With our pilot to pilot swap/drop board, a pilot can drop just about anything off his line, regardless of reserve coverage....as long as someone else picks it up.

The difference between a reserve guy 'not flying' and a line holder doing the same is, the reserve guy is still being paid the monthly reserve min, vs. the line holder who is only being paid what he actually flies.

 

I'm not so sure. Remember that we can only drop a trip into open time if there are enough reserves to cover the flying.

Assuming that is the case, dropping the trip would save the money that the regular pilot would have otherwise been paid. If it's picked up by another regular pilot, then that pay is simply transferred to the other pilot and it's a zero sum game. But if it's assigned to a reserve pilot, than that pay goes against his guarantee, and Delta saves money.

If there is not enough reserve coverage to drop the trip into open time and no other pilot is willing to pick it up, then the original pilot can't get out of flying the trip.

We do not.

 

Alan, senior (and even junior) guys pick up good trips and can drop them down to zero on the swap board immediately. Why would we want to prevent that? A minimum month would be a QOL hit, and thus, a concession.

Why are we even discussing it?

 

Would that be the world in which we get what we deserve, or what's right, or what we used to get, for no reason other than our boss can afford it or that he recently gave himself a big raise?

Agreed. And this brings us back to our original and eternal disagreement.

As strongly as we feel about the value of our profession, that value is set by the market, i.e., what someone is willing to pay us for our services and what we are willing to accept to perform them. Clearly, we want to maximize that value to the greatest extent possible, at least to the buying power we had prior to LOA 46, and management would like to minimize that value to the greatest extent possible, or at least minimize its growth.

What I was talking about is the best strategy for us to employ to maximize our value. There are any number of strategies that have been employed by us and other pilot groups, all of whom are in a similar predicament as us. To date, the strategies employed by our reps have resulted in the biggest gains overall, but we're obviously not there yet.

Is there another strategy that might be employed in the coming negotiation that will have more dramatic results? That is the question, and I do not believe that any of us has a clear cut answer to it. You have your opinion, others disagree, and neither of you has any monopoly on the correctness of your opinion, nor any right to declare the other as being misguided or dumb or deliberately working against our collective best interests.

 

So the survey's been extended, ostensibly to obtain a valid sample.

...or...

Is that letter laying the groundwork for an alibi explaining away another debacle: "well, guys, sorry we didn't do very well. But we didn't have enough survey response. Don't worry, we'll get 'em next time."

After C12 (survey results disregarded despite that nonsense about hearing us "loud and clear"), can you fault a guy for being a bit cynical?

I'm just not going to accept DALPA's word that participation is too low until they produce some (credible) numbers to that effect.

 

If that "someone" is the airline passenger, he/she is clearly willing to pay enough for the company to afford a massive raise (evidenced by Delta's huge profits).

 

I have no idea why we're discussing it. Jerry brought it up, and stated that management hates it when a pilot drops down to zero. I'm saying that I don't think they care, because it can actually save them money.

 

We are directly paid by management, not by our customers. It is they with whom we negotiate. That said, I agree that our customers are willing to pay enough for our product that the company can afford plenty more.

 

My assumption is that our reps will use the responses they receive from the survey, regardless of how many of us have responded, along with the emails we send in, other polling, etc. I sure didn't hear anything last time about not doing better because of a lack of survey response, did you?

 

No. Not for only that reason. We need to give management reasons to restore our compensation rather than give them reasons why they don't need to.


No "clear cut answers." It hasn't been tried in our particular situation. The others who have tried restoration have done so in a very different environment from the one in which we find ourselves today. Like it or not, we have been and are in a leadership position within our profession. And the leadership we've provided to date clearly indicates an acceptance of a significantly reduced value for our profession. We've set a low bar.

Going forward, it's going to take something substantially different from the kind of counterproductive crap we've been getting from Moak and company for the past 10 years and especially lately. I don't pretend to have all the answers but it starts with a different strategy than proactive appeasement. Actually, strike that, it STARTS with setting an appropriate objective. Then the strategy can be developed. We haven't even successfully accomplished step #1 yet.

And don't forget... I'm all for having a good, mutually respectful relationship with management. That's the way things are supposed to work in a healthy company. I think maybe where you and I disagree is on the description of mutual respect. In my definition, one party isn't taking extreme advantage of the other just because they can.