Raptor

I believe our crew force will decline. I think the TA has some efficiencies in it.

Number 1...PBS is said to be 30-50% more efficient for an airline. Adding 20% reserve lines into VTO means our lines will be about 5% more efficient for the company.

Number 2...allowing VTO holders (and there will be more than now--see #1) to pick the amount of vacation hours to use. Let's say one quarter of the pilots save their 40% buyback. That's another 10% efficiency within the secondary line system for another few percent overall.

Number 3...8-24 change for daytime flights allows more efficient scheduling too. Another percent or two.

Number 4...the new system bid system allows the company to more finely tune the pilot seat positions allowing us to have fewer pilots. For example, Airbus F/O may be overmanned by 10 pilots who suck up reserve/VTO lines and don't fly. MD-11 F/Os are short 10. Company can fix this easily. And they just don't offer a training slot to those it doesn't want to move yet for pretty cheap slot denial payments when compared to the cost of adding a new pilot to property. I can't really estimate this capability...1% efficiency gain, 7% gain????

And I'm sure there's a percent or two elsewhere that hasn't struck me as I'm writing this. I've come up with 8-10% increased efficiencies. That's the number less pilots we need. So 400 some less under this TA--for the same amount of flying!

Wow...savings to the company are huge. Guess we paid for that initial raise and then some!

We were short to begin with...maybe 100 or more. So, I would think, if the amount of flying stays the same we would stabilize on 3900 pilots.

What do others think?

Rock

I think it is too early to count on the TNT deal going through, but I suspect that would increase our manning requirements. Checks in the mail on that one though. Which is true of all our best guesses on future manning.
As a sidenote though, I would say that it is inconsistant to argue we will continue to be able to use manning (or lack of) as leverage in future negotiations, while also arguing that manning is going to decrease in the future. Raptor, I realize your predictions are based on the TA passing, but let's say the TA fails and so does the TNT deal. Is manning going to increase or decrease in the next year or two?

Raptor

I would say manning increases by 100. Hiring for that 100 plus some unknown as I haven't looked at retirements. Will people hold off because of tasting a new bonus in TA 2, or will we have a hundred extra go in disgust?

I think the company has a manning shortage and amount of flying is fairly stable.

I think TNT will go through. See articles posted in main cargo forum. Ups lawsuit is to make it difficult for us and to gain some leverage to get pieces we may have to divest. European Commission remedies and investigation are underway mainly because of UPS lawsuit so they can say they are equally tough on our bid for TNT.

TNT is dying because they don't have the mass. If EC doesn't let this go through, it will end up putting nail in coffin of TNT. Therefore, all of this is just posturing and while it may delay a bit or cause some asset sales, it should still happen. Note that EC major problem isn't with express packages, but with concentration in some markets with normal cargo movement (think FedEx Freight).

We will know come mid January when EC rules.

urinmyseat

Raptor,

You forgot the "die trying" group. No vacation or sick use by a certain number. How many less folks will we need, when no one uses their vacation or sick time?

PeterGriffin

UPS cap is $300,000...so, $90,000 a year

KnightFlyer

I thought I heard some UPSers on here say that their B plan was effectively about 10% because of the $265k IRS limit (for those that bump up against it).

kronan

Adding up to 20% of Reserve days into VTOs doesn't result in more Reserve Days in the bidpack.

There are X pilots in the bidpack. Company establishes Y hours of flying with a BLG target of Z. Company also establishes best guess at VTO numbers w/the remainder of the bidpack being Reserve lines. VTO lines intended to cover Vacation\training conflicts for both line holders and reserve line holders.

Adding more VTO lines doesn't somehow magically increase the number of R days during the bid month

FDXLAG

And the bottom guy under either system is going to have zero say in what days he works. Under this TA the second to the last guy will have some say. More control over VTO lines, we asked for it we got it.

Raptor

That's not the point. Work days are used more efficiently in a PBS system. That's why every percentage of lines/reserve added into VTO has a multiplier effect. Less pilots needed under PBS.

Raptor

OK. More control. We got what we wanted. Let's say that's true.

But, we give up inefficiency in getting it by putting 20% reserve lines. This benefits the company tremendously. We need less pilots to fill our flying in VTO lines.

Many gains we got are identified by what we gave up to get them. But, conversely, it seems like many things we gave up, we got minuscule gains--like this reserve into VTO. And, many things we give up are gone forever. Our pay rates only increase for 6 years...then we have to bargain again. Things like 5% additional efficiency into VTO lines by adding 20% reserve lines into it, giving up HILO international, first class DH, 8-24, are gone forever--or we have to expend a lot of negotiating capital to get it back.

Where is the costing for these items from the NC? I see positive 1.67 billion and -27 million for health care premiums. But where are the negative values for needing 200-300 less pilots for the same amount of flying needed under this TA due to efficiency gains? Where is the negative value to the givebacks in HILO, 8-24, etc? Where is the negative value in health care prescription costs and tripled max out of pocket costs? Worst things about many of these negative costs is that they continue past the duration of this TA--forever unless we negotiate them back. And, we haven't even talked about the savings to the company by letting the A fund die in value by inflation eating away at it.

Someone posted on Facebook an analysis that the lost value in retirement alone is $70,000 and our gains per ALPA is $60,000. Add in more losses as I mention above and this is easily a negative value contract. The very definition of concessionary!

Think about it...no complicated numbers needed. Bonus eaten up by health care premiums, increased Rx costs (tripled), and increased out of pocket maximums (tripled). Pay increases eaten up by A fund death (because A fund is expected to be used for you and spouse combined life expectancy from retirement).

I almost always live within my deviation bank. Rolling bank is nice but not a huge value. Slot bidding has its pros and cons (see ANC post on ALPA website). There are a lot of other concessions. A lot of nice things in contract too, but many are very little cost.