TAFACTS.COM (Please, send to your friends.)
06-24-2015 | 07:44 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 1
New......you have hit the nail.
Want to reduce sick leave use?....create an economic incentive.
A word of caution.....as with sooo many other carrots that have been hung out there for pilots to chase.....they never intend to pay the agreed upon economic incentive.
So get the reward as early and fully as possible.
Want to reduce sick leave use?....create an economic incentive.
A word of caution.....as with sooo many other carrots that have been hung out there for pilots to chase.....they never intend to pay the agreed upon economic incentive.
So get the reward as early and fully as possible.
06-24-2015 | 07:46 AM
#62
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
(This is not from TAFACTS.com, but it is important.)
Excerpt from a letter written by a UAL Council Chairman about our TA.....
Excerpt from a letter written by a UAL Council Chairman about our TA.....
....Scope and the Atlantic Joint Venture: DAL ALPA has allowed the company to “carve out” a joint venture from their scope section (a concession by itself) to allow them to “bundle” three partner airlines as one: Air France, KLM and Alitalia. This was done in April 2010. The terms of this agreement required DAL to fly a minimum of 48.5% of EASKs (Equivalent Available Seat Kilometers) as measured against the total ASKs of this JV. Believe it or not, the compliance “look back” period was 3 years, and if out of compliance the company was given another year to come into compliance. As you might imagine, management took full advantage of this deal and was out of compliance for 3years only flying 47% of the ASKs: this is equivalent to 9 daily A330 DTW-AMS round trips: how many jobs is that? Airplanes? Upgrades? QOL schedules?
What’s important to understand about joint ventures is that they are not code share arrangements even though they may include code share partners, rather an agreement to split total revenue from all operations at pre-determined amounts, many times regardless of who does the flying. Remember the Air Lingus/United deal? In that case United did zero flying but was entitled to a certain share of revenue and maybe as much as 50% or more from that operation. Our scope sections are the only protections we have against managements turning us into ticket brokers and DAL ALPA is giving away the house.
This DAL TA proposes additional concessions for this JV: they want to change the measuring stick from EASKs to Block Hours for starters. In other words an Air France A380 holds quite a bit more available seat kilometers than a DAL 767 or 757 but they each account for equal aircraft block hours. If management is receiving their money from this JV regardless of the amount of seats they fly, then of course they’d like to change the measuring stick and have one of the three Joint Venture partners put the seats in the market. Not only has this been championed by the DAL negotiators, but they also allowed management to carve out any flights to and from the UK allowing all flights to/from the UK flown by all partners in this JV to be excluded from the minimum block hour measurement matrix. A carve out from a carve out?
What’s important to understand about joint ventures is that they are not code share arrangements even though they may include code share partners, rather an agreement to split total revenue from all operations at pre-determined amounts, many times regardless of who does the flying. Remember the Air Lingus/United deal? In that case United did zero flying but was entitled to a certain share of revenue and maybe as much as 50% or more from that operation. Our scope sections are the only protections we have against managements turning us into ticket brokers and DAL ALPA is giving away the house.
This DAL TA proposes additional concessions for this JV: they want to change the measuring stick from EASKs to Block Hours for starters. In other words an Air France A380 holds quite a bit more available seat kilometers than a DAL 767 or 757 but they each account for equal aircraft block hours. If management is receiving their money from this JV regardless of the amount of seats they fly, then of course they’d like to change the measuring stick and have one of the three Joint Venture partners put the seats in the market. Not only has this been championed by the DAL negotiators, but they also allowed management to carve out any flights to and from the UK allowing all flights to/from the UK flown by all partners in this JV to be excluded from the minimum block hour measurement matrix. A carve out from a carve out?
06-24-2015 | 07:49 AM
#63
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
New......you have hit the nail.
Want to reduce sick leave use?....create an economic incentive.
A word of caution.....as with sooo many other carrots that have been hung out there for pilots to chase.....they never intend to pay the agreed upon economic incentive.
So get the reward as early and fully as possible.
Want to reduce sick leave use?....create an economic incentive.
A word of caution.....as with sooo many other carrots that have been hung out there for pilots to chase.....they never intend to pay the agreed upon economic incentive.
So get the reward as early and fully as possible.
....now, they just have a lot of money.
06-24-2015 | 08:05 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,457
Likes: 0
From: LAX ERA
For whatever reason, last year I was flying a trip with a LCA, yes, flying and he did bring up this topic that DAL wanted senior FOs to upgrade. I still don't understand why that is important. I also don't really remember the details of the conversation. It was one of those out of the blue type of conversations.
Few months ago I flew 6 straight legs of "dinner and a movie" with LCAs and the "why don't you checkout" came up constantly with all 3 guys. I really had a feeling it was something they were supposed to push vs me being AWESOME!!
06-24-2015 | 08:29 AM
#65
FlySmarterNotHarder
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 596
Likes: 1
From: fifi flyer
We have lots of wide body FOs with over 20 years seniority that would have NO trouble flying the left seat of anything we have or will have. Are you implying they are more of an insurance risk? How do you know that?
Is that even how insurance works? That is, the insurance underwriters evaluate the skill level of pilots in each category and somehow set rates on that? Please educate me.
06-24-2015 | 08:36 AM
#66
FlySmarterNotHarder
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 596
Likes: 1
From: fifi flyer
I never said they couldn't. As a matter of fact, I personally believe that they will show whether or not we accept this TA. My point was, just like the pilot shortage, why not incentivize super senior FO's to take the leap and be a Captain. Instead they are incorporating a disincentive to being a senior FO.
But they don't have to. They can raise the payrate even without this TA. We agree on that.
IMO though, you are not going to get "super senior" FOs to bid the E190 unless the rate is darn close to the B717. With todays rate you are going to get new hires off probation especially if it is based in NYC. It seems the company doesn't want that, but what do I know?
06-24-2015 | 08:47 AM
#67
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
Insurance purposes? I don't know what you are talking about.
We have lots of wide body FOs with over 20 years seniority that would have NO trouble flying the left seat of anything we have or will have. Are you implying they are more of an insurance risk? How do you know that?
Is that even how insurance works? That is, the insurance underwriters evaluate the skill level of pilots in each category and somehow set rates on that? Please educate me.
We have lots of wide body FOs with over 20 years seniority that would have NO trouble flying the left seat of anything we have or will have. Are you implying they are more of an insurance risk? How do you know that?
Is that even how insurance works? That is, the insurance underwriters evaluate the skill level of pilots in each category and somehow set rates on that? Please educate me.
"Insurance purposes" for a new hire going to captain.
I'm not an expert on insurance, either. But, I could see that being an issue.
06-24-2015 | 10:30 AM
#70
On Reserve
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: 7ER F/O
I had a hard time getting past the TAFACTS attempt to capture profit sharing impacts by compounding 8/.26/3/3. The PS impact doesn't work like that. (Math abuse is one of my pet peeves in politics.) There are plenty of real concerns with the TA without making stuff up. A more accurate picture of the compounded pay increases (including profit sharing impact).
2016: 14.5%
2017: 12.5-17.9%
2018: 16.3-21.5%
The low side of actual pay increase if company makes $6B profit or more. High side if company makes $2.5B or less.
PS impact (as a percentage total pay) decreases as pay rates increase.
PS change doesn't impact 2016 total pay because Feb 2016 PS payout based on current PS plan.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
2016: 14.5%
2017: 12.5-17.9%
2018: 16.3-21.5%
The low side of actual pay increase if company makes $6B profit or more. High side if company makes $2.5B or less.
PS impact (as a percentage total pay) decreases as pay rates increase.
PS change doesn't impact 2016 total pay because Feb 2016 PS payout based on current PS plan.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
