contract to understand the issues on reserve. There are three issues that all interact to determine reserve staffing, they are:

1. When a reserve is full
2. Max reserve
3. Staffing formula

Look at the last issue first. The staffing formula is based on reserves flying an average of 60 hours per month. It is a self correcting formula. If you have 1000 reserves and somehow they average 90 hours a month (90,000 hours) then you will soon have 1500 reserves (90,000/60). There is no way to have reserves consistently fly above a 60 hour average, without having the staffing formula rise to correct for it. It is not optional. The formula is a rolling 12 month average so there can be variations in special situations, but the staffing formula will always drive the average back down to 60.

Now look at when a reserve is full. Currently a reserve is full at the reserve guarantee. That means that once a pilot flies 70.01, he can't be given another trip. Under the current contract, if a pilot takes military leave (or some other absence like vacation) for half the month HIS guarantee is 35 hours. However, he still isn't full until he hits 70 hours. Under the agreement reached, that pilot will now be full at HIS guarantee or 35 hours. That will REDUCE the availability of that reserve pilot, that is a gain.

Max reserve. If a reserve isn't full, then how much can a reserve be flown. Currently the max is ALV. The proposed change is ALV + 15. If a reserve should average 60 hours a month, then how does this have any effect? It has an effect when a guy is about half full and is one of the only guys available when a longer trip comes up. This change will nominally reduce green slips, but will only effect staffing to the extent that the 60 hour average is easier to reach. The idea that reserves will consistently be flying 85 hours a month is impossible, the staffing formula will never allow that to occur. Because reserve guarantee is going up by 8%, this change reduces some of the additional cost of the extra guarantee.

It is not anyone's fault that they may not fully understand the interaction of these three items. The notepad was an attempt to give an update on the items discussed so far, but there was no time to do a complete analysis to discuss these issues. The misconceptions on this issue are large and will be addressed if there is a tentative agreement.

Now could someone at least talk about sick leave which is the best program I have ever had in my close to 25 years at Delta. If you come off disability, you can borrow sick time from next year so if you have a cold you are not left without pay. If you are sick on the first day or two of a long rotation, you can WITHOUT RISK, try to pick up time to avoid having your sick bank debited. There is not another sick program in the industry that is even close to this. This program recognizes the real world problems pilots face all the time with sick leave and it addresses them all.

 

Flash.....

 

I doubt we would see the 717 if we allow more large RJs. The company is going to retire about 200 50-seaters. Some of the contracts out there allow the 50-seaters to trickle out; others just end cold turkey.

200 50-seaters out = 10,000 seats. That's a big hole network has to fill. They need to make a decision and they need to make it very soon. I believe this is why we are in expedited negotiations. The question the company needs answered is, "Who's going to fly this lift?"

88 717s = 10,300 seats (what a coincidence). This would be just about capacity neutral. If we do NOTHING to our RJ scope, nearly all of the capacity lost due to 50-seater retirements would have to be replaced here at MAINLINE.

You're right, the hard cap on large RJs is 255. the ALPA people I've been talking to (MEC & local) are MISLEADING people by saying the company can just simply add more 76 seat RJs once we get to 768 mainline A/C. They are really not "adding" anything, they have to REMOVE a 70 seat get for every 76 seat jet they add. For some reason they casually forget to mention that.

What if we let the company have more large RJs in this contract? I've heard that 2:1 is what they are leaning toward. Would this reduce RJ block hours? Yes, but we sell seats, not pilot block hours here at Delta.

Sure the company would lose 10,000 seats worth of 50-seaters, but they would gain 7600 of them back with more large RJs. I highly doubt they would get the 717 under these circumstances. I would expect to here them announce that the price just wasn't right but they were able to get some great rates on a handful of A319s. all it would take is about 20 A319s to get back to capacity neutral in this case resulting in fewer mainline jobs.

The only way we'll get a TA out in the near term is if it allows more large RJs, lots and lots of them. Our current RJ scope is the only thing standing in the way.

 

So if reserves are going to be paid more then they will now cost more. If they cost more than something has to be done to reduce that cost so we'll have fewer reserves?

I'd rather have more reserves to cover the random to predict flying above ALV issues than a higher guarantee and have fewer reserves.

Especially since this ALV+15 seems aimed at 747, 777, 330, 765 and 7ER staffing issues. A reduction there hits everyone. For the NB it seems like ALV+15 would be rarely needed, for the WBs it probably is needed a lot.

Seems like a bad idea.

I get the average reserve formula but sometimes isn't staffing based on contigencies like the ALV limit? To me you have to staff for contigencies and to remove that is to decrease pilot staffing.

 

Enjoy the 2nd half of the month at home.