Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-13-2012 | 01:47 PM
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,263
Likes: 105
From: DAL 330
DAL Reserve System
I said it was understandable that junior guys might not have had the time to understand all the related sections of the contract and thus have made incorrect analyses here. It is not understandable for a senior guy not to know his contract because that is just lazy. So once again, put your man pants on and quit whining like a little girl.
The reserve system we have now is light years better than the one I worked under when I was junior on reserve. We were on short call every day, we had no such thing as long call, and we had fewer days off. IF we reach an agreement, this reserve system will be the best reserve system we have ever had in my career at Delta. Even more days off, more pay, more opportunities to control your schedule. So quit playing the whiny poor me card, you are not the first pilot to stagnate on the list. I was an MD-88 first officer in year 8 of my career, boo hoo for me, let's all cry.
Feel free to disagree with Alfa but I believe he is correct on what I have bolded above. Reserve rules at DAL have been a lot worse in the past. When I was hired you had two short call windows every day, 0800-0900 and 2000-2100 if I remember correctly, every day of reserve.
Granted a lot of other things were better back then, almost everything else as a matter of fact, but that does not change the fact that he is correct about the above. You could argue that it is irrelevant what the rules were back then, or you can try to make a case for them being relevant. If that is the case then I would say C2000 pay-rates are also relevant.
Scoop
05-13-2012 | 01:51 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
I enjoy reading the threads here, but I find myself thinking the representation here is narrow in relation to the pilot group. I've been at delta about 14 years and although I understand the importance of scope, there are other important issues to me and, I believe, to us as a pilot group. It seems reasonable to me that during a normal negotiation, both sides make concessions. It seems logical to me that at some point, being unwilling to make some concessions could be counterproductive. I don't understand the idea of being unwilling to compromise on one individual issue, regardless of what else is on the table. I also feel that although the piloting profession has suffered in terms of wages in real dollars; advancements in safety, navigation and communication make the job more comfortable today then when it enjoyed greater compensation. I don't follow these issues as closely as most people here do. I'm open to changing my mind, but for now I tend to think the opinions here are mostly an unrealistic minority view.
Because scope involves unity and pilots jobs, two items that should not be open to negotiations. How would you feel if your job was being "conceded" ? At 14 years, it might be your upgrade that is the point of scope negotiations.
05-13-2012 | 01:51 PM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
OK.. so why do you think it is gonna be better? I see more SCs, and higher hours on the hook. I'll betcha there will be little incentive for a number one in any category to bid it.. We DID have that in years past. That would be one metric on which I would base it's quality.
05-13-2012 | 01:56 PM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
Guys,
Feel free to disagree with Alfa but I believe he is correct on what I have bolded above. Reserve rules at DAL have been a lot worse in the past. When I was hired you had two short call windows every day, 0800-0900 and 2000-2100 if I remember correctly, every day of reserve.
Granted a lot of other things were better back then, almost everything else as a matter of fact, but that does not change the fact that he is correct about the above. You could argue that it is irrelevant what the rules were back then, or you can try to make a case for them being relevant. If that is the case then I would say C2000 pay-rates are also relevant.
Scoop
Feel free to disagree with Alfa but I believe he is correct on what I have bolded above. Reserve rules at DAL have been a lot worse in the past. When I was hired you had two short call windows every day, 0800-0900 and 2000-2100 if I remember correctly, every day of reserve.
Granted a lot of other things were better back then, almost everything else as a matter of fact, but that does not change the fact that he is correct about the above. You could argue that it is irrelevant what the rules were back then, or you can try to make a case for them being relevant. If that is the case then I would say C2000 pay-rates are also relevant.
Scoop
05-13-2012 | 01:58 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 833
Likes: 5
From: Captain
Guys,
Feel free to disagree with Alfa but I believe he is correct on what I have bolded above. Reserve rules at DAL have been a lot worse in the past. When I was hired you had two short call windows every day, 0800-0900 and 2000-2100 if I remember correctly, every day of reserve.
Granted a lot of other things were better back then, almost everything else as a matter of fact, but that does not change the fact that he is correct about the above. You could argue that it is irrelevant what the rules were back then, or you can try to make a case for them being relevant. If that is the case then I would say C2000 pay-rates are also relevant.
Scoop
Feel free to disagree with Alfa but I believe he is correct on what I have bolded above. Reserve rules at DAL have been a lot worse in the past. When I was hired you had two short call windows every day, 0800-0900 and 2000-2100 if I remember correctly, every day of reserve.
Granted a lot of other things were better back then, almost everything else as a matter of fact, but that does not change the fact that he is correct about the above. You could argue that it is irrelevant what the rules were back then, or you can try to make a case for them being relevant. If that is the case then I would say C2000 pay-rates are also relevant.
Scoop
C2K eliminated PMM and restricted YS to DOA, but also introduced the long call window we have now.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
05-13-2012 | 01:59 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,724
Likes: 0
From: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
My observations:
Pilot unity is crucial, especially when negotiating a contract. Its management's job to divide and conquer the pilot group. These guys: Ford & Harrison, Labor and Employment Law Firm specialize in that and one of the founding members of the firm is on the Delta BOD. As someone who has been through a union drive to get ALPA representation, I can tell you pitting one group against another is their specialty...Reserve, line-holder, Small base vs large, widebody vs narrow, senior vs junior, North vs South, ALP vs DPA are all distractions that help reduce our resolve and lessen our chances for the best contract possible. We are all Delta pilots, lets have each other's back. The girls wil help the manly-men and the manly-men will help the girls...
The manning formula is like catastrophic emergency insurance. Its good to know it's there, you hope to never use it because things will have really gone to hell when it kicks in. What exactly does the 60 hrs average/ reserve in the manning formula looks like:
Let's say it's a particularly busy summer flying season, a reserve averages 90 hrs for the three summer months June, July and August. That's 270 hrs cumulative for the three months. Using the formula of 60/reserve average, staffing would only increase if the same reserve averaged 50 hrs for the remaining 9 months of the year:
60 x 12 = 720 annually
90 x 3 = 270
50 x 9 = 450
Total 720
As you see the three months in summer just don't really impact the manning formula, which is why the other limits in the PWA are so crucial. Taking days-off away from when you're swamped in June and August and redistributing them to the months where there is little flying just isn't a gain in QOL no matter how you spin it...
Adding a day of SC is a concession, especially if the inequity of the 24 hr short-call for international reserves will be patched by the upcoming FTDT regs. Remember the reduction from 8 to 6 short-call days in 2008, was presented as a key accomplishment of the JCBA according to TO and LM (NNP 08-03 & From the Chairman June 3, 2008)
Ask yourself this: why would Delta ask for the changes to reserve rules as presented in the NNP if it would have no effect on staffing, reserve schedules and green-slips? Delta plans on using the new higher limits or they wouldn't have asked for them, isn't that self evident? It would be like pilots asking the company for higher pay but suggesting that not everybody would be drawing the new higher amount.
As I said before: The changes to the reserve rules have a potential to have an adverse impact on staffing, availability of premium flying and reduce the protections in the current PWA that help put a lid on how far a reserve can be pushed during a busy period. If the negotiation also produce increases in vacation and bring any sheduled non-flying activity into the ADP formula much of the potential adverse impact on reserves can be mitigated while getting gains for all pilots regardless of bid-status. I am awaiting the forthcoming NNP that might detail exactly those changes...
Cheers
George
Pilot unity is crucial, especially when negotiating a contract. Its management's job to divide and conquer the pilot group. These guys: Ford & Harrison, Labor and Employment Law Firm specialize in that and one of the founding members of the firm is on the Delta BOD. As someone who has been through a union drive to get ALPA representation, I can tell you pitting one group against another is their specialty...Reserve, line-holder, Small base vs large, widebody vs narrow, senior vs junior, North vs South, ALP vs DPA are all distractions that help reduce our resolve and lessen our chances for the best contract possible. We are all Delta pilots, lets have each other's back. The girls wil help the manly-men and the manly-men will help the girls...
The manning formula is like catastrophic emergency insurance. Its good to know it's there, you hope to never use it because things will have really gone to hell when it kicks in. What exactly does the 60 hrs average/ reserve in the manning formula looks like:
Let's say it's a particularly busy summer flying season, a reserve averages 90 hrs for the three summer months June, July and August. That's 270 hrs cumulative for the three months. Using the formula of 60/reserve average, staffing would only increase if the same reserve averaged 50 hrs for the remaining 9 months of the year:
60 x 12 = 720 annually
90 x 3 = 270
50 x 9 = 450
Total 720
As you see the three months in summer just don't really impact the manning formula, which is why the other limits in the PWA are so crucial. Taking days-off away from when you're swamped in June and August and redistributing them to the months where there is little flying just isn't a gain in QOL no matter how you spin it...
Adding a day of SC is a concession, especially if the inequity of the 24 hr short-call for international reserves will be patched by the upcoming FTDT regs. Remember the reduction from 8 to 6 short-call days in 2008, was presented as a key accomplishment of the JCBA according to TO and LM (NNP 08-03 & From the Chairman June 3, 2008)
Ask yourself this: why would Delta ask for the changes to reserve rules as presented in the NNP if it would have no effect on staffing, reserve schedules and green-slips? Delta plans on using the new higher limits or they wouldn't have asked for them, isn't that self evident? It would be like pilots asking the company for higher pay but suggesting that not everybody would be drawing the new higher amount.
As I said before: The changes to the reserve rules have a potential to have an adverse impact on staffing, availability of premium flying and reduce the protections in the current PWA that help put a lid on how far a reserve can be pushed during a busy period. If the negotiation also produce increases in vacation and bring any sheduled non-flying activity into the ADP formula much of the potential adverse impact on reserves can be mitigated while getting gains for all pilots regardless of bid-status. I am awaiting the forthcoming NNP that might detail exactly those changes...
Cheers
George
05-13-2012 | 02:03 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
If you are talking about pilots on the property being furloughed, I can agree with you. If, however, we collectively want to opt for a benefit that somehow delays my career progression, it should be on the table.
05-13-2012 | 02:05 PM
Line Holder
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 993
Likes: 0
From: VEOP Retired! 7ER A was last position
SWA's current position in the industry is going to go away. They are in the midst of a poorly thought out merger, and it is going to take some time for that to play out. DAL is years ahead of them, and we will see the fruits of that labor soon enough. Am I jealous of a SWA captain? no. not at all. I have no desire to do what they do and the way they do it. I think it is interesting that you talk about being jealous of someone that might make more money than you and in the same breath ask if I have low self esteem..
And if you are going to keep publicly badmouthing Delta, I couldn't care less if you stay here. As a matter of fact, I would prefer you go somewhere you would rather be.
And lastly, I couldn't care less how you are going to vote. But it is obvious that you are going to to little if any research because you have already made up your mind. That is pathetic because it shows that you are a member of the American Idol generation. ready fire aim. You have your push button soundbite, and the entire package is made up based on that. Sad. I would prefer intelligent voters, and you obviously are not one.
And if you are going to keep publicly badmouthing Delta, I couldn't care less if you stay here. As a matter of fact, I would prefer you go somewhere you would rather be.
And lastly, I couldn't care less how you are going to vote. But it is obvious that you are going to to little if any research because you have already made up your mind. That is pathetic because it shows that you are a member of the American Idol generation. ready fire aim. You have your push button soundbite, and the entire package is made up based on that. Sad. I would prefer intelligent voters, and you obviously are not one.
This gets to the core of the issue. Our vacation sucks. Badly. 3 hours a day is INSANE. It needs to be at least 5 hours a day. That would at least give a 35 hour block of pay and credit on your line. 2 weeks would/should be 70 hours and done, at pilot's option of course unless someone wanted up to ALV credit by adding another trip if possible, which is only fair to allow.
Frats,
05-13-2012 | 02:12 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
What about the union itself? At some level of outsourcing it will no longer be able to effectively represent pilots.
05-13-2012 | 02:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 0
From: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
There has been much mention on here of the nature of negotiations and the need for give and take. I agree that this is a cornerstone of successful negotiations between two parties who have a common interest.
In this case, the common interest is a pilot working agreement. The company will enjoy labor peace and predictable spending needs, efficiency and productivity under new FAA regs, and we might enjoy more financial and lifestyle benefits.
The Delta of 2012 is vastly different from the Delta of years past. Our contract has and will continue to reflect the BALANCE of the needs of the company to operate an airline in a changing regulatory and geopolitical environment, and our need as pilots to progress in our career financially and personally.
Let's get something straight here. Any "give and take" should reflect this paradigm, and no other. We should NOT be trading an arm for a leg, an eye for an eye, scope for pay, health benefits for vacation, trip credit for reserve x-days, or in other words, this is not a zero sum game.
I don't need to remind anyone here, or the MEC, or the Company that we all gave like a m******er at the office. We watched as our corporate leaders left with bags of cash as we tried to keep the water from coming over the gunnels. Our current corporate leaders are competent and committed to running a great operation. They have been and will continue to be compensated very handsomely for their effort--- as they should be.
Shouldn't we also be rewarded and compensated for our efforts in this endeavor? Aren't we at the "tip of the spear" every day, in every way? Do we not deserve and have we not earned the good living that this profession used to command?
I'm withholding my judgement of the agreement until I see it in its entirety and can view all the merits and drawbacks that it contains. Only then will I decide whether this represents a working agreement that reflects all of the above, or if it's merely a version of Hobson's Choice. If it's a winner, it will be one that will provide a career that I can count on to provide a good living, a decent chance at having a quality life when I'm not at work, and one that can provide for my family---college education and all, and one that will allow me to retire comfortably and securely.
So if "give and take" means that I am flexible with what I consider a fair agreement, that's fine. It's a total package, and I understand that. I understand that the company has new needs (new FAA regs, new equipment, global ops, technology advancements, etc...) But under no circumstances should we consider just giving up an important benefit or security provision simply because we are horse trading. We are not. We are discussing and negotiating a contract that in it's end state must be a major restoration of this career. Anything less would not be worthy of the term "compromise". I give %100 when I'm at work. This company and my colleagues are worth it. I expect that the negotiators on BOTH sides of the table will recognize that this is the asset they are putting a price tag on.
In this case, the common interest is a pilot working agreement. The company will enjoy labor peace and predictable spending needs, efficiency and productivity under new FAA regs, and we might enjoy more financial and lifestyle benefits.
The Delta of 2012 is vastly different from the Delta of years past. Our contract has and will continue to reflect the BALANCE of the needs of the company to operate an airline in a changing regulatory and geopolitical environment, and our need as pilots to progress in our career financially and personally.
Let's get something straight here. Any "give and take" should reflect this paradigm, and no other. We should NOT be trading an arm for a leg, an eye for an eye, scope for pay, health benefits for vacation, trip credit for reserve x-days, or in other words, this is not a zero sum game.
I don't need to remind anyone here, or the MEC, or the Company that we all gave like a m******er at the office. We watched as our corporate leaders left with bags of cash as we tried to keep the water from coming over the gunnels. Our current corporate leaders are competent and committed to running a great operation. They have been and will continue to be compensated very handsomely for their effort--- as they should be.
Shouldn't we also be rewarded and compensated for our efforts in this endeavor? Aren't we at the "tip of the spear" every day, in every way? Do we not deserve and have we not earned the good living that this profession used to command?
I'm withholding my judgement of the agreement until I see it in its entirety and can view all the merits and drawbacks that it contains. Only then will I decide whether this represents a working agreement that reflects all of the above, or if it's merely a version of Hobson's Choice. If it's a winner, it will be one that will provide a career that I can count on to provide a good living, a decent chance at having a quality life when I'm not at work, and one that can provide for my family---college education and all, and one that will allow me to retire comfortably and securely.
So if "give and take" means that I am flexible with what I consider a fair agreement, that's fine. It's a total package, and I understand that. I understand that the company has new needs (new FAA regs, new equipment, global ops, technology advancements, etc...) But under no circumstances should we consider just giving up an important benefit or security provision simply because we are horse trading. We are not. We are discussing and negotiating a contract that in it's end state must be a major restoration of this career. Anything less would not be worthy of the term "compromise". I give %100 when I'm at work. This company and my colleagues are worth it. I expect that the negotiators on BOTH sides of the table will recognize that this is the asset they are putting a price tag on.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
