Notices

Details on Delta TA

Old 09-04-2014 | 05:56 AM
  #1411  
Alan Shore's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by forgot to bid
If RES increased by 1 minute on average that does not mean the staffing formula immediately required more pilots. We were not bumping up against the staffing formula.

So going from 40 to 41 minutes on average is still far from 60 but now it's fewer pilots required not because pilots are now flying to 99 hours but because they're flying entire trips that once could not have been assigned to them.

Now with the threat of guys timing out gone you need far less coverage.
You do need less coverage if you can use each pilot more. The explanation at the roadshow was that this is how we paid for the increase in reserve guarantee.

However, the staffing formula, which is applied each month, considers the total amount of reserve flying in a position. To the extent that reserve pilots were averaging less than 60 hours per month, the staffing formula was requiring incrementally fewer pilots in each succeeding month. if that average increases, the required pilots going forward also increases.

We certainly are bumping up against the staffing formula during the summer on a number of fleets. Look at the Bid Monitor report.
Reply
Old 09-04-2014 | 05:58 AM
  #1412  
Alan Shore's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by scambo1
I thought we were told 1% was $40m at the end of c12.
I heard that 1% was $20M before C2012. If we went up a total of about 20%, then at most it would have gone up to $22M, right?
Reply
Old 09-04-2014 | 06:04 AM
  #1413  
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Alan Shore
I'm not sure I believe that. Where did you get this information?
He is Mike Hanson's mouthpiece.

Managemnet wants CDOs bad. They will push hard in C2015.
Reply
Old 09-04-2014 | 06:08 AM
  #1414  
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Alan Shore
I thought that 1% is just over $20M. So, 25% should be a little over $500M.
Alan

I agree. This leaves $500 million for historic improvements in the othee sections.

Jerry
Reply
Old 09-04-2014 | 06:28 AM
  #1415  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 922
Likes: 0
From: Decoupled
Default

I completed the survey. I was disturbed by the questions about stock and stock options.

If you were on the property prior to 2000, you have already had your fill of stock options. Put it in my paycheck. I'm still papering the wall with stock options from a bankrupt company.

I feel the same way about profit sharing. No need to negotiate any changes to profit sharing. It's no risk to the Company. It's all risk to the employee. The Company only pays out if there is a profit. The employee doesn't get diddly squat if there isn't a profit.

I'm not quite sure where all the angst is with the profit sharing discussion. Some of you think you are important to the Company. You are not. You are a cost, an employee number. Profit sharing does not change how I safely conduct my business day. It shouldn't change how you conduct business either. I rarely agree with Sailingfun on anything. But, I have to concede his arguments about profit sharing.

Let's concentrate on better work rules, better insurance, better retirement, and working less. Profit sharing just isn't that important.
Reply
Old 09-04-2014 | 06:36 AM
  #1416  
Purple Drank's Avatar
Straight QOL, homie
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,202
Likes: 1
From: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun
The CDO's were something put forth by the union. The company especially with the restrictions we set up was not all that enamored with them. I was told that the 5:15 was costed out at 40 million. The CDO's at about 2 million.
So...DALPA had to give up something to get rid of something the company didn't even want to begin with.

Bravo, DALPA.
Reply
Old 09-04-2014 | 06:39 AM
  #1417  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Whidbey
We continue to discuss moving days in the summer bid months and giving up ALV+15 in terms of jobs. For those of us on the property, using this language places the issue in a light that at first glance is more palatable to us...

However, when we say these things cost us 100-150 pilots, that's really another way of saying that the work of those 100-150 pilots has been distributed across the pilot group via these productivity increases.

Additionally, these efficiency gains realized by the company in C2012 remain with us, so I don't feel "blip" is an accurate word to use to describe their effects.

Yes, there was a steady increase in pilots required due to the shift of block hours from regional to mainline, which is a good thing... however, these efficiencies given up to assist in funding the raises weren't just a "blip" that would be quickly overcome by hiring, they are productivity increases (however big or small they turn out to be) that will continue to shape the quality of life of each Delta pilot going forward.

Not jumping on the bandwagon of bashing Sailing and Alpha, or even arguing the larger issue, just pointing out how I feel using this sort of language can shape perspective.
Actually, there really isn't flying that is being shifted to those remaining.

First, if you believe that the 125 guys flew 1,000 hours per year, shifting their time to the rest of the pilot group equates to about 45 minutes per month. But that is not what is happening.

In actuality, what was occurring was that pilots were there flying full schedules for 3 months and then sitting around for 9 months collecting reserve guarantee as excess. That is where the savings were.

As we have grown flying time, we went from a huge pilot surplus to a measurable pilot shortage. That is what is causing people to feel more flying over this summer. It has nothing to do with work rule changes, it has to do with the company getting behind on hiring (they should have started months earlier) and now the growth in mainline is outpacing their ability to catch up during the summer. This would have occurred with or without the 125 pilot job efficiencies.

If you recall, about 18 months ago, guys were posting their 12 month lookbacks for block hours and they were showing 150-200 hours for the YEAR. Certainly no one thought that would last forever. The growth at mainline just accelerated that day of reckoning.

The changes made to improve efficiency had very little to do with the amount of flying in peak periods. The efficiency was to level load out reserve requirements so you were not fat 9 months a year just to have enough guys to fly the summer. Right now, the company has been in damage control to try to correct their tardiness in hiring. It's a little like Lucy working at the chocolate factory. As soon as she catches up on one part of the line the other is backed up.

Just to put the work rule changes in perspective. The current AE has 390 job openings and comes about 6 weeks after the last AE. That means a loss of 125 jobs delayed an upgrade by about 3 weeks. That is the lasting effect. One way or another, the staffing excess would have been sorted out. It just comes at the same time as block hours are growing quickly and those two effects are what you are feeling this summer.
Reply
Old 09-04-2014 | 06:44 AM
  #1418  
tsquare's Avatar
No longer cares
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
Default

Originally Posted by Alan Shore
I
  1. Fewer pilots are forced to reserve during those months (good for QOL)
  2. Reserve pilots work more during those months (not so good for QOL)
Ummmmmm care to 'splain this? ^^^^ If you have fewer reserves, the ones you have, will HAVE to work more. The physics of what you state in these two sentences won't work. Unless the unwritten variable is that there is less flight time to go around.... then you would be correct.
Reply
Old 09-04-2014 | 06:46 AM
  #1419  
DAL 88 Driver's Avatar
At home on the maddog!
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 0
From: Retired (mandatory age 65)
Default

Originally Posted by Alan Shore
Apparently, you're not. He was simply countering Carl's incessant cost-neutral argument. There was nothing in his post stating that the overall deal was good or bad, simply that it increased pilot costs to Delta.
Yes, and I used Alfa's incessant touting of how much we've "gained" to put it into perspective. I wasn't countering a cost neutral versus not cost neutral argument. I was adding perspective to Alfa's "data." Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but it is what it is.

I know it's hard, Alan, but if you really try you might could keep up.(Was that as condescending to you as you were to me? )
Reply
Old 09-04-2014 | 06:47 AM
  #1420  
tsquare's Avatar
No longer cares
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
Default

Originally Posted by gzsg
He is Mike Hanson's mouthpiece.

Managemnet wants CDOs bad. They will push hard in C2015.
Who's mouthpiece are you?
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Kilroy
ExpressJet
10796
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