Details on Delta TA
07-25-2014, 09:57 AM
#31
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by gzsg
At 4 you are still talking about 4000 initials in 12 months. Granting concessions to lower this number will cost how many seniority list instructor jobs? How many captain jobs?
I think we have given enough.
We have stagnated long enough.
JMO
I think we have given enough.
We have stagnated long enough.
JMO
07-25-2014, 10:00 AM
#32
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by sailingfun
With our system it would be hard to make it function from a scheduling standpoint. We have correctly protected flying for in base pilots until the day before the trip. Only then can a out of base pilot pick up flying.
What we really need to do is bring all swaps under the pickup limit. That would increase staffing.
What we really need to do is bring all swaps under the pickup limit. That would increase staffing.
07-25-2014, 10:04 AM
#33
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by tsquare
How many SLI instuctors are there anyway? You are picking fly specks out of pepper with that. And since you are the one that is raising this flag as armageddon, I would think you would have some definitive thesis other than just an "IMO". This is your chance. Convince me. I have no idea one way or the other, but so far your argument is hyperbole. And I still believe that with the upcoming movement, "stagnation" is a term that will be relatively unfelt or noticed.
Did you just copy and paste what everyone here's been asking you for wrt LBP?
07-25-2014, 10:30 AM
#34
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by tsquare
Yeah, a huge QOL improvement for the more senior guy... If you are willing to go to a **** base in a **** city like DTW or NYC, and suffer there for a little seniority, it ain't right for a more senior guy to stay at home in ATL, drop his whole schedule and cherry pick your base's trips. If you want to fly the trips in my category in my base, then bid it. Otherwise, stay home and fly your own trips.
Hell no.
Hell no.
Longer freezes and out of base swaps= concessions.
07-25-2014, 10:30 AM
#35
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,722
Seniority list sim instructors do not give IOE, do they? I know they did at NWA, but that was then, this is now. Many of our sim instructors now are retired pilots, so staffing them won't affect the number of pilots required to fly the schedule. The ones who are line pilots, are mostly F/O's and are required to fly one month out of three.
The guys who give IOE are line Captains, i.e. Line Check Airmen. Their staffing may go up with more movement, or down with less movement that pay banding would supposedly bring.
My biggest fear when it comes to pay banding is, we are going to de-couple our pay from productivity. I think we should be pushing in the other direction. I think we should be pushing to un-band the bands we already have.
We should be demanding pay relative to the seats on board. The 747 should pay a lot more than the 777, and the A330 should pay more than the 764. ALPA National should have a minimum rate, per seat, for crew pay. The rest becomes simple math.
Throw that in RA's lap and see what happens.
Every time the company wants something, a lot of clowns run around with their hair on fire trying to figure out how we can give it to them. I say flip it around on them. Tell them, "No, this is what it's going to cost you, per seat, to fly people around. What airplanes you buy is up to you, but just because you bought 9 different fleets, doesn't make it my problem when it comes to training pilots to fly them all."
OR...you can PAY US to NOT go to training. They already have a Training Bypass Pay option, where if they want you to stay put, they simply pay you the higher rate of what you could have bid, to remain on your present equipment.
Pay banding is management's wet dream, that some of you are trying to justify giving it to them scares the crap out of me...
The guys who give IOE are line Captains, i.e. Line Check Airmen. Their staffing may go up with more movement, or down with less movement that pay banding would supposedly bring.
My biggest fear when it comes to pay banding is, we are going to de-couple our pay from productivity. I think we should be pushing in the other direction. I think we should be pushing to un-band the bands we already have.
We should be demanding pay relative to the seats on board. The 747 should pay a lot more than the 777, and the A330 should pay more than the 764. ALPA National should have a minimum rate, per seat, for crew pay. The rest becomes simple math.
Throw that in RA's lap and see what happens.
Every time the company wants something, a lot of clowns run around with their hair on fire trying to figure out how we can give it to them. I say flip it around on them. Tell them, "No, this is what it's going to cost you, per seat, to fly people around. What airplanes you buy is up to you, but just because you bought 9 different fleets, doesn't make it my problem when it comes to training pilots to fly them all."
OR...you can PAY US to NOT go to training. They already have a Training Bypass Pay option, where if they want you to stay put, they simply pay you the higher rate of what you could have bid, to remain on your present equipment.
Pay banding is management's wet dream, that some of you are trying to justify giving it to them scares the crap out of me...
07-25-2014, 10:32 AM
#36
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by 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.
Thanks for listening, please don't beat me up to bad 😜.
-your friendly 9e pilot.
What you have is what your leaders negotiated combined with the RJ outsourcing bubble popping.
07-25-2014, 10:36 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
I'll throw out my wish list for C2015
I'll start with no more scope erosion, period! No scenario where more large RJ's are allowed. Tighter language in regards to JV compliance and specifics in regards to what will happen if the company is out of compliance.
No more productivity increases as seen in C2012.
- No increase in TLV
- No increase in reserve utilization
- No more moving bid periods around to "enhance" our peak time staffing.
- If it requires fewer pilots then it's a concession
If there is any decay with scope and or productivity it's a "No" vote for me. Assuming the above items are met here is what I would like to see:
27% pay raise through the life of a 4 year contract
15% pay raise year one
4% per year for the next 3 years
***No reduction in profit sharing to achieve the above pay raises.***
An additional 1% into the 401K
ADG up to 6 hours
Training days up to 6 hours
An additional 2:00 hours of pay for initial re-routes and 1 hour of additional pay for every additional re-route.
Accumulative sick time to some extent
After reading the DALPA contract history and considering Delta's current profits and guidance moving forward I think that the above is achievable in this environment.
Almost forgot, a giant M&M man dispenser in every crew room with the brown ones removed.
I'll start with no more scope erosion, period! No scenario where more large RJ's are allowed. Tighter language in regards to JV compliance and specifics in regards to what will happen if the company is out of compliance.
No more productivity increases as seen in C2012.
- No increase in TLV
- No increase in reserve utilization
- No more moving bid periods around to "enhance" our peak time staffing.
- If it requires fewer pilots then it's a concession
If there is any decay with scope and or productivity it's a "No" vote for me. Assuming the above items are met here is what I would like to see:
27% pay raise through the life of a 4 year contract
15% pay raise year one
4% per year for the next 3 years
***No reduction in profit sharing to achieve the above pay raises.***
An additional 1% into the 401K
ADG up to 6 hours
Training days up to 6 hours
An additional 2:00 hours of pay for initial re-routes and 1 hour of additional pay for every additional re-route.
Accumulative sick time to some extent
After reading the DALPA contract history and considering Delta's current profits and guidance moving forward I think that the above is achievable in this environment.
Almost forgot, a giant M&M man dispenser in every crew room with the brown ones removed.
07-25-2014, 11:01 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,141
Originally Posted by Free Bird
I'll throw out my wish list for C2015
I'll start with no more scope erosion, period! No scenario where more large RJ's are allowed. Tighter language in regards to JV compliance and specifics in regards to what will happen if the company is out of compliance.
No more productivity increases as seen in C2012.
- No increase in TLV
- No increase in reserve utilization
- No more moving bid periods around to "enhance" our peak time staffing.
- If it requires fewer pilots then it's a concession
If there is any decay with scope and or productivity it's a "No" vote for me. Assuming the above items are met here is what I would like to see:
27% pay raise through the life of a 4 year contract
15% pay raise year one
4% per year for the next 3 years
***No reduction in profit sharing to achieve the above pay raises.***
An additional 1% into the 401K
ADG up to 6 hours
Training days up to 6 hours
An additional 2:00 hours of pay for initial re-routes and 1 hour of additional pay for every additional re-route.
Accumulative sick time to some extent
After reading the DALPA contract history and considering Delta's current profits and guidance moving forward I think that the above is achievable in this environment.
Almost forgot, a giant M&M man dispenser in every crew room with the brown ones removed.
I'll start with no more scope erosion, period! No scenario where more large RJ's are allowed. Tighter language in regards to JV compliance and specifics in regards to what will happen if the company is out of compliance.
No more productivity increases as seen in C2012.
- No increase in TLV
- No increase in reserve utilization
- No more moving bid periods around to "enhance" our peak time staffing.
- If it requires fewer pilots then it's a concession
If there is any decay with scope and or productivity it's a "No" vote for me. Assuming the above items are met here is what I would like to see:
27% pay raise through the life of a 4 year contract
15% pay raise year one
4% per year for the next 3 years
***No reduction in profit sharing to achieve the above pay raises.***
An additional 1% into the 401K
ADG up to 6 hours
Training days up to 6 hours
An additional 2:00 hours of pay for initial re-routes and 1 hour of additional pay for every additional re-route.
Accumulative sick time to some extent
After reading the DALPA contract history and considering Delta's current profits and guidance moving forward I think that the above is achievable in this environment.
Almost forgot, a giant M&M man dispenser in every crew room with the brown ones removed.
All good thoughts. I would like to see the domestic RSV max reduced back to FULL at ALV-2 unless the pilot wants to YS. They wanted/needed some flexibility for longer trips in the WB categories, but it's brutal to see all of the domestic guys getting beat up - 4-5 legs a day into the 90's is WAY too high. Let's put that genie back in the bottle, if only partially.
While we're at it, REG pilots being forced into high 80's, low 90's during PBS awards is also too high. I'd like to see that capped at something lower like 83 (approx 1000 hours/year, not exactly a low ball offer) unless the pilot waives it to go higher...
27% is an interesting number. Just curious, how did you come up with that?
Jerry, it's great to hear you say you support the MEC's goal of a historic C2015. I hope you will spread that amongst the DPA supporters as we will need everyone pulling in the same direction if we are to achieve what you/I/we want. Convincing TC to put a cork in it until at least after C2015 would be a smart move IMO. Unless you think you guys will actually be able to call a vote, what purpose is the DPA campaign serving going into (another) Section 6?
07-25-2014, 11:16 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,836
IMHO, these issues break down to "pay for jobs". 1, 10, 100, 1000. Doesn't matter.
It's that simple. If you are OK with trading pay for jobs, the only thing left to talk about is the price.
FWIW, even the Instructor issue comes down to pay for jobs. At NWA, the instructor cadre was about 400-450 pilots. Not all of them were training at the same time, but whatever fraction you want to use, that number had to be made up with some amount of additional staffing.
Since there is some confusion on this topic, the NWA IP postion worked like this:
1) All events where the motion was on required a SLI. All checking events required an SLI. All seat support for checking events required a seniority list pilot.
2) SLIs were also checkairmen, although your "grew into it", meaning you taught for a while before getting your letter. SLIs also did OE. There were some cases where there were "OE only" instructors, but those were the exception. Line checks were also done by SLI.
Typically you were hired to do OE, did that for a while, got checked out in the sim, did that a while, got your checkairman letter, did that a while, then you could become an APD. Line checks were usually done by "senior SLIs"
3) SLIs were line pilots first. It was not a full time position. You flew the line, in your position, 6-8 months out of the year. You would often do 2 months in the sim, then two months back on the line.
4) SLIs received the max category pay for the month for 16 events, a $600 override, positve space to MSP and hotels.
5) You could only get an IP job for an aircraft you held. If you got displaced or bid off, you lost your IP job.
Nu
It's that simple. If you are OK with trading pay for jobs, the only thing left to talk about is the price.
FWIW, even the Instructor issue comes down to pay for jobs. At NWA, the instructor cadre was about 400-450 pilots. Not all of them were training at the same time, but whatever fraction you want to use, that number had to be made up with some amount of additional staffing.
Since there is some confusion on this topic, the NWA IP postion worked like this:
1) All events where the motion was on required a SLI. All checking events required an SLI. All seat support for checking events required a seniority list pilot.
2) SLIs were also checkairmen, although your "grew into it", meaning you taught for a while before getting your letter. SLIs also did OE. There were some cases where there were "OE only" instructors, but those were the exception. Line checks were also done by SLI.
Typically you were hired to do OE, did that for a while, got checked out in the sim, did that a while, got your checkairman letter, did that a while, then you could become an APD. Line checks were usually done by "senior SLIs"
3) SLIs were line pilots first. It was not a full time position. You flew the line, in your position, 6-8 months out of the year. You would often do 2 months in the sim, then two months back on the line.
4) SLIs received the max category pay for the month for 16 events, a $600 override, positve space to MSP and hotels.
5) You could only get an IP job for an aircraft you held. If you got displaced or bid off, you lost your IP job.
Nu
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
