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 sailingfun (Post 1712380)

No real idea what your talking about. Here is the original post. Pilot block hour cost is the one metric that defines everything in a contract. Pay, work rules, retirement ect. Our block hour costs are well above SW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamer
Don't ruin the attempted sales job with logic like TFP conversions, actual W2 pay, non-guaranteed pay like PS etc. not to mention the basic failure where we are comparing 777 pay to 737 pay. Let's just start 73 to 73 and do w2/TAFB. It will blow your mind how far ahead SWA still is.
Delta's block our cost to staff a 737 is well above SW for 2013 the last year the data is out for. We are almost 20% above them.

The problem is that you're NOT talking about the comparison between W2's... you know, what we get compensated for flying the airplane from point A to point B. You're trying to turn it into a cost comparison between totally different business models that have different strengths and weaknesses. And you're also completely leaving out the revenue part of the equation.

Last time I checked, businesses are in business to generate revenue. They don't look at cost in a vacuum. In fact, I don't know many businesses that would survive if that is all they looked at in evaluating how to compete with their competitors.

Like it or not, sailingfun, there are many moving pieces to this puzzle. In terms of compensation, the bottom line comparison should be how many days worked versus how much money earned. The MIT Form 41 data you keep touting is not an accurate way to do that comparison because it does not take into account all the moving pieces and the differences between our companies.

I think Carl had a very good question. I'm sure you're smarter than this. So why do you keep putting out all the pro-management arguments AGAINST increasing pilot costs? Why does Lee Moak do this? Why does DALPA do this? I think I know the answer... ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1712411)

Then they gotta pay. In addition to all the positives we saw in the last TA, we should further mitigate the negatives, especially block hour length and IROP protections, hotels in domicile for any back to backs and extra circadian protections like no assignment until 10AM (standard book first day) the day after you land for reserves, and the automatic ability to avoid them through PBS for line holders. We should also get the hour of long call we gave up back, plus an hour as a penalty…scratch that...an incentive, because that's the previously agreed upon cost apparently.

CDO is a single issue no vote for me. Period. And I don't have single issue no votes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1712467)

CDO is a single issue no vote for me. Period. And I don't have single issue no votes.

Sounds like you do now! :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1712396)

I gotta side with you on this one. Not once have I heard anything of the sort except from Jerry.

I'll bet we will be seeing SDPs proposed by them again, though.

Yeah probably. It will get an automatic no from me. Those things are unsafe no matter how they are structured. Pure lunacy.

I wish Jerry would quit throwing those grenades. He might be right, but at this point it is all just speculation on his part to spin everybody up for his agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1712468)

Sounds like you do now! :D

Pretty much the only one. If I could outlaw 2 man allnighters I would do that too...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1712469)

The regionals do thousands of CDO's a week without issue, they are not unsafe. Unsafe is a 12+ hour duty day, after spending the night in a crappy hotel, or in the case of the last accident, the crewroom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 1712472)

That's your opinion. I disagree. Not gonna argue it any further, because there is no way in hell you are gonna change my mind. 2.5 hours "sleep" is not enough for me to safely operate an airplane after being up all night. Sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1712477)

I could deal with an SDP, if it were restricted to something like, one hour block max, extendable to 1.15 only (ATL-SAV--okay, ATL-DFW--not okay) and six hours behind a door, not reducible by one minute ever. Those would go uber-senior and would be palatable.

The problem with what the NC laid on our doorstep was that the block times were far too great, and the layovers able to be significantly reduced to the level of absurdity (3 hours????)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 1712496)

Spot on. Atl-sav, dtw-grr.... stuff like that would be just fine.

Anything like what we saw on the 117 thing and the pitchforks and torches will be back out again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 1712496)

So help me understand. Flying fatigued on a short flight is safe, while flying fatigued on a longer flight is unsafe? I thought flying fatigued was unsafe, period.