Oh I have no doubt there would be considerable screaming from lots of guys (at the top of the list in each seat) if they couldn't pick up more time in a Vacation month. I'm already hearing it from the senior F/O's who,

"...just took a 40 hour pay cut due to FAR117!!" :rolleyes:

(100hrs. in 28 days vs. 120 in 30 days, and he said the extra 20hrs. was always at GS rates, so he took a 40hr. pay cut.)

I've heard the same thing from a few LCA's as well.

The pilots have to decide what they want; work more for more pay, or work less for more pay.

I pick work less.


How? Well, for me, I can't upgrade to a pay raise, so there's not a way, unless I bid reserve and do the rolling thunder thing, and I won't bid reserve, ever. I guess I could do G/S with conflict.

But for the guys down the list, if the entire pilot group worked say, 10% less, then there would have to be 10% more upgrades to higher paying equipment.

So they could 'work less' but in a higher paying seat.

Remember what was scratched in all the 727 dome light covers?

"More Money, More Time Off!"

All these manning concessions we have been giving for the past...30(?) years have led to the stagnation the bottom guys have been seeing. That and age 65 of course.

What you're describing is correct for a non-union airline finis. But we are (supposedly) union represented here. The company doesn't get to decide how "big the pie" is...that's what the Section 6 process is designed to ferret out. And the company will always say NO. That's what companies do. Section 6 is not about achieving what the company will say YES to. It's about achieving the maximum amount before the company decides they're willing to take on a strike.

If we only worry about accepting what management will say YES to, there's no reason for a union. None whatsoever.

BTW, it's sad to see Retired in your avatar. I hope it's filled with perfect health.

Carl

Alan,

Ed used that exact phrase when addressing the other employee groups and telling them about their new/early pay raises because of it. It was on the Deltanet and the vote wasn't even over when he did it. Immdiately DALPA came out to say how we were getting pay raises so you had to know that it was not cost neutral. Funny how those kind of articles disappear when you go looking for them. Just like I can no longer find SD's June pilot blast where he said that if we would sign off on this contract, 2012, we could be hiring as early as this fall (2012). (Apparently SD did want to hire at that time but was shot down by the BOD)

Actually Carl, the words were "cost positive" for the company, not "cost neutral".

Since you have them handy, please show it yourself.

Carl

There may have been articles that described the TA as cost positive for the company, I actually it's true that our contract actually cost them less. But I don't remember articles using a cost positive phrase. Only cost neutral. Gotta be fair here.

Carl

Easy color charts here. This is just wages. Will add more in a bit.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...n%20Charts.pdf

In addition the retirement and benefit package was 55,700 per DAL pilot. UAL was second at 48,200.

The exact words from Ed Bastian:

" And I’d say the other thing, Kevin, there that we did not necessarily forecast or see coming as clearly is the opportunity we had with our pilots to do the contract early. It’s going to pay significant dividends over time as it will have a big cost return to it, not just in terms of improved productivity, but the ability to fairly substantially restructure the domestic fleet. But that those costs came in right away so that’s in our September guidance as well, and that was another big piece."

WhoGAS? It is meaningless except to the low information crowd.

Right. Now look at the details. $347,099 was actual cash in hand, in the form of a paycheck. The rest is all attributable to his expense reimbursement, pension, etc.