That Survey Was Bad: DALPA Needs our Help.
 

After being ignored on the last one, I said I would never fill out another survey. But, after all the pleas for maximum participation, I decided to complete this new one. After going through it, all I can say is, "Really?"


Is it just me, or did the survey seem to only ask a these few questions in different ways:


1.) Do you know your current contract?

2.) Do you know what was in the failed TA?

3.) You know management wants things, so how much are you willing to give up to make them happy? (Sick leave, profit sharing, productivity (FO/LCA flying), Scope (76 seat flying and JV provisions.)

4.) How much shall we pay you to give these things in #3 up?

5.) How do you think we are doing?


After going through the thing, I feel like Don Corleone in the opening scene of the Godfather after the undertaker asked, "How much shall I pay you?"

DALPA. DALPA. What have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully?

This isn't about pay.

While I appreciate the confirmation that the company wants concessions in sick leave, profit sharing, scope, and productivity, I don't appreciate the format of the survey which seems to suggest that only way to find common ground in negotiations is to somehow increase pay just enough so that concessions in those areas become acceptable.

Just like the first one, any TA based on that premise will fail.

What happened to thinking outside of the box? Sure, the company has "goals." I don't mind finding ways to help them achieve their "goals." But, my feeling is that sick leave and medical release thresholds, FO/LCA flying, and scope will not be bought for any price and I suspect the rest of the pilot group feels the same.


When the company asks for these things, there is an underlying reason. They want us to work more. They want us to be more productive. They want to be able to staff the airline better.


Surely, we can help them with this, without having to accept any of the above items. All we have to do is be creative. Unfortunately, the survey doesn't allow a lot of space for creativity. (1500 words here and there is not enough, especially when the question isn't even asked.)

Because the survey is so poorly designed, I believe we must submit our own ideas to the union. Email is fine, but maybe forums like this will work, too. After the last TA, we know what we say here is being watched.


I'm not one for negotiating in public, but anything would be better than having them present us with a new TA based on that survey.


I've got a few ideas that I will email to my reps. But, I would like to bounce them around here first. If any of you have any, I think it would be good idea if you do the same.

Well said!

I like the idea of SnapBack productivity for extra pay. They need productivity short term and we can help but it's for additional pay and we SnapBack to the original set up after.

Working us more and expecting sick leave to go down. Good luck with that.

I don't think they really care about sick leave, per se. Just as long as we fly more, as a group, they will be fine.


The key is to make sure we:

1.) have the option to fly more, &
2.) are properly compensated for flying more.

I like that idea. That was its not set in stone for the next round of negotiations.

I also think tying productivity increases to their continued hiring at a certain pace (100 per month, for example) would be a good idea, too.

What was missing in that survey as well was the things we were asked if we wanted in the last survey.

Things like reserves being able to yellow slip trips outside their day availability group, or holiday pay, new hire lodging, etc.


There were a few more that I can't remember, that don't seem to be on the table anymore. Just increased pay to try to make us swallow those concessions.

What were the other ones?

Holiday pay is a big one.

If they had HP, certain pilots would be happy to work and they wouldn't have to stack and pay as many green slips.

Unfortunately they are happy to step over a dime to pick up a nickel on that issue.

Holiday pay would be great but if you pay premium for the 9 or so holidays the non cons get, then everyone working holidays gets that. Not sure how many green slips are issued on the holidays but there are not enough to motivate them to pay that to everyone on the holidays. But I do like the idea.

When you bottom line it, they want more hours worked per individual. More hours is contrary my objectives regardless of the pay.

Having worked for a regional, LCC, and a major. The career goal for me was a good living with maximum days off. Previous generations of my family have worked a 65 hour month and had a standard of living about equal to mine (with an 85 hour month.)

I am all for making more but it needs to be optional. This job is more like the regional and LCC that I worked for than the major my relatives worked for. We need to start moving the needle in the right direction. Don't bring this job down to the regional schedule with better pay. After 20 years in the industry I paid my dues and worked my way up, I hope not to just pull the career down.

I may be the out a limb extremist but no quality of life concessions is my bottom line. Sorry, but that would be true even if we were not setting and breaking record profits every quarter.

New hire pilots at FDX...that's right new hire pilots...have a DB and DC retirement plan. The DB plan will pay them $130,000 per year at retirement. The DC plan is generous and will likely be worth a couple million at retirement.

We spend too much time focusing on nits. We are so far behind FDX in so many ways, it's not even the same profession.

Carl

^^^^^^THIS

There's an expression about missing the forest, something about trees.....,,

I've often wondered why we've become so shell shocked to the point where we won't even explore the possibility of getting something that was so integral to the profession when most of us started. $130,000 a year in retirement is huge and I bet some guys would retire earlier if that was in place.

Sure, we lost it, or had it frozen. But, it is such a huge benefit and great comfort in retirement, I've always thought it would be worth pursuing again.

Of course, we would want to find some way to guarantee it, which in the past I've been told would be impossible. But, if executives, CEO's, and Board members can do it, why can't we?