|
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1903882)
It's aircraft block hours. It protects us from AF being able to operate 9.5 hrs with 2 man crews vs our 3 man crew requirements.
Carl |
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
(Post 1903892)
How does that protect us? They can still do that.
Carl |
I totally agree!
The problem is, if ALPA stands to lose $8 million in 2015 alone, and the company stands to lose the ability to cut staffing requirements due to the increased productivity from higher TLV, fewer sick calls, junior FOs back on reserve after LCA trips are blocked from bidding (which requires fewer green slips, less open time and greater flexibility in trip coverage) and less movement into widebodies due to the drastic reduction in Transatlantic flights required by the new AF JV transition to block hours vs EASKs, THEN WHY THE HELL would either ALPA or DAL allow this TA to fail??? |
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1904015)
Capacity vs Block Hours:
Measuring capacity (EASK Equivalent Seat Kilometers) to account for flying share hurts us when JV capacity is reduced. For every AF A380 cut, Delta cut nearly three (2.8) 767ERs to keep the percentage even. But wait, not only has the JV cut capacity across the Atlantic, but Delta is flying less than the required share of the reduced flying. In short we got hit with a double whammy. As the European economy rebounds we are looking much better. With added capacity the existing agreement disproportionately favors Delta pilots. For every AF A380 route added, Delta must add nearly three (2.8) 767ER or two A330 routes to maintain the same share. With Delta averaging less than our minimum share, the flying increase to match must be even larger. We stand to gain exponential international flying. By switching to Aircraft Block Hours now we will fail to capture that increase but lock in the disproportionate hit we have taken so far. Cheers George Carl |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1903997)
Take off the blinders and you will.
Denny Quit being mean and just tell me what all the terrible things are. Most of what is posted here is just overblown hype. Last time ALPA said pilots will make more money and have more mainline flying. APC comes up with crazy scenarios about how this all explodes in our faces. Three years later pilots are making more money and we hired 1500+ pilots. Who has the blinders on? |
As I am winding down my career, I really tried to stay out of the forum fray this time around, but...
The changes in Section 14 – “Sick Leave” under this TA seem particularly onerous and punitive to me. If a small percentage of pilots are abusing sick leave, why punish the whole group? Under the current PWA, if I sprain an ankle and I’m out three weeks, missing three 5-day trips, I get a doctor’s note and I still have 100 hours of unverified sick leave available. Under the TA, if I sprain an ankle and I’m out three weeks, I don’t have the option to verify. Those three trips count against my 15 day “Verification Threshold.” If I subsequently have a cold this winter, I’m required to go to the doctor’s office to get a “QHCP” to verify I have a cold – ridiculous! So, it is not just a reduction from 100 hours of unverified sick leave to 15 days/80ish hours under this TA. The removal of voluntary verification is HUGE! Also, be aware that the FAA recently changed the mandatory waiting time between the last dose of potentially sedating or cognitively impairing medications and the performance of flight duties. This was discussed in the “DELTA MEC SAFETY SHORT SHOTS” 15-05 publication as well as the April 2015 ALPA Magazine. The former rule was to wait only “two dosing intervals,” but now you are required to wait “five dosing periods or five half-lives” of the medication, whichever is longer. As an example, for Benadryl or “diphenhydramine” that means 60 hours and for cough meds that contain “dextromethorphan” it means 48 hours. Bottom line is that will mean you are out sick for a longer period of time making it more likely you will meet the “Verification Threshold” requirement under this TA. Once you meet it, you will be going to the doctor for verification of any minor illness, like a cold, just to get paid. Solid NO from me... |
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1904025)
3-Year Look Back:
When Alitalia joined the JV we modified PWA 1.P in 2010 via MOU 14, to account for the extra flying Alitalia was bringing to the European side of the JV. We managed to secure a gain from a 47% share to a 50% share of the JV Capacity, but gave the company a 3-year window to comply with a 1.5% up/down tolerance. Failure to meet the 3-year share minimum average starts a 1-year clock to cure the contractual breach. The first 3-year time frame to measure the 50% was April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2014. Going forward we will measure the 3-years average every April 1st. Looking back on April 1, 2014 the company failed to reach even the lower limit of 48.5% for our share of flying. This started the one-year cure period. The company had 1 year to meet the goal by March 31, 2015. Again measured on a 3-year look-back. On April 1, 2015, Delta failed to meet even the lower limit which was the basis for the grievance that netted $30M. Unfortunately the problem of flying less than the contractual share remains. On March 31, 2016 there will be another 3-year look-back measurement. And because we have flown well under our share for the last 4 years, the company will once again come up short and will be subject to another grievance. We've accumulated a 4-year flying debt. Delta has made one payment. We have three more years of accumulated underages to go. Delta still isn't showing signs it is interested in reversing the trend. By switching to a 1-year look back now, we are resetting the clock, discarding accumulated flying debt, opening a new 2-year window and won't have any recourse until April 1, 2017. Why would we do that? Cheers George Carl |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1903824)
This will be a very damaging TA regardless of how we vote on it. It we pass it we eat massive concessions all around, including unprecidented foreign alter ego airlines and a lower and further reduceable AF/KLM JV. If we vote against it it will take a strong effort to overcome the baseline it created.
So I propose we gift the company 100 million dollars. That's right, and I'm not kidding. If the net value of this TA is supposedly 1.1B over 3 years, and assuming it was properly comprehensively costed out (I don't think it was, but the company and the NC will absolutely stand by that it was) then when we vote it down let's offer 1.0B over 3 years to our current contract and put it in payrates alone. Nothing else. Nothing. Else. The company couldn't possibly have a problem with that, could they? If the true net cost was 1.1B extra and we're offering them a free 100M (to return to the shareholders! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!) then they would be a fiduciary obligation for them to accept that. Assuming this TA was properly costed out all around that is. Which further assumes they would *never* do any of the worst case things that they *could* do IAW this TA, like massive sick harassment on a scale never before seen, foreign alter egos, 75/76's against a new A380 order for our "partners" AF/KLM, etc. If the true cost of the pros and cons cost 1.1B extra, from our point of view and theirs, give them one hundred million dollars, or donate it to the charity of their choice, and put the 1.0B into pay rates alone and stick with current book. What possibe problem could they have with that? |
EXECS GET THEIRS FIRST
Thats right. Executive Compensation will now be calculated before our Profit Sharing; reducing our Profit Sharing. You can't make this stuff up. |
I'm thinking this forum is a dangerous place. I've spent days glued to it, happy how many people (here) plan to vote no. I've talked with most of my Delta buddies, who all think the TA stinks (but not all of whom can vote).
Then, I go fly the line and 100% of the Captains I've flown with (1 of 1) say "The pay is pretty good...we won't get more if we go back, I'm probably a yes" (thence commenced much discussion and he was receptive to the alternative - or appeared to be so). Based on my statistically insignificant friend pool, I think the younger guys are pretty on-board with voting this down. But what about the As??? Especially those who don't "waste their time" here...I'm worried that the resistance isn't more organized. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:21 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands