Why is it that we claim to want more time off yet fall all over ourselves to work more? (GS, vaca sell back, etc). I don't get it. I agree with Denny. Bad idea.

All you narrow body guys better think long and hard about who has the most vacation to sell back: Hint: The wide body guys! I was a junior MD11 F/O back when we last had vacation pre-sell and was admonished by a senior F/O for actually dropping a trip with my week of vacation! He said, "That was one expensive drop! You should have sold that week back, and called in sick for the trip!"

If management thinks sick leave is too high now, just wait!

Oh... but maybe that's exactly why they want to crack down on sick leave 'abuse' too.

They are playing chess, we are playing checkers.

Think of all the lost 777/747/A330/767-400 jobs if those guys start selling back half of their vacation.

Seriously?
 

I dont recall after multiple surveys being asked about vacation sellback. Or sick leave sellback. I do recall saying we need time and a half over 80 though. Who's idea is this?

--this question brought to you on behalf of the unjustly banhammered oracle of 1.5/80.

Who? Well ask yourself who on the NC has been immersed in the dalpa culture for the last 20 years? Selling value is in the solution set when it comes to staffing relief.

Listen.... management either wants or needs productivity relief. I'm going to attribute it primarily to NEED.... and to the staffing challenges going forward.

Okay. But be smart about it. Get sunset provisions on any relief. And get full value for our craft in the relief.

You want to BUY my vacation to keep the operation running like a Swiss watch? And preserve your 200% annual bonuses?

Well....Its not going to come cheap, and I'm not going to make a habit of it.....

I'm trying to understand what role the pilots have had in creating a staffing shortage. I'm pretty sure it's NONE?!? The group has certainly carried more than their share of the load for very little pay-back. Best I can tell, this all stems from our management not hiring soon enough, knowing full well what lay ahead and only for short-term profits. Those that were here before that delay in hiring paid the price with reduced seniority for a full year or two. Those who weren't here but are now paid the price with a year or two less longevity at their (likely) final airline job. Many who wanted to drop trips and couldn't because of staffing shortages...or who were inconvenienced with reroutes...or were extended into days off..or who couldn't upgrade...have all paid the price. What price did management pay? NONE - they exploited us.

Now, we seem to be contemplating paying the price for their delay again in the next contract.

No thanks. NO CONCESSIONS!

This! This this this and this!

Well said. I'm not naïve to think we won't give the co. a few things but it clearly has to be a big win for us. We all must realize that the cards (RLA etc) are stacked against us in negotiations. also, the company must be able to "spin" this and show some gains. I've always thought we should agree to "soft" money like, training and vacation pay, per diem, DC money etc. so the payrate doesn't seem too big. All that stuff is still real money to us. Oh and a 6th week of vacation like we used to have would be nice too!

Firstly, UAL pays 50 an hour more for my seat. Then let's get serious about restoration.

I'm still waiting for the MEC to produce a document showing exactly how many concessions we -already- gave in LOA's 46/51 that are still in effect today, and how much MONEY we have contributed to Delta's bottom line since taking our first pay cut, and how much money the company has saved by not having to fund our DB pensions.

The pay rate part is the easiest to figure. We are still down 18% from our 2004 pay rates, WITHOUT inflation!

And if you were not here for that a$$ rape in 2004/5, you have no idea how many concessions we are still living with, like the lost vacation weeks, pay cuts, increased medical premiums and deductibles, and JV Scope losses, as the company is raking in unimagined Billions!

Much of those $Billions came right out of our DB plan, our ongoing pay cuts, and our 20% less staffing due to PBS bidding/no cap flying.

We need a document that lays it all out for every pilot to see exactly what we have ALREADY given! Now that the crisis is over, there is NO REASON for giving the company MORE concessions!

NONE!

They have not even restored us to our previous pay/benefit levels, 12 years later! They already HAVE all the concessions they need, still in place!

We paid it forward, 12 years ago! Now it's payback time, BEFORE they blow $Billions of OUR MONEY on more stock buybacks!

Vacation sell back is a nonstarter.

But I love GS, but I go min credit and/or drop down to ALVish and then sharp shoot a GS and end up working less and making more or make more for the same amount of time at work.

Not for anything?

Not bad for an Auburn guy. You figure that out all by yourself?:p

Ok, I'll bite.:rolleyes: Give me my pension back and I'll vote for vacation sell back........

Denny

I don't like the idea of vacation pay/no credit. That's a new precedent. What good is vacation if you still have to work the same? Anyhow it seems only progress being made is us conceding.

Maybe for 5:15/day for vaca and CQ. Maybe ...

I have yet to hear justification for a vacation day being worth less than a day at work. It makes it really hard to call it a "paid vacation."

Just vote no. Again.

Its going to take a job action to get this fixed. Time to be getting ready.

Maybe Sections 7. E. Adjustments and Postponements and 7.F. Cancellation of Vacation were used, but I'm not sure.

So they give me a week off, which I generally get most months by grouping trips, then make me fly ALV??? What good is that? Good for more sick leave use is what it's good for.

That is a great observation.

My point in asking that was that I have seen a lot of guys saying things like "we needd to be protected from ourselves". I disagree. If we do get vacation sell back and a lot of guys use it then is it not something that a majority of giuys want? To blanketly say 'no' to this is a minority imposing their will.

I personally don't like it, because it stagnates the international widebody movement but hey, whatever the group wants.

Yeah, let's jump right into a job action over vacation.:rolleyes:

If all you can perceive as wrong with the status quo is an argument over vacation, then your sarcasm I suppose is appropriate.

My guess is a lot of us see a lot more wrong with the relationship with management..... and understand fully the point I was attempting to make.

I commented on exactly what you said. And good lord, we have nothing in front of us to vote on and you are already advocating a no vote.

If the starting point to concede from is the published mec re-opener, money it may only take something one dimensional like devaluing vacation to tip the scales to 'no' for a lot of this group.

Anyone believing management is entertaining a uniformly net improvement PWA......absent the threat/implementation of self help..... is only kidding themselves.

If you didn't get it, this was a sarcastic comment of mine. There is no way the company would do it. You do realize that vacation sell back would most likely be voluntarily...

As I've stated before, I think it's a bad idea, but if I could get my pension back in trade for it, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I suspect a lot of our peers would too. I think, in this case, the benefit would far outweigh the concession.

Denny

Where is your data that says the majority want to do this? I would say don't confuse pilots who would take advantage of vacation sell back as pilots that support it.

Dennyc

I have no datas. This is the forum. And it probably would have been better had I said it like this: If it gets passed, and no one uses it, then no harm no foul. If it gets passed and some benefit then how is that bad? (We have a relatively few FOs that are making a lot more than captains. That benefits ME in no way whatsoever so using this same logic we should get rid of the ability to triple dip.) Again, I don't support it necessarily but what I see is some that are against it that automatically make it a no vote adn I think that is just as bad. I guess it just depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Edit: And once again this can be tied to the pay methodology. Fix that and this is a non issue.

Well here is something to think about. If the company is saying that vacation sell back is meeting the Pilots needs then how about this:

If Pilot A sells back 2 weeks in July those 2 weeks get rebid and another Pilot can now get a July vacation. If the 2 weeks just get wiped off the books completely then its not really helping the Pilots but helping the company with manning.

Like Bob said previously, if all the senior guys sell their summer vacations and they are not re-bid then this should not count as a plus for the Pilots but a productivity concession.

If the company/DALPA want to sell this as beneficial to the Pilot group then let the guys who could not hold summer vacations roll their February/October vacations into any summer months that are sold.


As with anything else the Devil is in the details. Although I am against vacation sellbacks it can be wisely crafted to benefit the Pilot group or it can go the way these things usually go. :rolleyes:

Scoop

While some are economically benefitting from OE trip drops.... its not a valid comparison at all to vacation.

Now.....tell the pilot group management is going to reach into the pool of available vacation weeks prior to any bid/award process....and 'set aside' 25% of them exclusively for use at managements discretion?

Now you are apples to apples. And I'm guessing the reaction would be equally vehement in opposition.

P.S. you know, there is absolutely nothing standing in way of management stuffing 3K pounds of sand in the forward bin, along with a full tank of gas and NO PAX.....and sending LCAs out with new pilots to bounce and fly around the system to get the required OE.

Nothing at all

That is an interesting idea.

Some would also economically benefit from vacation sell back. Apples to apples and all that.

P.S. There is nothing at all requiring FOs to be released from OEs either.

Again....Its managements decision. As adept in financial matters as they seem to be......im going with 'MOST COST EFFECTIVE' for $1000, Alex.....

No doubt. But none of this is an autiomatic 'no'

Absolutely nothing except PRASM. :cool:

You could take a herd of F/O's on a trip and it wouldn't affect Pasenger Revenue Available Seat Miles (PRASM) it would however negatively impact CASM. 😎

Ok so all of this is speculation so far. Great.

Any predictions for how soon an AIP?

Ok, total revenue then. 1 less seat to sell.

True, in my days as an F/O you had to go on the OE and if no seats were available you had to ride the Jump seat but that was back in the day when men were men and the sheep were running scared.

The sheepskin seat covers took a little of the bite out of it. I rode around on the j-seat an entire month on DC-10 training. There are just so many times you can ride up and down the elevator before the babes wack you with a coffee pot.

In those days, DFW guys sat backwards in the sheepskin seats.

The OE release is a staffing concession we allowed the company to have. By releasing the FO, we are providing additional pilots for WS and GS flying. Releasing the FO on OE trips is a job killer. If the original FO was on the original trip, they would have to hire more to cover the schedule. The FOs who sit at home vs WS or GS are saving the company money by reducing lodging, per diem and fuel burn with a lighter airplane. Make not mistake about it, the company benefits from releasing the FO on OE trips.