That Survey Was Bad: DALPA Needs our Help.
11-29-2015, 05:30 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 105
Civil discussion is good. BTW-- I agree with you..IMO, the "wind is blowing" in the direction of an attempt at:
(C15-some of the onerous/unacceptable stuff + a few other items for us) for a new TA
That being said-- since you asked for feedback, here is mine:
>>So, after seeing what went down last summer, I believe the company needs big help with staffing.<<
What you probably saw from your vantage point was a harried summer with a lot of GS in your category. In fact the ER flew over half the GS in the month I checked. What the company saw was a summer with record completion factors, money rolling in and a very "efficient" use of their pilot resources. RA crowed about some of this on the last earnings call, both because he was happy about it and (IMO) for other reasons--the guy plays chess and not checkers as it's said. <source-22D2/3 reports on Crew resources page and ALPA GS reports on the CA section of the DALPA web site> With some reduction in the 57 and hiring/training over the winter, the manning situation next summer may not be as bleak as you perceive.
>>Can anyone see anything wrong with allowing pilots to fly while on vacation (after all white slips go out), in exchange for something good.<<
You'd have to define "good" here, and it would need to be pretty outstanding. Allowing flying over vacation is clearly a staffing CONCESSION. Although a relatively small subset of pilots might be happy to get some extra money over certain months, staffing concessions result in slower advancement for everyone, which cascades downhill, affecting the junior pilots the most. Those guys are the ones who of course have much less vacation to use in this fashion, so they would get most of the pain and little of the gain.
>>It's voluntary. A lot of pilots would take advantage of it. And I believe we could get some good things in exchange for allowing this. Plus, I think we could protect against them taking advantage of it. <<
As an old Captain told me in my first year-- "We have a union and a contract for two reasons. The first is to protect you from the company. The second is to protect us from each other."
>>Win. Win. Win. (I think )<<
While I agree that it would make some pilots happy in the short term, I disagree with the idea overall because it will reduce Delta's need for pilots. This should be an "UP" contract, meaning we get BOTH more money AND more days off.
>>if I attach a clause that stipulates that if pilots are allowed to fly on some vacation days, hiring MUST continue at 150-200 new hires per month, no displacements, and staffing levels must remain the same, or better, for all fleets and seats -- oh yeah, and let's give guys and extra APD, that is not lose it or lose it, for every time they fly on vacation?<<
Several of the "good deals" you mention here are exactly opposite of what is likely to happen if we grant staffing concessions. The company "might" allow you to get some of these things into a TA, but they would either renege later or they'd happily guarantee something that doesn't cost more than they'd be spending anyway (thinking of your hiring/displacement guarantee here).
I will give you credit for throwing out an idea, but I'm not on board with this one. BTW-- tried to use different colors and fonts in my reply to make things clearer, but was unable. Thanks to those who muddled through nonetheless.
CCN
(C15-some of the onerous/unacceptable stuff + a few other items for us) for a new TA
That being said-- since you asked for feedback, here is mine:
>>So, after seeing what went down last summer, I believe the company needs big help with staffing.<<
What you probably saw from your vantage point was a harried summer with a lot of GS in your category. In fact the ER flew over half the GS in the month I checked. What the company saw was a summer with record completion factors, money rolling in and a very "efficient" use of their pilot resources. RA crowed about some of this on the last earnings call, both because he was happy about it and (IMO) for other reasons--the guy plays chess and not checkers as it's said. <source-22D2/3 reports on Crew resources page and ALPA GS reports on the CA section of the DALPA web site> With some reduction in the 57 and hiring/training over the winter, the manning situation next summer may not be as bleak as you perceive.
>>Can anyone see anything wrong with allowing pilots to fly while on vacation (after all white slips go out), in exchange for something good.<<
You'd have to define "good" here, and it would need to be pretty outstanding. Allowing flying over vacation is clearly a staffing CONCESSION. Although a relatively small subset of pilots might be happy to get some extra money over certain months, staffing concessions result in slower advancement for everyone, which cascades downhill, affecting the junior pilots the most. Those guys are the ones who of course have much less vacation to use in this fashion, so they would get most of the pain and little of the gain.
>>It's voluntary. A lot of pilots would take advantage of it. And I believe we could get some good things in exchange for allowing this. Plus, I think we could protect against them taking advantage of it. <<
As an old Captain told me in my first year-- "We have a union and a contract for two reasons. The first is to protect you from the company. The second is to protect us from each other."
>>Win. Win. Win. (I think )<<
While I agree that it would make some pilots happy in the short term, I disagree with the idea overall because it will reduce Delta's need for pilots. This should be an "UP" contract, meaning we get BOTH more money AND more days off.
>>if I attach a clause that stipulates that if pilots are allowed to fly on some vacation days, hiring MUST continue at 150-200 new hires per month, no displacements, and staffing levels must remain the same, or better, for all fleets and seats -- oh yeah, and let's give guys and extra APD, that is not lose it or lose it, for every time they fly on vacation?<<
Several of the "good deals" you mention here are exactly opposite of what is likely to happen if we grant staffing concessions. The company "might" allow you to get some of these things into a TA, but they would either renege later or they'd happily guarantee something that doesn't cost more than they'd be spending anyway (thinking of your hiring/displacement guarantee here).
I will give you credit for throwing out an idea, but I'm not on board with this one. BTW-- tried to use different colors and fonts in my reply to make things clearer, but was unable. Thanks to those who muddled through nonetheless.
CCN
11-29-2015, 06:55 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Right Seat 744
Posts: 946
Originally Posted by newKnow
Because, I think it's possible we can get more (a lot) in exchange for doing it on a temporary basis.
Just wondering...........
11-29-2015, 06:59 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by BobZ
Vacation time is for vacation.
idk what metric you want to use to 'monetize' time off.... the end result will be the same.
We will end up with less of both. We have seen this movie before.
idk what metric you want to use to 'monetize' time off.... the end result will be the same.
We will end up with less of both. We have seen this movie before.
11-29-2015, 09:31 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Fellas,
I think what is being lost is that after completing the survey, I am worried. It was set up to ask us how much money we would need to accept the concessions in the previous TA. For me, for the sick leave language, for the FO/LCA flying, and for the large RJ/JV flying, there isn't enough.
With each of those, the company has complete control and we have none.
IF the company wants more productivity, then it's going to have to be optional and well paid, with stipulations that it be contingent on continued advancement and seniority progression.
I am more than fine with the contract we have right now as opposed to any TA with concessions. What I'm not fine with is the union coming back with some watered down version of the first TA, where the company gets everything they want, and we get a small pay raise in return.
I think what is being lost is that after completing the survey, I am worried. It was set up to ask us how much money we would need to accept the concessions in the previous TA. For me, for the sick leave language, for the FO/LCA flying, and for the large RJ/JV flying, there isn't enough.
With each of those, the company has complete control and we have none.
IF the company wants more productivity, then it's going to have to be optional and well paid, with stipulations that it be contingent on continued advancement and seniority progression.
I am more than fine with the contract we have right now as opposed to any TA with concessions. What I'm not fine with is the union coming back with some watered down version of the first TA, where the company gets everything they want, and we get a small pay raise in return.
11-29-2015, 10:26 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Originally Posted by ClimbClimbNow
Civil discussion is good. BTW-- I agree with you..IMO, the "wind is blowing" in the direction of an attempt at:
(C15-some of the onerous/unacceptable stuff + a few other items for us) for a new TA
That being said-- since you asked for feedback, here is mine:
What you probably saw from your vantage point was a harried summer with a lot of GS in your category. In fact the ER flew over half the GS in the month I checked. What the company saw was a summer with record completion factors, money rolling in and a very "efficient" use of their pilot resources. RA crowed about some of this on the last earnings call, both because he was happy about it and (IMO) for other reasons--the guy plays chess and not checkers as it's said. <source-22D2/3 reports on Crew resources page and ALPA GS reports on the CA section of the DALPA web site> With some reduction in the 57 and hiring/training over the winter, the manning situation next summer may not be as bleak as you perceive.
>>if I attach a clause that stipulates that if pilots are allowed to fly on some vacation days, hiring MUST continue at 150-200 new hires per month, no displacements, and staffing levels must remain the same, or better, for all fleets and seats -- oh yeah, and let's give guys and extra APD, that is not lose it or lose it, for every time they fly on vacation?<<
Several of the "good deals" you mention here are exactly opposite of what is likely to happen if we grant staffing concessions. The company "might" allow you to get some of these things into a TA, but they would either renege later or they'd happily guarantee something that doesn't cost more than they'd be spending anyway (thinking of your hiring/displacement guarantee here).
CCN
(C15-some of the onerous/unacceptable stuff + a few other items for us) for a new TA
That being said-- since you asked for feedback, here is mine:
What you probably saw from your vantage point was a harried summer with a lot of GS in your category. In fact the ER flew over half the GS in the month I checked. What the company saw was a summer with record completion factors, money rolling in and a very "efficient" use of their pilot resources. RA crowed about some of this on the last earnings call, both because he was happy about it and (IMO) for other reasons--the guy plays chess and not checkers as it's said. <source-22D2/3 reports on Crew resources page and ALPA GS reports on the CA section of the DALPA web site> With some reduction in the 57 and hiring/training over the winter, the manning situation next summer may not be as bleak as you perceive.
>>if I attach a clause that stipulates that if pilots are allowed to fly on some vacation days, hiring MUST continue at 150-200 new hires per month, no displacements, and staffing levels must remain the same, or better, for all fleets and seats -- oh yeah, and let's give guys and extra APD, that is not lose it or lose it, for every time they fly on vacation?<<
Several of the "good deals" you mention here are exactly opposite of what is likely to happen if we grant staffing concessions. The company "might" allow you to get some of these things into a TA, but they would either renege later or they'd happily guarantee something that doesn't cost more than they'd be spending anyway (thinking of your hiring/displacement guarantee here).
CCN
As far as the company allowing us to put something in the TA, if they don't, then we shouldn't do it. Firm numbers and percentages, or it's off. The days of pilot contracts with ambiguous language for the company to later take advantage of should be over.
As far as what I saw this summer, I'm at a little over 20 years here, and I've never seen anything like it. I won't go into too much detail, but I doubt that RA was really happy with it. We will see what happens next summer, but the reduction in the flying, and other things they do, might be because they have to, not because they want to.
If you are right about the manning situation not being that bleak though, that's great. Because, if that's the case, they won't need any of the concessions they asked for in the first TA, and that the union seems to be suggesting they want in the survey. If that's the case, they shouldn't even be asking.
I hope that's the case.
11-29-2015, 03:07 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,033
Not sure how the practical application of this idea would work? The senior group gets summer vacations and the first green slips. For the ER that may not matter. For the rest of the fleets the senior guys get their GS and then WS over vacation, getting double pay for time flown in both cases before the junior guys who can't hold summer vacation even get a GS. I'm not a fan of buying or in any way losing vacation value.
I see were you are going though. We need to hold the line with ALPA. The survey is great for participation but lacks in its ability to allow pilots to input their direction. We will have to do it the old fashion way, fill up email and voicemail boxes.
I see were you are going though. We need to hold the line with ALPA. The survey is great for participation but lacks in its ability to allow pilots to input their direction. We will have to do it the old fashion way, fill up email and voicemail boxes.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
