SPLASH FOUR!

https://media.giphy.com/media/d86kftzaeizO8/giphy.gif

BOOM goes the dynamite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How loud would the screeching be if this 'concession' were to stop?

Edit: change of wording

I have ridden around as the 3rd wheel on OE'S.

Undoubtedly LCAs would be on every FO's avoid list...... so the screeching would be coming from the most junior...... and give us the chance to tell all our 'uphill in the snow, both ways' stories....

Getting paid to stay home with zero obligation to the company is a "concession?" Righhhht.

I am sure that the collective pilot group is constantly bombarding their reps with "demands" to get rid of this "onerous concesssion"...all in the interest of unity and a desire to create jobs for young guys right out of college hoping for the dream seniority number at a mainline.

I'm not sure which is worse--that you honestly believe it or you just put it out their for kicks and giggle (I pick option two).

My guess is there would be ALOT of screeching!!






-- From management...

Herk,

I believe his point was allowing Pilots who are released to pick up open time and GS is the staffing concession. We all know staying home with pay is a good deal.

If released Pilots were not allowed to pick up open time it would affect staffing. How would the NYC 717 even operate these days if released Pilots could not pick up time?


If you would say the released Pilots could have a reserve obligation - I would agree with you................................

if we didn't already specifically trade for that a few years ago. I believe it was the one year lock on new hires. So if we get rid of/modify the OE release does the new hire seat lock go away?

Why so quick to assume the company point of view?

Scoop

I'm not "assuming the company point of view"...I'm calling out buffoonish posts.

The "company point of view" would be to go back to the draconian LCA provisions that we agreed to in BK, in which the released pilot not only owed the company recovery obligations, he was at the very top of the list, even ahead of any and all reserves (no matter how overstaffed the category might be)...AND if in an international category could be assigned a trip that returned up to 30 hours after the original trip! In fact it was so punitive that most guys put "avoid trips if LCA" as their first choice.

Then we improved that somewhat (you know, with those E-VILL "Moakist" steps of lots of small improvements when the opportunity arises) when the LCA recovery only came after WS and with quite a few more limitations.

Then we finally achieved our current setup, which is the same as it was back in the good times, where the pilot has zero obligation to the company, but gets paid as if he flew the entire trip. I can assure you that while the company appreciates all those guys GS and WSing, they would much, much prefer how it was post-BK.

I surely would vote against any TA that regressed to that extreme, but let's not for a nanosecond think that our current setup is a "concession." It is only a concession FROM the company TO us.

Yeah.... its quite the clawback victory. Release for FOs from OE down...... billion dollar retirement plan and hourly rates plus inflation to go.

Wait.... seeing the moakists were practitioners of the give up to get something faith, maybe we gave up getting all that back in order to get the FO release back?

Wow. What a great deal. Touchdown.

As with every other management 'concession' in the era of cooperative appeasement, it is fact certain the FO OE release was paid for in full by a sympathetic concession on our part.

I believe you are falling prey to the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.

It would be better from a pilot pay perspective for the pilot group if FO's were either not released for OE trips or could not pick up extra time in the footprint of their original trip. Those FO's sitting on jump seats (or at home) would not be available for WS's to cover trips. A decrease in the number of WS's awarded to pilots would increase the number of GS's awarded to pilots. This would increase average pilot pay.

Pilots having to actually stay on the trip would make it harder for commuters to be in position for both normal and WS rotations. This would also increase the number of GS's, and it would increase average pilot pay.

By decreasing the number of FO's available to fly airplanes, it would force the company to hire more FO's. This would make people relatively more senior which would allow them to bid better schedules.

A change like this would change the pilot bidding dynamic. Most people would prefer not to sit on a jump seat for an entire rotation. The LCA trips would not be as lucrative if people could not WS or GS in the original trip's footprint, so LCA trips would go more junior. Instead of the top 10% of FO's being able to jump on the LCA trips, the greater GS opportunities produced by this change would be more evenly distributed among the FO's. This would create less incentive to camp out at the top of a FO category. This would lead to more FO's bidding higher paying positions which would create a greater training churn leading to even more GS opportunities and increased average pilot pay.

Releasing an FO for an IOE trip is less beneficial to the pilot group than forcing that FO to stay on the airplane during the trip, but in order to see that, one must look at secondary and tertiary consequences.

Touch OE provisions and I'm a no vote.


Just like last time.

Keep OE trip pulls as they are, except to change that the we can no longer pick up, or be assigned trips during the footprint of the originally scheduled trip. It should only impact 2% of the pilot group, right? :rolleyes: Should be a no brainer for the company.

I get the "secondary and tertiary" consequences. I cannot believe that you think it a good thing that we force pilots to sit on a JS all so some kid currently in middle school can have a feather-bedded-created job 3 decades from now.

I can assure you that you are in the vast, statistical outlier minority on this one. I wouldn't waste much time trying to convince anyone either, as it would be a futile effort.

Herk,

We are not that far apart on this. I think it is a very good deal for FOs as I said. I can also see a great benefit to the company.

In my mind it is currently a win/win. Yes, the company would rather have the Good olé days of BK work-rules still in place - but why are you even bringing that up?

By the way what would happen to the 717B in NYC if FOs displaced for OE were riding around the JS? This is not feather-bedding 3 decades from now - it is helping the company overcome their own shortsightedness in delaying hiring to show a first quarter profit a few years back.

Scoop

If the company offers you 1,000,000/hr in exchange for Pulling OE trips before the bid, you would vote no?

I wouldn't.

While I respect the fact that people have their wants for a new deal, this sort of thinking doesn't sit right with me. The point of my example is that there is a point in which a deal can be made, it just may be more than what the company will sell for which keeps things status quo.

I find the idea of voting no for something no matter what to be dangerous and shortsighted and I feel that our guys are smarter than that.

Keep your emotions out of this, see what the deal is, weigh the pros and cons, make your choice.

But, please people don't make rash yes or no votes if they "touch" certain things.

It's not "rash" to vote no if the company does touch certain things. If they want widebody scope relief....I'm a no vote. That's not rash, because that's our future jobs. Sure...if the company gave us all we could ask for and more in every other area, I may reconsider....but it's not rash to vote no if they take away something that is important to you.

$999,999/hr is an absolute no for me...... but $1,000,000/hr? Okay.

The rest of you slobs will have to cut your own deal. :D

what you are hearing is for most, the re-opener thresholds are perceived as falling in line with minimal expectations. And even singular item concessions are unacceptable.

Exactly Crew Dawg....that's how all of these rocket surgeons tried to sell it. If it only affects 2%....just leave it alone then. It shouldn't be a loss. The attempted sell job on this particular part of the Failed TA was utterly comical.

On the other hand the massive Profit Sharing concessions would affect all of us. This last TA was a grand slam attempt by management to take a lot of leverage away from us so that future contract negotiations would greatly be in management's favor. And if I have to explain this to anybody...which I'm not....you need to have a reality check. Unnecessary Concessions in a time and atmosphere of NO CONCESSIONS.

I am not in favor of forcing the FO to sit on the jump seat during an OE trip. I was speaking positively not normatively. I was explaining the consequences. I was not advocating for any policy.

The reasons I am not in favor of keeping FO's on the jump seat are that it would be an inconvenience to those FO's, and it would make it harder for people to commute to work.

I would like to see us prevent anyone from picking up any extra flying during the footprint of a trip from which they are released. This would create more GS's for the pilot group, and it would increase pilot pay. I think that's a good thing.

It's not something that I think is a realistic change, because the company wouldn't go for it, and most pilots (most people in general) only think about the immediate most obvious consequences, so I would expect them to vote against it. They would see it as hurting the top 10% of FO's without seeing it helping the other 90%.

In case it's not clear, I'm strongly against pulling the OE trips from the bid package before the PBS run.

Well we surely agree on that!

Sooooooooo................You've established what you are.........you're just talking price now!:) (Me too for the most part)

Denny

And now you want to walk all your hard earned accomplishment back during the best ever economic times Delta pilots or any pilots have ever seen?

Talk about buffoonery!

Yeah, lets get some of that!

Here's what gets my NO vote, concessions. Any. All.

In a time of unprecedented profits and currently working under a bankruptcy era pay scale...NO. We already gave.

Why do you say I want to go back from what we have now?

Management wouldn't be screeching because they would be the ones implementing the change. It would be the triple dippers.

So yet another ultimatum?

Everyone has their own push button issues. Off the top of my head I don't have any that are an automatic unequivocal no without seeing the rest of the package and how it is affected. To come out with blanket statements of "If X happens, I'm voting no" is immature. I am sure I will get tons of flack for that but I am a big boy and I can handle it. My point is that we have a rapidly changing pilot dempgraphic in terms of age. So here is an example for you: If we vote to provide newhires with hotel rooms, I am voting no because it takes money away from my pay increase. I do not GAS about that. See how stupid these things are getting?

[QUOTE=JamesBond;2135526]So yet another ultimatum?[/

James- you must reset your outlook on negotiations. Your method of giving away work rules and PS for a measly pay rate raise and .05 cent per diem increase won't cut the mustard in this era of multi-billion per quarter profit... Why do you continue to advocate concessions??? Hidden agenda?

Yeah, so? It's my vote isn't it?

What makes you think I am advocating concessions. What is a concession to me is holding fast for you. What might be a concession to a newhire is holding fast to me. You really don't get it do you?

And your assertion that I have an agenda reeks of paranoia.

Yep. Without a doubt. So you can mail it in right now because there will be some sort of what will be consodered 'concession' by someone. I'll take that to Vegas and put my entire net worth on it.

You are stuck with the mentality that one component of the PWA always comes at the expense of another section and demographic.

Expunging that metric is what the rejection of the failed Ta was in large part all about.

Personally I don't think management has gotten the memo.... which is why imho its going to go to or the brink of self help to 'fix this'.

I suppose your going to tell me you were against POS '2015 TA as well...👍

And what does that have to do with my post?

So then we are gonna get everything we want with no compromise? That is fallacious thinking.

The objective and definition of getting all we want is an individual determination.

Otoh.... seems to me, for a lot of this group, that evaluative process isn't even going to begin absent ending this pilot groups role as a 30 year 24/7 booty call for management.

Calling guys who take advantage of the contract "Triple dippers" does not help. It is very easy for the company to get us fighting amongst ourselves - please don't help them.

These Pilots are exercising their seniority rights. What about Pilots who get a training bypass for the last 18 months of their career - should that be for sale/trade because they are being paid for equipment they are not flying? I am sure the company would love to change that item.

I could go on for quite a while picking individual points of our contract that only benefit a small % of our Pilots at any given time - the point is over time a large % of our pilots have the option of taking advantage of most of our PWA. Many may not exercise portions of our PWA but it is available for all.

So lets not help management by referring to Pilots exercising our PWA in a negative light.

Scoop

Finally (space)

You are entertained with the reality we democratically ratify our CBA?

We also do not ratify them via the same process.

Interesting argument except that for a certain percentage of the group time is running out. Many members of that same group are also deadzoners that will not be made whole no matter what we get. As each day goes by, they are further and further behind. So the guys newly hired, and those yet to be hired are going to reap the benefits of our steadfastedness while many of us are under the wheels of the bus. Maybe the tradition of captains buying beers needs to change.

Time value of money. (Sorry, I gotta go with Warren Buffet on that one and not some faceless keyboard warrior.) Again, I am not advocating a bad deal nor do I have any agenda. (I am really getting tired of saying that but some don't seem to get that I am just expressing an opinion). The longer we go without a pay increase the further behind we are.

Not sure what you are saying here.