How are we to Fact Check?
08-01-2015 | 12:25 PM
#81
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 391
Likes: 1
From: Utah Chapter
And to your other points:
-ALV is unchanged I disagree, but please correct me if I'm reading this wrong
-the switch to block hours depending on fleet mix at most will cost us a handful of jobs and may result in a gain. The switch to a 1.81 block hour ratio adds around 720 jobs at 12 crews per domestic airframe. This is dependent on intent vs. contract. Very likely could be true. Very likely could be false.
-the forum states there is zero sick abuse. The changes should therefore have no effect. As stated above, the intimidation factor will pressure non-abusers to fly sick. If company didn't think they could gain efficiencies here, they wouldn't have asked for it.
-the medical plan change effects only 1 plan. (DPMP used by a small percentage of pilots). It would go into effect only if the plan exceeds the Cadillac tax threshold and every dollar saved has to be returned to the pilots. Who would then be taxed on those dollars as regular income, at a rate up to about 39.5% by current law and likely higher given current pressure to tax upper pay scales more heavily, essentially moving the 40% tax burden from the company to the pilots.
-There were job gains in areas not mentioned including training pay and reroute. training credit increased by :45 per pilot per 9 months, so 1hr per year. Using my 9k line holders estimate again, that means that there would be an additional 750 hours per month needing to be covered, or about 10 pilots. I hereby amend my estimate of reduced staffing needs to 490 instead of 500.
-the switch to block hours depending on fleet mix at most will cost us a handful of jobs and may result in a gain. The switch to a 1.81 block hour ratio adds around 720 jobs at 12 crews per domestic airframe. This is dependent on intent vs. contract. Very likely could be true. Very likely could be false.
-the forum states there is zero sick abuse. The changes should therefore have no effect. As stated above, the intimidation factor will pressure non-abusers to fly sick. If company didn't think they could gain efficiencies here, they wouldn't have asked for it.
-the medical plan change effects only 1 plan. (DPMP used by a small percentage of pilots). It would go into effect only if the plan exceeds the Cadillac tax threshold and every dollar saved has to be returned to the pilots. Who would then be taxed on those dollars as regular income, at a rate up to about 39.5% by current law and likely higher given current pressure to tax upper pay scales more heavily, essentially moving the 40% tax burden from the company to the pilots.
-There were job gains in areas not mentioned including training pay and reroute. training credit increased by :45 per pilot per 9 months, so 1hr per year. Using my 9k line holders estimate again, that means that there would be an additional 750 hours per month needing to be covered, or about 10 pilots. I hereby amend my estimate of reduced staffing needs to 490 instead of 500.
08-01-2015 | 05:55 PM
#82
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
We would have had 200 domestic jets on order with TA2015 (140 yet to be delivered A321s/717s/739s + 20 E190s/40739s). If the 1.81 only resulted in an increase of 60 jets, that means 140 jets in the current fleet were going to be parked.
Which 140 jets were going to be parked?
And how do you get 60 jets anyways if the numbers provided on scope give you this with a 1.81 ratio:
Maybe 30 jets, if that. But if that is all we grew from today then that's 170 jets that are parked. Which 170 jets are parked so that contractually DCI is forced down 25 total shells (while gaining 25 mainline DCI jets as EB put it) and we add 20 used E190s and 40 739s?
Last edited by forgot to bid; 08-01-2015 at 06:10 PM.
08-01-2015 | 06:49 PM
#83
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Sailing, my mistake. I missed that you said crews instead of pilots. So I agree, from where we are today 1.81 is 30 more jets.
But if all we go to is 672 domestic jets, that means 170 jets are going to be parked.
Which 170? 88s? Are we parking 88s and replacing them with a mix of E190s, 717s and 737s?
Or are we not going to park that many? If that's the case then the ratio goes above 1.81. But any time we are above 1.81 then our flying is what is in jeopardy. So if you look at the fleet plan and see we will grow beyond 672 jets and thus above 1.81, then why was 1.81 used?
But if all we go to is 672 domestic jets, that means 170 jets are going to be parked.
Which 170? 88s? Are we parking 88s and replacing them with a mix of E190s, 717s and 737s?
Or are we not going to park that many? If that's the case then the ratio goes above 1.81. But any time we are above 1.81 then our flying is what is in jeopardy. So if you look at the fleet plan and see we will grow beyond 672 jets and thus above 1.81, then why was 1.81 used?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
