Airline Pilot Central Forums - Details on Delta TA

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Details on Delta TA (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/88532-details-delta-ta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1722457)

Anticipating things another party might want in a negotiation, but hasn't requested, seems like unconventional wisdom to me. Some reps have stated that their intention is to get a clear mandate to shut down concessions. Assuming this is true:
1) What happens if we don't get enough participation for the results to be meaningful?
2) What happens if we don't get a clear mandate on concessions? Do we bluff with the company?
3) What happens if there is a low turnout, say 30%, but 60% of 30% of pilots that bothered with the survey want vacation sell-backs (for example)? Do we have a duty to get vacation sell-backs for the pilots for 18% of the guys? Do we start buying the right to make concessions to please them?
4) If we're to be driving the process, is a month enough time to make a decision on some of the hard items? As the reps in at least two councils have stated, some of the items are, or could be, concessionary. The reps have been considering those for months, with SME's and costing data, but many pilots outside APC have never heard of some of the items.

Quote:

I do have one question, though, for the crowd. Has anyone ever done or seen a study on whether it is better to become more productive (assuming that you can capture 100% of the value of that productivity in higher pay rates) or remain as is?

For example, suppose you make some sort of change in the contract that makes you more productive, e.g., higher ALV, pay banding, vacation sellback, whatever. Suppose further that you accurately determine the value of the resulting decrease in required staffing and increase pay rates by an equivalent amount.

The result is that each pilot will progress in his career at some slower rate, resulting in less seniority, slower upgrade, etc. At the same time, all pay rates will have been adjusted upward by some amount. Assuming the pilot flies the same number of hours or days either way, would the slower time to upgrade eventually overcome the higher pay rates overall, or vice versa, or would it make no difference?

Honest question -- I have no idea. Anybody?

A great question. Probably THE great question relative to the survey. It probably would take more than a month to get the pilot group to consider it, and we'd need numbers, to be able to quantify what we're sarificing, and what we're getting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by index (Post 1722647)

Really? That's funny to you?

Of course it is. Are your union political associations so emotionally attached to you to where you cannot see a giant snafu when you see one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1722457)

For example, suppose you make some sort of change in the contract that makes you more productive, e.g., higher ALV, pay banding, vacation sellback, whatever. Suppose further that you accurately determine the value of the resulting decrease in required staffing and increase pay rates by an equivalent amount.

This reeks of cost neutrality, and of flying to FARs.

We must demand more money AND more time off.

After all of our productivity givebacks, this is a CONCESSION.

What will it take for us to realize we're in the best negotiating environment we're likely to see in our careers. Maybe Sleepy Ed bragging to investors about a "cost neutral" contract? Is that what it will take?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1722457)

The result is that each pilot will progress in his career at some slower rate, resulting in less seniority, slower upgrade, etc.

Why would you suggest we consider something with this result?

Alert: Alan Shore is floating a reincarnation of DALPA's C12 "time value of money" garbage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by index (Post 1722323)

Well, it seems one of our thin skinned moderators---johnso29---has taken it upon himself to ban Carl from APC under the guise of posting a cheerleader pic! Way to go johnso!

Love him or hate him, Carl adds a ton to the discussion here.

It's a sad state of affairs at APC when moderators don't act impartially.

Johnso you, like the ALPA, have a serious credibility problem.

Amazing...I read that yesterday and thought it was hilarious! Johnso29 needs to be banned from moderating. That is far from impartial.

Carl was a thorn in the side of the association message. He had a target on his back. If he is banned, so should a long list of others!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy (Post 1722739)

MEC collates all the data, and acts accordingly.

Did that happen on C12?

And what is your definition of "accordingly?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1722707)

I am on the side that is going to put the most money in my pocket and bring the best quality of life for me and my family.

Pull up the ladder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1722785)

Of course it is. Are your union political associations so emotionally attached to you to where you cannot see a giant snafu when you see one?

What planet are you on 80? I didn't defend TC's communication. Sure it was a giant snafu. He realized his error, apologized, and moved on. You and sailing want to keep beating him over the head with it. As I pointed out earlier, you two are the exact type that want to gloss over an alleged criminal act by one (or more) pilots against another pilot. Yet you show no quarter for someone whose only "crime" was an ill-advised communication. Your standards are inconsistent and irreconcilable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by index (Post 1722803)

Yet you obviously got offended by sailing bringing it up. We keep bringing it up because it's funny. Just like the whole cheerleader thing earlier. (which johnso has in a very classy manner decided to step down as a moderator-kudos, brother) Set your political leanings aside and enjoy some good natured ribbing... or fill out the butthurt form.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1722457)

Conventional wisdom seems to be that the company will again come after productivity in the next negotiation. As such, I certainly don't blame ALPA for asking us our feelings about the various ways in which management might seek to address that. We each need to give loud and clear answers to these questions, so that there is no ambiguity as to how the pilot group feels.

I do have one question, though, for the crowd. Has anyone ever done or seen a study on whether it is better to become more productive (assuming that you can capture 100% of the value of that productivity in higher pay rates) or remain as is?

For example, suppose you make some sort of change in the contract that makes you more productive, e.g., higher ALV, pay banding, vacation sellback, whatever. Suppose further that you accurately determine the value of the resulting decrease in required staffing and increase pay rates by an equivalent amount.

The result is that each pilot will progress in his career at some slower rate, resulting in less seniority, slower upgrade, etc. At the same time, all pay rates will have been adjusted upward by some amount. Assuming the pilot flies the same number of hours or days either way, would the slower time to upgrade eventually overcome the higher pay rates overall, or vice versa, or would it make no difference?

Honest question -- I have no idea. Anybody?

An interesting corollary to your question might be to define what the ultimate in productivity might be. IOW, how productive can a given pilot be? Then, you need to ax how we compare to that metric. It is an all encompassing question as it is probably a moving target with airline operations and whatnot, but I think a ballpark picture could be drawn within OUR limitations. How close to that "perfection" can we reasonably be expected to sign a contract? And once we reach a certain limit, why go any farther? What is the cost/benefit to management that could be obtained at that point? Then I think you could define a leverage point from which to negotiate.

But as long as bigger pays more, we will have to allow artificial seniority.

Couldn't resist.

Yes, I said ax.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1722533)

You compared Carl to Joan Rivers (who just died) and stated that Joan Rivers will be missed but Carl would not. It's not that much of a stretch to infer that you were saying you wouldn't miss Carl if he died...

Yeah.. it's a huge stretch to assume that.