Details on Delta TA
06-09-2015, 02:05 PM
#6811
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,165
I haven't caught up yet, but about the switch from EASKs to Block hours is huge! I know Virgin wasn't included, but Virgin only needs 2 Pilots for flights up to 9 1/2 hours. That means for a similar flight they already fly 1/3 less than we do. Thier block hours are already lower than hours! If AF or KLM do the same we are going to get SLAUGHTERED with this new language.
There was more about the EASK part they I can't recall.
This part definitely needs a better explanation.
06-09-2015, 02:07 PM
#6812
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
It is aircraft block.
But I'll get you a better brief on it. Everyone deserves much better info on this and other elements of the proposed TA.
06-09-2015, 02:11 PM
#6813
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MD CA
Posts: 705
Just for giggles, reference above example and say 2 years past amendable date, 1 less than SWAPA:
Now that MD88 Capt. has to come up with $76,500 just to get what he had with the original TA. So he needs an additional 10.2% just to break even. Add his hold out for TA +3% and he needs 13.2% to reach his goal above and beyond the 21.5% compounded raise. Yikes!
Now that MD88 Capt. has to come up with $76,500 just to get what he had with the original TA. So he needs an additional 10.2% just to break even. Add his hold out for TA +3% and he needs 13.2% to reach his goal above and beyond the 21.5% compounded raise. Yikes!
Which anyone with a Brain will get once pass the Amendable Date.
06-09-2015, 02:12 PM
#6814
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: Cockpit speaker volume knob set to eleven.
Posts: 1,410
And once again we have SNB aircraft offered up if we give bottom end scope relief for large RJs. Sound familiar?
Why is this even in the TA. If the company wanted/needed E190/195, they would get them. More large RJs....they can barely staff DCI now so of course more large RJs help.
But why not go out and get them on their own? Because they can get us to give up scope to get them.
When the company starts parking A319s, Mad Dogs, and maybe even 717s, at least the guys who finally got here after a decade or more in the regionals can get bumped right back in to the Jungle Jet and do the same kind of flying. I seriously doubt they are
Mainline growth aircraft. They don't belong in this TA.
Why is this even in the TA. If the company wanted/needed E190/195, they would get them. More large RJs....they can barely staff DCI now so of course more large RJs help.
But why not go out and get them on their own? Because they can get us to give up scope to get them.
When the company starts parking A319s, Mad Dogs, and maybe even 717s, at least the guys who finally got here after a decade or more in the regionals can get bumped right back in to the Jungle Jet and do the same kind of flying. I seriously doubt they are
Mainline growth aircraft. They don't belong in this TA.
06-09-2015, 02:20 PM
#6816
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
I guess the is mostly addressed to the P2P guys on here that are trying to explain some complex issues.
First, I appreciate your efforts. I'm not one of they guys who think you're spies or have other agendas and like I said I appreciate your efforts at education.
There are a lot of "old heads" for lack of a better word, who have been on here since the merger contract and SLI discussion. We come and go (I just came off a 6 month break to get my mind right
) and its great to see the old heads perspective.
With that said, since I know your in contact with some of our senior leadership, I need to say the following and please take it back to them.............There are lots of the moderates that don't come on here much anymore that think this contract is a mistake. I point to myself, Denny Crane, shoot even CogF16 who I haven't seen on here in years.
I'll tell ya, we're the swing voters (most of us voted yes last time) you need and trust me........we're underwhelmed!
Food for thought,
Your Uncle Ferd
First, I appreciate your efforts. I'm not one of they guys who think you're spies or have other agendas and like I said I appreciate your efforts at education.
There are a lot of "old heads" for lack of a better word, who have been on here since the merger contract and SLI discussion. We come and go (I just came off a 6 month break to get my mind right
) and its great to see the old heads perspective.With that said, since I know your in contact with some of our senior leadership, I need to say the following and please take it back to them.............There are lots of the moderates that don't come on here much anymore that think this contract is a mistake. I point to myself, Denny Crane, shoot even CogF16 who I haven't seen on here in years.
I'll tell ya, we're the swing voters (most of us voted yes last time) you need and trust me........we're underwhelmed!
Food for thought,
Your Uncle Ferd
06-09-2015, 02:23 PM
#6817
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 463
06-09-2015, 02:26 PM
#6818
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 115
Uh...senior widebody captains in their last five years happy about $300+K a year.
Think they care about stuff at the "lower" end of the contract? They don't.
I'm not happy about the magnitude of the PS change. Hopefully some tough questions will be asked today and tomorrow from the reps.
Think they care about stuff at the "lower" end of the contract? They don't.
I'm not happy about the magnitude of the PS change. Hopefully some tough questions will be asked today and tomorrow from the reps.
I also think every f/o ought to vote no as their trip bidding seniority will take a huge hit.
Maybe restart the negotiation process again 2/15 or so.
06-09-2015, 02:28 PM
#6819
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
