forgot to bid

Okay, from memory I once heard that the debate between DALPA and NWALPA about 1.5x vs GS systems didn't in the end make a huge difference in total compensation for the pilots. It was about the same. The difference was where the money went, it was presumed 1.5x favored senior pilots, GS pay favored everyone.

As many of us know, GS doesn't necessarily favor everyone and there a lot of junior pilots flying a lot of hours per month who would love 1.5x but at the same time GS are fun when they're around.

But more importantly, I'm not sure any of that calculation accounted for the WS Mafia- which requires high seniority to pull off.

I think that's why just maybe we take another look at something that accounts for all of the above.

So would 1.5x/2x pay system with a cap plus a GS system add more money and respect seniority but temper the WS Mafia thus requiring more staffing? I.e. help us become more overpaid, under worked and oversexed?

75-80 hours 1.5x pay on credit hours
80+ 2x pay on credit hours
ALV block cap
GS pay 2x pay and excluded from a cap

Sink r8

You really want to get into the business of "smoothing out seasonal demands"? Under the guise of making sure we don't furlough? Those are pro-company concessions.

Doesn't sound like an argument you'd normally make. You're normally looking to place things in the concession side of the ledger, when discussing contracts other people advocate for. In fact, you've got such a finally tuned concession radar, it sometimes picks up things that aren't even there.

Did you turn it off for this?

Vacation sellbacks are a concession. In my estimation, a huge concession. If you want to argue in their favor, fine. Just don't kid yourself, and don't kid other posters, into thinking they're not concessionary.

As for the rest of the letter, I said it before: it's a great idea to look for all cumulative ways to reach higher W-2's, and I agree with 75% of what's written. It's the glaring 25% concessions/money garb I disagree with.

Sink r8

No, the wealth wouldn't be more evenly distributed, not by a long shot. The wealth would be concentrated in the hands of those who WS, which are done out of seniority. GS are distributed by seniority AND designed to ensure everyone gets a shot before the first guys get a second helping. WS are a free-for-all. You might say the system would retain GS, but in reality, it would be very, very rare events that generate GS.

As for the rest of the letter... asked and answered.

Purple Drank

I'm a huge fan of this idea.
We need a cap to protect us from ourselves.

Sink r8

If we could go back to a cap, a sensible cap, then I would be more agreeable to this sort of discussion.

My argument is that when you're making conscious decisions to distribute money, it can't end up in two wallets at the same time. If you steer a given amount of capital to outsized (premium) people who WS a lot you're not giving it to people who fly lower schedules. You're giving those people less of an increase. There is no way around it. The people who ask for 1.5>80 are asking for permission to reduce the overall payrate increase available (not the total dollar amount to the group), and steer outsized gains to people who fly a lot. Logic dictates this MUST come at the expense of people who fly regular schedules, and those who drop flying.

Instead, I suggest that all Delta pilots equally deserve more compensation. Ergo, we all should get appropriate payrates. In addition to this, we need a better contract, and the letter correctly points to several areas where we would all benefit (minus vacation sell-backs, and 1.5>80). Furthermore, there are loopholes to be closed, especially Scope, especially on the large-gauge end, and staffing issues to addressed, including the possibility of a cap. These are all pro-Delta pilots initiatives.

The letter doesn't need to be burned, it needs a few interventions with a black marker.

Alan Shore

Not true. While a pilot is limited by his WS pickup and block hour limits, WSs are awarded in seniority order to those pilots legal and available for the trip.

Sink r8

Completely agree. And as evidenced by some of the licking of the lips over vacation sell-back (as an example), protecting ourselves from ourselves might be the biggest challenge in this next contract.

I used to think that people who spoke ONLY about payrates were short-sighted, but at least payrates distribute money to all, in proportion to their seniority and bidding behavior. With everything else, you're making calls on who gets favored, and who gets punished. You have to tread carefully, and help all pilots, not the animals that are more special than others.

Sink r8

Good point, but the only consideration in getting multiple WS (in seniority order) is being legal and available. You can't do 2 GS unless everyone that wanted a first, and is legal and available, has had their first.

In addition, using the loophole of the SB/SWF, junior guys have been able to work with their friends to maximize their schedule. You can't ride someone else's seniority for a GS.

Furthermore, SWP is broken, because of SB/SWF, and because we process WS before SWP. A senior guy can't easily improve his schedule without resorting to the gamble of dropping a trip, to WS back his own trip or better. Unless he's unlucky, and people even more senior pick up his rotation AND his target rotation, which they may or may not give to a friend.

In theory, you're absolutely correct about WS being in seniority order, but in reality, the flying that's moving around as a result of the WS process is not necessarily respecting seniority. Let's face it: there are guys getting around seniority by bidding socially with their buddies, and are steering more of the flying their way. Now they want special rewards for it.

Hillbilly

Big time. I am not in favor of that at all. It provides an avenue for individual greed to impact staffing negatively.

NERD

When were we allowed to sell our vacations?