scambo1

Pay banding is a concession, but not nearly as big a concession as swapping for out of base trips. I don't like at all that the company can re number a trip and put some other bases reserve on it.

Denny Crane

Don't mind the rest of your stuff but the out of base swap with the pot I am 100% against.

Denny

Alan Shore

Longer freezes have no effect on staffing. All they do is cause some other pilot to take the frozen pilot's training slot. OTOH, an overall reduction in training brought about by there being less incentive to change equipment will reduce staffing, because there are fewer pilots off the line in training and fewer SLIs needed.

One would have to come up with an assumption of the amount of the reduction in training before one could quantify the effect on staffing.

Alan Shore

Lots of controversy over that one. Doesn't help the Company at all, but guys like Tsquare can't stand it.

I don't see how that would effect the Company at all. It would mean more unstacking up the seniority list of each category as more junior guys are unavailable on certain days.

tsquare

Is it that obvious?

gloopy

I don't like the idea of allowing unfettered access to out of base open time. But I don't see how we could stop them from covering a trip by "renumbering" it because in order to do that they have to almost always build DH's on both sides and/or chop it up into smaller trips with each one having multipile DH's. As long as the in base WS and GS are honored and no one is available to do a trip, I think the cost to force them to just let it go uncovered and cancel will be more than we're willing to bargain for.

I'm against longer training freezes for any reason, especially for pay banding. Having a few fewer categories won't hurt as long as we keep the freezes the same. Very few pilots are going to fleet bounce (and usually a corresponding loss of relative seniority) and the luxury of a month on VA ave and a brain full ot training contamination from a "home study" course just for a couple bucks an hour unless they wanted that plane anyway. We already have some banding, and I don't see any major pay tiers being shattered even if we aligned 88 and 320 pay, etc. The hourly differentials aren't enough to make very many people jump just for that reason anyway. But longer freezes should be a non starter.

BATOL

Hi all! I'm admittedly an interloper here. I just wanted to please ask you not to throw DCI, specifically Endeavor under the bus anymore. I understand scope, I get it. But just leave it. Don't let dal expand it, but don't ask them to take it back either, at least not without codified real career progression for us down here on the bottom. We're all in this together. We have sacrificed extremely high (percentage) amounts for Dal's current profitability. As DAL retirements mount, without us to backfill, you guys may find yourselves perpetually understaffed just as we currently are, costing you QOL. We have pilots leaving in droves, many leaving the industry all together. After a free breakfast, there's nothing pilots like more than having pilots below them! It's time we all show some solidarity. We don't want to see mainline guys take any concessions because most of us hope to one day work under that contract, but now more than ever, we need you guys to help bat for our team a little bit to keep the pipeline flowing and lift all DAL boats!

Thanks for listening, please don't beat me up to bad 😜.

-your friendly 9e pilot.

gloopy

Not sure what you're asking for here.

The best thing, by far, that DL can do is to reduce large RJ's at DCI and bring that flying back to mainline, either directly in the same equipment or indirectly through up-gauging. Simply "leaving it alone" does nothing for 9E or anyone else other than allow a larger fleet of ACMI RFP jets to be subjected to the lowest bidder. Even if DL doesn't "take them back" that doesn't mean they are yours. Ever. Even if they are currently under contract to your virtual airline. Especially if you are wholly owned.

DL will just float a new RFP for existing flying and there's always someone willing to "deal them an ace" to get it. Even if they can't staff it and will eventually face penalties, there will always be cut throat operators willing to underbid you to get the contract and worry about its compliance later.

Speaking of low bidders, PCL is one of (if not the) lowest bidders anyway. If they lose flying it will be because they can't staff what they have. There is no additional risk (beyond the day to day massive risk in that unstable and unsustainable sector) to 9E WRT DL taking back scope. We have to reduce DCI as well as make improvements to other areas of scope. Leaving hundreds and hundreds of large "RJ's" which are really DC-9-10's in the ACMI abyss helps no one.

johnso29

Agree 1000%

johnso29

BATOL,

I can only speak for myself and a few others who I know feel the same way. Personally, I look to bring the flying BACK to mainline. EtD IMO isn't going to work to the degree that management needs/wants. If we, at the very least, hold the line management's options to staff DCI will continue to dwindle.

Recapturing the flying won't be easy. It will meet resistance from mainline pilots who feel we will have to sacrifice things in order to get it back. I think we have a golden opportunity. Only time will tell.