Notices

Details on Delta TA

Old 08-26-2014, 09:07 AM
  #1001  
No longer cares
 
tsquare's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Default

Originally Posted by scambo1
T;
That is the most explanation you have ever given on the topic. Based on what you wrote, your model appears to be very individualized (maybe personalized). So, the model is different for each individual. Additionally, it doesn't take into account the QOL and higher pay opportunity affects of seniority. So, it is a simplified and therefore error prone yet workable model.

I can see how your model could give more $$ area under the graph using your assumptions. I can also see the logic error in jumping to the conclusion that due to 757 down gauging to 739 LBP is the "correct" solution.

I agree with you that the company buys the airplanes. I agree with you that maximizing money and QOL are both goals.
The model would be anything but individual. Push throttles... get checks; live longer and don't get fired or quit, get bigger checks. Bid for QOL. THAT is the only individual part of my model... the QOL part because 12,000 guys have 12,000 different opinions as to the best job.

The downgauging of the current pay model from being a lions share at the 757 level to the 739 is not speculation. It is a fact. That will be the largest fleet at DAL when all is said and done.
tsquare is offline  
Old 08-26-2014, 09:17 AM
  #1002  
Straight QOL, homie
 
Purple Drank's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Default

Originally Posted by scambo1
Sink;

For your validation, I have always found you to be a reasonable, well thought out, fair, tell it like you see it poster.

+1

Filler
Purple Drank is offline  
Old 08-26-2014, 09:51 AM
  #1003  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Default

Originally Posted by scambo1
For your validation...
Right back at you.

And PD. I don't come at most issues from his perspective, but it's worth reading his stuff and taking it into consideration.

Last edited by Sink r8; 08-26-2014 at 10:06 AM.
Sink r8 is offline  
Old 08-26-2014, 09:55 AM
  #1004  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Default

Originally Posted by tsquare
All I have heard is opinions regarding LBP. They are the same opinions that have been floating around about our pay methodology for 50 years. I have yet to be convinced that it is bad for any reason other than "management will pay us the same as an RJ pilot for flying 777s". I.... don't.... care.... As long as it is a rate that exceeds today's current 777 rate going forward. Those that argue against LBP still will not get the size of the airplane out of their minds, and that is the choke point of that argument. I will continue to speak my mind about it, but I fully realize that it isn't gonna change.

As to Jerry. There is a lot that I agree with him on also, but I cannot get on his bandwagon when he throws it all out there with no evidence. Sorry, But I don't trust him any more than he trusts LM. That is why I was essentially pleading with him to stop the retarded arguments.

Vacation sellback. It would benefit me, but I will fight against it. It is flat out wrong and costs jobs.

Whether or not something is a giveback is all in the eye of the beholder I guess. To me, CDOs are huge concessions.. safety concerns primarily, but I know sailingfun drools at the thought of them and he is not alone.

I guess that is what divides us as a group and what makes this profession so interesting. There are 12,000 pilots, and probably 12,000 different opinions as to what the perfect contract would consist of. Finding that balance is what it's all about, no? Anybody that believes there is a way to get 75% or more of this group to agree on anything is full of powdered sugar.
Fair enough. I think I've done the long version of the LBP discussion with you a couple time, where I really tried to read carefully and argue patiently, and cannot duplicate that process right now. We absolutely disagree on this issue, which is OK.

Regards,

Sink r8
Sink r8 is offline  
Old 08-26-2014, 10:05 AM
  #1005  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Default

Originally Posted by gzsg
I fought early and often against the CDOs. Wrote the entire MEC more than once. Posted on the other forum many times.
Maybe, but on APC you're arguing we need to trust you on pay banding based on your early warning system picking up CDO's. Trouble is, you didn't warn on CDO's. There is enough cross-participation between the two forums. No one on APC warned on CDO's until MD's letter (to my recollection). If you had warned on the other forum, APC would have been talking about it within an hour.

Your early warning system may also be malfunctioning on pay banding. I can't get any confirmation from anyone else that any such discussion ahs taken place with the company, or even that people are pushing for it at the MEC level. All I've heard is that there might be a question on it in the survey, because some people argue for it (i.e. tsquare's argument about QOL).

I'm glad we agree on a bunch of things, including CDO's. I'm just not sure why you want credit for warning us (you didn't), and why you're trying to convert that into more trust on pay banding.

You could just sit here, arguing against pay banding like a regular guy, and it would be music to my ears. It's the messiah stuff and the manipulative/selective nature of your rumors I find a bit weird.
Sink r8 is offline  
Old 08-26-2014, 10:06 AM
  #1006  
No longer cares
 
tsquare's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Default

Originally Posted by Sink r8
We absolutely disagree on this issue, which is OK.

Regards,

Sink r8
Fair enough sir.

(Even though you are wrong. )

You know I'm kiddin' ya...

Best back 'atcha...
tsquare is offline  
Old 08-26-2014, 10:09 AM
  #1007  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,534
Default

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
The track record for CDO's ("SDP's") in this industry is clear. Guys like them and bid them because it allows them to be home every day and do whatever it is they want/need to do. They do not sleep during the day. The only sleep they get is whatever sleep the CDO provides. There may be rare exceptions to that, but the track record is clear that the vast majority do exactly as I described. Operating a flight (whether it's a short flight or a long flight) on maybe 3 or 4 hours of sleep in a 24 hour period is UNSAFE. Period.

If we ever get these horrid things, I will not sign the release to operate that morning flight. If I can't avoid the trip, I'll be forced to call in fatigued for the morning flight. Do you really want to put Delta pilots in that position?
Again with the litany of non sequiturs.

First of all, what "records"? Numerous airlines do SDP's (many with considerably less protections than we had in the TA that I didn't like, and WAY less protections than I'm advocating as a minimum) so where are these records that are supposedly settled law?

We live and work in a 24 hour world. We can't reverse engineer circadian babysitting of rogue pilots who shoot type A between their toes every chance they get trying to run side businesses and be super parent or whatever. Some pilots may like SDP's because they can work all day at home and fly on 1 hour of sleep or whatever. But guess what? Some pilots like long haul international for that exact same reason. Domestic trips with day sleeps and red eyes. Home by breakfast for a full day's work chopping firewood while day trading, then a quick little league double header before another evening report.

How about all those 5am reports we do? Do you really think every single pilot is fast asleep by 7 or 8PM getting uninterrupted full cycle REM restorative sleep every single time? Have you ever done a report that early and not gotten a full uninterrupted 8 hours? Did you call out fatigued? Every single time?

There is nothing in SDP's, if done reasonably, that is any less safe than a lot of flying every single 121 operator already does safely every single day.

If you are so opposed to them, and you somehow get one, and you are automatically going to call in fatigued in the morning no matter what, then do what you have to do. Safety first, and if you're not fit to fly then its what you must do.

But pulling the panic cord on something that a lot of pilots actually like and is in fact no less safe than many other operations we currently do doesn't do us any good. Funny thing is, SDP's would likely replace a lot of 30 hour layovers with early AM reports followed by long 4-5 leg days. Hope every single pilot gets to sleep by 7PM every single time, or those would also lead to tons of fatigue calls too, right? At least the duty day in question is 10 times longer with the same report time and likely on the same amount of actual sleep, so there's that.
gloopy is offline  
Old 08-26-2014, 10:15 AM
  #1008  
At home on the maddog!
 
DAL 88 Driver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Default

Originally Posted by Sink r8
Maybe, but on APC you're arguing we need to trust you on pay banding based on your early warning system picking up CDO's. Trouble is, you didn't warn on CDO's. There is enough cross-participation between the two forums. No one on APC warned on CDO's until MD's letter (to my recollection). If you had warned on the other forum, APC would have been talking about it within an hour.

Your early warning system may also be malfunctioning on pay banding. I can't get any confirmation from anyone else that any such discussion ahs taken place with the company, or even that people are pushing for it at the MEC level. All I've heard is that there might be a question on it in the survey, because some people argue for it (i.e. tsquare's argument about QOL).

I'm glad we agree on a bunch of things, including CDO's. I'm just not sure why you want credit for warning us (you didn't), and why you're trying to convert that into more trust on pay banding.

You could just sit here, arguing against pay banding like a regular guy, and it would be music to my ears. It's the messiah stuff and the manipulative/selective nature of your rumors I find a bit weird.
I don't remember who initiated the discussion (and I could be remembering incorrectly) but I think we were discussing CDO's on at least the chitchat forum (maybe here too?) before MD's letter.

And it's a good thing we discussed it... because had we not (and then bombarded our reps with input to the point they were concerned about being recalled), it would most likely have gotten passed with CDO's in it and we'd have all found ourselves after the fact saying "split what?"
DAL 88 Driver is offline  
Old 08-26-2014, 10:15 AM
  #1009  
No longer cares
 
tsquare's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Default

Originally Posted by gloopy
Again with the litany of non sequiturs.

First of all, what "records"? Numerous airlines do SDP's (many with considerably less protections than we had in the TA that I didn't like, and WAY less protections than I'm advocating as a minimum) so where are these records that are supposedly settled law?

We live and work in a 24 hour world. We can't reverse engineer circadian babysitting of rogue pilots who shoot type A between their toes every chance they get trying to run side businesses and be super parent or whatever. Some pilots may like SDP's because they can work all day at home and fly on 1 hour of sleep or whatever. But guess what? Some pilots like long haul international for that exact same reason. Domestic trips with day sleeps and red eyes. Home by breakfast for a full day's work chopping firewood while day trading, then a quick little league double header before another evening report.

How about all those 5am reports we do? Do you really think every single pilot is fast asleep by 7 or 8PM getting uninterrupted full cycle REM restorative sleep every single time? Have you ever done a report that early and not gotten a full uninterrupted 8 hours? Did you call out fatigued? Every single time?

There is nothing in SDP's, if done reasonably, that is any less safe than a lot of flying every single 121 operator already does safely every single day.

If you are so opposed to them, and you somehow get one, and you are automatically going to call in fatigued in the morning no matter what, then do what you have to do. Safety first, and if you're not fit to fly then its what you must do.

But pulling the panic cord on something that a lot of pilots actually like and is in fact no less safe than many other operations we currently do doesn't do us any good. Funny thing is, SDP's would likely replace a lot of 30 hour layovers with early AM reports followed by long 4-5 leg days. Hope every single pilot gets to sleep by 7PM every single time, or those would also lead to tons of fatigue calls too, right? At least the duty day in question is 10 times longer with the same report time and likely on the same amount of actual sleep, so there's that.
Then bring 'em on. As long as they pay 2 days. 10:30 for that and for sure they'll go senior and I won't have to worry about 'em. What's more, NOBODY should bid them, and everybody put in GSs for them, and the company will do away with them on their own. Oh wait.. they will get stuffed onto reserves... nevermind.
tsquare is offline  
Old 08-26-2014, 10:21 AM
  #1010  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,534
Default

Originally Posted by tsquare
Then bring 'em on. As long as they pay 2 days. 10:30 for that and for sure they'll go senior and I won't have to worry about 'em. What's more, NOBODY should bid them, and everybody put in GSs for them, and the company will do away with them on their own. Oh wait.. they will get stuffed onto reserves... nevermind.
That depends on the details. I'd want protections for reserves like nothing once you get back until 10AM the next day. I'd like to see them in hard lines with hotel in domicile. And of course better min ground and max block limits than we had in the TA. The reserve issue is a red herring anyway, as very few would ever go to reserves.

In any case, if we can't do them safely, then we need to ban any other off circadian flying that could result in the same effect. Which is probably a very significant portion of the flying we already do every day, much of it much harder on the body clock than a reasonable SDP would be.
gloopy is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Kilroy
ExpressJet
10671
01-11-2016 06:49 AM
FastDEW
Major
201
09-03-2011 06:42 AM
Quagmire
Major
253
04-16-2011 06:19 AM
ksatflyer
Hangar Talk
10
08-20-2008 09:14 PM
INAV8OR
Mergers and Acquisitions
66
05-15-2008 04:37 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices