Airline Pilot Central Forums - Details on Delta TA

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Details on Delta TA (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/88532-details-delta-ta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by orvil (Post 1905234)

You know, Buzz isn't wrong about everything. The money is attractive. He glosses over the areas where our quality of life and personal information are trashed.

Not that attractive. Three years of cost of living increases and a bunch of concessions? NO thanks.

What is the FB page? I don't log in to FB much because I find most of the stuff there inane drivel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by orvil (Post 1905528)

No ALPA card needed, no ID needed. You can even bring your wife.

I'd rather bring your wife Orvil. Wasn't she the one who ran after a YES voting neighbor in C2012 saying: "You voted for this? You pu$$y...I'm gonna kick your ass!"

Best Delta wife in the entire airline!

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabs (Post 1904369)

I've been lurking and can't keep out of this any longer. The talk is that pay is the only good thing in this TA? IMO, the pay is average at best and also dangerous in the B scale it presents on the E190. DALPA is promoting how the E190 will be 3.5% above JB in 2016 and 9.8% above JB in 2018. How about a comparison of JB and DL rates on the 320? On the 320, we will be 19.8% higher than JB in 2016 and 26.6% higher than JB in 2018! In my book, that adds up to an epic fail on the E190 rates. As it stands now, no one senior to 10,500 will have any interest in the E190. If the E190 rate was 19.8% higher than JB in 2016, the DL rate would be $218. At that rate, it would sit just below the 717 rate and be a real advance in pay over a FO position.

Actually, I was thinking the same thing until my commute home yesterday when I had a chance to start looking at the contract language and the pay tables. The E195 is not going to be an airplane that anybody with 12 years will be flying. Probably. I certainly have no interest in it. So who IS going to be flying it? My guess would be newbies (definitely in the right seat) and those with less than 4 or 5 years in the right seat. Now, how do THOSE rates compare to other seats they might be holding at that time? A 4 year 767-4/330 FO pays $174.28. The 4 year E-195 CA pays $177.35. There's your sweet spot. Take a poll if you want, but first off, I will wager that holding a line as a 4 year FO on the WB is fairly unlikely, and being a senior lineholding CA on the baby jet will be fairly easy. They are nice airplanes, and for those that love technology I would think it would not be unattractive. I could be wrong, but when I think back to when I was a newbie, I would have jumped all over that. You also have to factor in that JB only has 2 aircraft types, and that (I believe) there are guys that have been there a long time that can only hold the E190, or their options on the A320 are not that great. *I could be wrong about that*

This is another example of why you need to look deeper into those pay rates, and another reason why dALPA needs to stop selling payrates with the highest rates on the 777. The rate that everybody needs to llok at is the one which represents the highest rate that the biggest number of DAL pilots will have an opportunity to fly for the longest, and the 777 ain't it by a long shot. Career earnings fellas. That is what it is all about, and yes, TVM has a place in the equation. If you don't believe that, let's get $500/hour on the 777 so that we can rub that in AAL/UAL's noses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1905542)

I called the 330 office to get the numbers. There are 37 total check airman in the category and the training department throughput is 24 pilots a month. Pilots need 4 or 6 legs of IOE to be qualed depending on background. The average leg is 8 hours.

You're not listening sailingfun.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1905516)

The numbers posted here are a wild exaggeration of the required training and trips that would be pulled. It will be not be near 10%. If you get peopled fired up with false data and then they get the real numbers pilots will go that's not so bad and vote for the TA. There is enough bad that sticking to the facts is a far better strategy.
A simple example posted over and over on here is that 10% of the trips will be withheld for OE. The real numbers will be posted in the road shows and it's going to be around 2 to maybe 3%. We only carry about 10% of a category Captains as check airman. In a two man category you would have to pull every single trip they bid from the pot to have 10% of the trips withheld for FO's. In a 3 man category withholding every single LCA trip would only be 5 %. Then you have to figure out how much IOE is actually done by each LCA. Remember they have to do regular line ckecks, route checks, special flights and they are given some trips off to just fly. If LOE's are done on half their trips that's 5% in a 2 man category and 2.5% in a 3 man. Then the company can only withhold 75% of those amounts.
The 330 category as a example can train 24 pilots a month. On average they need about 40 hours of OE. That is higher then domestic at around 25. Call it 1000 hours of OE per month. The company can withhold 750 hours. There are over 40,000 FO block hours per month.
In a domestic category if you had a category of 100 CA and 10 check airman the numbers are easy to estimate. 100 pilots would generate about 6000 block hours. If you withheld 10% or 600 block hours you could train 24 new pilots a month or 288 pilots a year. That's a lot of training for a category with 200 pilots total!

Yes or no question:

Is the amount of OE likely to increase in the coming years when we lose upwards of 800 guys a year OFF THE TOP OF THE LIST?

The company is thinking 5 and 10 years down the road, ALPA is taking a snapshot today. Some of us are gonna be around awhile.... and have to live with the consequences of this TA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by INAV8OR (Post 1905024)

How do we do this with all the guys that voted for this pos.

Sorry, won't be able to spend a lot of time here... going to take some serious time to mount this effort.

Working with a north guy that mounted a successful recall while he was on the north side.

Again, this is about reps not following our direction. Nothing more or less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crj130driver (Post 1905541)

So would it be accurate to say that if I vote no I am gong to "give up" an 8% pay raise and 10 hours of pay with regard to vacation and training until a new contract is signed? This for me doesn't seem like id be giving up much at all to wait for a better deal. The productivity "concessions" alone seem to negate these very small gains. Am I on the right track here or did I miss something?

In the case where the company makes 5.99bn in 2016, then yes...you would see an 8% raise June 1st and then on the amendable date a 6% raise.

The change in the 20% profit sharing trigger to 6bn is 5.74% change in gross pay. Once we hit that trigger we are ahead.

So, all told if you were to take the worst case scenario that the company makes just under 6billion every year of this contract and not over the 8/.26/3/3 comes out to a 15.9% effective pay raise.

If the company makes 4billion it looks like 8/2.5/3/3 giving you and effective 17.4% raise.

If the company makes less than 2bn you have made around 21.5% in gross pay raises.

The conversion of profit sharing into fixed pay raises does in fact make us more money no matter what the company makes in profits. The question that must be asked is it enough for you to offset the concessions in the TA language over this same period of time?

And only you can answer that.

Hope this answers your question.

My experience has been LCAs are generally in the top half of a category. The trips they bid are productive and great commuter trips if they commute. Several do so they can have seniority in a category. If you pull these trips you are pulling the better trips from the bid. The wash-down affect for every FO below the most senior LCA in your category is huge and is exponential for the bottom line holder FO.

I have young kids and finally hold weekends off and can get other days off as needed, birthdays, game days, etc. I had to give up coaching for work when 5 days hit the 88/90 and I plan to not upgrade until I can have some control over my schedule as a captain. I could be a NYC captain now. So could most of the pre2009 hires. There is a reason that captain position goes so junior. QOL. The key for me is QOL. I am voting NO on QOL alone. 8/0/3/3 is not enough for me to waste my time reading another section. (but I have)

This "TA" is not worthy of a MEMRAT vote but now thanks to a rushed MEC and pilots with $$ about rates, rates, rates in their eyes my family will probably suffer. Make my life better not worse that's your job. Less TLV, NO pulled trips, better reserve window constraints would be a start. Not the opposite. But thanks for the 5 cent perdiem bump and doubling ground transportation allowance, which I think I got once so far. This is a cruel joke and even a crueler reality if this passes. Nice job. Now I'll have to volunteer for ALPA so I can stay home and coach again. Now I see the plan, this is nothing but a recruiting tool. The real TA is upcoming right?

Your numbers assume that no agreement will be made by the amendable date if the TA is voted down. It is conceivable that a much "better" deal could be reached by this time next year and then my numbers may be more accurate. Either way I think we can do better and I am willing to take the gamble that we can. If this agreement passes like it is currently written we have effectively given up all of the leverage we hold as a group for less than eye watering "gains". I haven't made my decision yet but certainly lean towards a NO.