![]() |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2240392)
Exactly, cutting pay or making it neutral would be unconscionable but somehow QOL is not viewed equally. We are selling QOL for pay. I think that is shameful. Obviously I'm in the minority. The reverse would never be true.
Whose to say we are not taking less of a pay raise to preserve QOL items? IMO more pay is a huge QOL addition. You don't seem to take that into account in any of your posts. Even if this were voted down pay rates are likely to increase. There are no provisions for increased QOL in our current PWA. Holding on to the current QOL standard is now not even a consideration while not getting a pay raise was never even a remote possibility. I get the fervor over pay rates but I'm saddened it comes at the expense of QOL items. I refer you to what I said above about pay being a big addition to QOL. We will not be able to make this stand in the next contract negotiations given the increasing productivity demands we will see with upcoming retirements. QOL comes in all shapes and sizes. IIRC, when I said this pay raise would allow a pilot to drop a trip every other month (conservatively) and make the same money as s/he did last year, you said that was exactly your plan. IMO that is by far the biggest QOL gain that dwarfs any QOL losses. Denny |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 2240403)
We are already in the big productivity demand era and it won't be ending until way after I'm gone (2023).
QOL comes in all shapes and sizes. IIRC, when I said this pay raise would allow a pilot to drop a trip every other month (conservatively) and make the same money as s/he did last year, you said that was exactly your plan. IMO that is by far the biggest QOL gain that dwarfs any QOL losses. Denny And the fact that we are retreating on SCOPE, SICK, and 3B4 doesn't help either. This sets us up poorly for the future. |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2240414)
It is my plan. Part of the plan requires my ability to manipulate my schedule, which will be more difficult under the TA. Trips pulled from open time will reduce that. Virtual bases will reduce that. I'm sure I will find a way to survive.
And the fact that we are retreating on SCOPE, SICK, and 3B4 doesn't help either. This sets us up poorly for the future. 3B4 affects QOL because it could cause a raise in pay. With this contract I don't see it having any bearing on our pay prior to entering into the next Section 6 negotiations so I see it as having no effect on QOL for this contract duration. Sick leave I think is a wash for QOL. Guys who verify the first 100 hours now will just have to verify the second 100 hours. Yes, I know it is nice to verify if you are going into the Dr anyway, but it's just not that big of a deal to me based on my sick leave usage and I've ended up using more this calendar year than I ever have. Scope can have a big effect on QOL. This is where I could see your QOL argument gaining a bit of steam. With the results in from yesterday, I think we would be very foolish not to approve this contract. YMMV Denny |
Originally Posted by FIIGMO
(Post 2240241)
DAL is healthy and positioned to handle a down turn. AAL UAL not so much....it is not ideal but I like our position for the long run rather than UAL and AAL....
|
Originally Posted by Hank Kingsley
(Post 2240377)
I just flew with a guy who came from domestic to international. He said how tired and over worked he had been. I believe he also said he flew 8 GS a month? That's twice what I've flown in 31 years. They're voluntary right?
|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 2240600)
Not arguing, but interested in how you arrived at that conclusion. What about DL makes us more resilient to a big downturn compared to UA/AA?
I have heard some guys say the same thing. Pretty sure it has to do with debt servicing which is a huge advantage for DAL. Scoop |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 2240655)
I have heard some guys say the same thing. Pretty sure it has to do with debt servicing which is a huge advantage for DAL.
Scoop |
Respectfully disagree, sir. The debt servicing differential (which is in excess of $15 Billion) plus the older fleet (i.e., not paying high lease or ownership cost for new aircraft) make Delta poised to weather a downturn without parking an equal amount of planes.
|
Originally Posted by Big E 757
(Post 2240752)
We may be healthier in a downturn, financially, but if passengers show up in lesser numbers, you can bet we will park as many aircraft as UAL or AAL
|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 2240600)
Not arguing, but interested in how you arrived at that conclusion. What about DL makes us more resilient to a big downturn compared to UA/AA?
Much better product. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:05 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands