Details on Delta TA
06-10-2015 | 06:20 PM
#7551
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: 73na
Ok, here is a quick list why this turd should be rejected. Feel free to ad to it:
1. Credit Suisse article showing its actually putting money in the company's pocket every year
2. Loss of Profit Sharing/buying our own raise. What's the company's predicted profit for the next three years? Also tweaking how PS is calculated will lower the amount
3. 3.b.4 will surely be triggered again and we will probably get around a 3% raise (a guess on my part)
4. 75% of LCA trips pulled out affects every FO in that category not just 180
5. More large RJ to DCI
6. JV metric changed to block hours from EASK's and lowered.
7. Only 1% to DC plan and that not until 2017
8. 5 to 10 cents more on per diem, puhleeze
9. Sick leave debacle. Third party verification? Not good if true
10. Vacation and training only adding 15 minutes a day?
11. New hire training freeze now 24 months? Throw the new hire under the bus
These off the top of my head......
Denny
1. Credit Suisse article showing its actually putting money in the company's pocket every year
2. Loss of Profit Sharing/buying our own raise. What's the company's predicted profit for the next three years? Also tweaking how PS is calculated will lower the amount
3. 3.b.4 will surely be triggered again and we will probably get around a 3% raise (a guess on my part)
4. 75% of LCA trips pulled out affects every FO in that category not just 180
5. More large RJ to DCI
6. JV metric changed to block hours from EASK's and lowered.
7. Only 1% to DC plan and that not until 2017
8. 5 to 10 cents more on per diem, puhleeze
9. Sick leave debacle. Third party verification? Not good if true
10. Vacation and training only adding 15 minutes a day?
11. New hire training freeze now 24 months? Throw the new hire under the bus
These off the top of my head......
Denny
In the alternative (referring to that mystical NMB land that time forgot), I believe management needs force them to crack first. I think more pilots are comfortable (relatively speaking when considering this POS) under current conditions. Management, with their fleet plan diversity, staffing issues, outsourcing imperatives, outside investor pressure and looming pilot retirements, just to name a few, have way too many irons in the fire to stand pat - they'll need to make a deal. Just my view from the cheap seats - back to lurk only mode.
06-10-2015 | 06:25 PM
#7553
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
Really? Which part of this article said that:
Credit Suisse noted that the fixed increase of 15% by the amendable date is slightly more than it expected, but the profit sharing offset is more significant at this point. With the 20% profit sharing threshold moving to $6 billion for all employees, the firm expects approximately $500 million of potential savings, compared to $2.5 billion of threshold. The firm believes that this will be large enough saving to offset the fixed increase of 15% for pilots, giving extra cost of approximately $400 million.
So, ALPA puts out a list of approximately 60 improvements, and your counter is 11 "cons" of which 2 aren't even true and 3 are actually improvements
Credit Suisse noted that the fixed increase of 15% by the amendable date is slightly more than it expected, but the profit sharing offset is more significant at this point. With the 20% profit sharing threshold moving to $6 billion for all employees, the firm expects approximately $500 million of potential savings, compared to $2.5 billion of threshold. The firm believes that this will be large enough saving to offset the fixed increase of 15% for pilots, giving extra cost of approximately $400 million.
So, ALPA puts out a list of approximately 60 improvements, and your counter is 11 "cons" of which 2 aren't even true and 3 are actually improvements
Enlighten me. What else is wrong? And what three are improvements. Facts only please.
Denny
06-10-2015 | 06:28 PM
#7554
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
The NC notepad is out, one line that caught my attention:
OR another way to say it as
F/O OE bid process modified so that 25% of OE trips are bid. More details will be covered in a later Notepad
F/O OE bid process modified so that 75% of OE trips are not available to bid. More details will be covered in a later Notepad
06-10-2015 | 06:28 PM
#7555
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,506
Likes: 0
From: 737 ATL
Yes, the existing contract uses EASK's and the new one uses block hours.
Does it convert to block hours though? Or does it just allow 50/50 block hours? Because that's how it was written, which would mean a significant and immediate loss of widebody jobs that we'd never get back.
Even if it "converted" to block hours, that still sets the stage for a significant permanent majority of AF/KLM EASK's from now on. If it guts our current block hour premium and allows an immediate 50/50 split (really a 49/51 split…) then we're really getting hosed. Who would EVER agree to this and why?
Does it convert to block hours though? Or does it just allow 50/50 block hours? Because that's how it was written, which would mean a significant and immediate loss of widebody jobs that we'd never get back.
Even if it "converted" to block hours, that still sets the stage for a significant permanent majority of AF/KLM EASK's from now on. If it guts our current block hour premium and allows an immediate 50/50 split (really a 49/51 split…) then we're really getting hosed. Who would EVER agree to this and why?
Not sure I understand what you're asking?
EASKs go away. We will now use aircraft block hours.
Gauge will no longer be a factor.
Like the groundskeeper pointed out - a Delta Cessna will equal an AF/KLM A-380.
The "conversion" was only for purposes of clarity in the debate and they used our current fleets. A moment in time snapshot.
We are supposed to be flying 53% of the block hours. We now fly 51.
The new agreement takes it down to 49.
In the future they could pull all the 7ERs off the Atlantic and start flying Cessnas.
My question would be ===> what's the payrate on that Cessna?
06-10-2015 | 06:31 PM
#7556
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Really? Which part of this article said that:
Credit Suisse noted that the fixed increase of 15% by the amendable date is slightly more than it expected, but the profit sharing offset is more significant at this point. With the 20% profit sharing threshold moving to $6 billion for all employees, the firm expects approximately $500 million of potential savings, compared to $2.5 billion of threshold. The firm believes that this will be large enough saving to offset the fixed increase of 15% for pilots, giving extra cost of approximately $400 million.
So, ALPA puts out a list of approximately 60 improvements, and your counter is 11 "cons" of which 2 aren't even true and 3 are actually improvements
Credit Suisse noted that the fixed increase of 15% by the amendable date is slightly more than it expected, but the profit sharing offset is more significant at this point. With the 20% profit sharing threshold moving to $6 billion for all employees, the firm expects approximately $500 million of potential savings, compared to $2.5 billion of threshold. The firm believes that this will be large enough saving to offset the fixed increase of 15% for pilots, giving extra cost of approximately $400 million.
So, ALPA puts out a list of approximately 60 improvements, and your counter is 11 "cons" of which 2 aren't even true and 3 are actually improvements
06-10-2015 | 06:35 PM
#7558
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Really? Which part of this article said that:
Credit Suisse noted that the fixed increase of 15% by the amendable date is slightly more than it expected, but the profit sharing offset is more significant at this point. With the 20% profit sharing threshold moving to $6 billion for all employees, the firm expects approximately $500 million of potential savings, compared to $2.5 billion of threshold. The firm believes that this will be large enough saving to offset the fixed increase of 15% for pilots, giving extra cost of approximately $400 million.
So, ALPA puts out a list of approximately 60 improvements, and your counter is 11 "cons" of which 2 aren't even true and 3 are actually improvements
Credit Suisse noted that the fixed increase of 15% by the amendable date is slightly more than it expected, but the profit sharing offset is more significant at this point. With the 20% profit sharing threshold moving to $6 billion for all employees, the firm expects approximately $500 million of potential savings, compared to $2.5 billion of threshold. The firm believes that this will be large enough saving to offset the fixed increase of 15% for pilots, giving extra cost of approximately $400 million.
So, ALPA puts out a list of approximately 60 improvements, and your counter is 11 "cons" of which 2 aren't even true and 3 are actually improvements
06-10-2015 | 06:41 PM
#7559
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
Okay, I'll give him that 7, 8, and 10 are "positive." My contention it's that two of these "positives" are so small as to be irrelevant and the third needs another percent added to it.
Denny
Denny
06-10-2015 | 06:44 PM
#7560
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,603
Likes: 0
12. Ab Initio. Very little detail so far but this, along with more large RJ's, breaths new life into outsourcing at the "regional" level.
It helps management produce more pilots in a short period of time and has been shown to produce pilots that are not safe. They lack experience that traditional vetting provides. It's bad for the profession in multiple ways.
Delta and other regional are throwing $80K additional money over 3 or 4 year to regional guys willing to stick around just so they can keep the RJ experiment/ whipsaw alive. I imagine they will lobby (with ALPA's help) to reduce required flight time and pay pilot candidates to go through pilot puppy academies to fill seats under contract. Why ALPA would join in this affair is anybodies guess. Oh yeah, Richard asked. Kill it now before it grows.
One of the side effects of pilots trained this way...
"The pilot found visual approaches difficult."
It helps management produce more pilots in a short period of time and has been shown to produce pilots that are not safe. They lack experience that traditional vetting provides. It's bad for the profession in multiple ways.
Delta and other regional are throwing $80K additional money over 3 or 4 year to regional guys willing to stick around just so they can keep the RJ experiment/ whipsaw alive. I imagine they will lobby (with ALPA's help) to reduce required flight time and pay pilot candidates to go through pilot puppy academies to fill seats under contract. Why ALPA would join in this affair is anybodies guess. Oh yeah, Richard asked. Kill it now before it grows.
One of the side effects of pilots trained this way...
"The pilot found visual approaches difficult."
The 1500hrs is killing the regionals. Why would delta want more rjs at contractors if they didn't have a plan to staff them. For the love of god make the nightmare end.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
