Delta Pilots Association
02-05-2014 | 02:35 PM
#9041
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
We squeaked in above 2.5 billion at around 2.7 billion. Let's do the math:
15% (pre C2012) of 2.5 billion is 375,000,000 vs. 10% (C2012) of 2.5 billion is 250,000,000.
Pilots get about one third of the profit sharing pool so take one third oh the difference between your two numbers and you get appox 42 million. Where have I heard that number before!?!
20% (the amount above 2.5 billion) of 200,000,000 is 40,000,000.
415,000,000 (pre C2012 concessionary value) is more than 290,000,000 (C2012 value), right?
That works out to be about a 6000 dollar reduction for me.
That is a 30.2% reduction in profit sharing money that we could have had. We gave up something we didn't need to give up in C2012. Trying to spin it any other way helps the DPA.
edit: I can't remember if pre 2012 it was 15% for all values. Just to cover my bases, that would have been 405 million vice 290 million, yielding a 28.4% reduction in payout in C2012.
15% (pre C2012) of 2.5 billion is 375,000,000 vs. 10% (C2012) of 2.5 billion is 250,000,000.
Pilots get about one third of the profit sharing pool so take one third oh the difference between your two numbers and you get appox 42 million. Where have I heard that number before!?!
20% (the amount above 2.5 billion) of 200,000,000 is 40,000,000.
415,000,000 (pre C2012 concessionary value) is more than 290,000,000 (C2012 value), right?
That works out to be about a 6000 dollar reduction for me.
That is a 30.2% reduction in profit sharing money that we could have had. We gave up something we didn't need to give up in C2012. Trying to spin it any other way helps the DPA.
edit: I can't remember if pre 2012 it was 15% for all values. Just to cover my bases, that would have been 405 million vice 290 million, yielding a 28.4% reduction in payout in C2012.
Denny
02-05-2014 | 02:40 PM
#9042
At home on the maddog!
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 0
From: Retired (mandatory age 65)
DAL 88 Driver,
This is from the Federal Register. You have seen it before, which makes me wonder why you persist with your flawed reasoning:
A sleep opportunity generally commences once a flightcrew member is at a location where the flightcrew member can reasonably be expected to go to sleep and not have that sleep interrupted. The sleep opportunity does not need to take place at the flightcrew member’s home, but it must take place at a location where the flightcrew member can reasonably expect to obtain 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep. In addition, as the FAA pointed out in the preamble to final rule, specific sleep situations ‘‘are difficult to capture in a regulatory standard.’’ That is why § 117.25(f) requires the flightcrew member to notify the certificate holder if the flightcrew member determines that he or she cannot get the requisite amount of uninterrupted sleep.
2. Interruptions to the Sleep Opportunity That Are Not Caused by Carrier
A4A, APA, and AE asked whether an interruption not from the air carrier, such as a hotel fire alarm, would interrupt the 8-hour sleep opportunity. A4A and AE asked whether the flightcrew member is required to inform the carrier if a sleep opportunity has been interrupted.
Subsection 117.25(f) requires a flightcrew member to notify the air carrier if the flightcrew member determines that his/her rest period will not provide 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep. This section provides the flightcrew member with discretion to determine whether his or her sleep has been interrupted. However, if the flightcrew member determines that his/her sleep has been interrupted, then the flightcrew member must notify the air carrier of the interruption. For this determination, it is irrelevant whether the interruption to the flightcrew member’s sleep was caused by the air carrier.
Taking the fire alarm example, if the fire alarm sounds for only a few seconds, some flightcrew members may have no problem getting back to sleep, and they may determine that their sleep was not interrupted. Conversely, other flightcrew members may find it difficult to get back to sleep even if their sleep was interrupted for only a short period of time. These flightcrew members may determine that their sleep opportunity was interrupted, at which point they would have to notify the carrier of the interruption.
If you're tired, don't fly.
This is from the Federal Register. You have seen it before, which makes me wonder why you persist with your flawed reasoning:
A sleep opportunity generally commences once a flightcrew member is at a location where the flightcrew member can reasonably be expected to go to sleep and not have that sleep interrupted. The sleep opportunity does not need to take place at the flightcrew member’s home, but it must take place at a location where the flightcrew member can reasonably expect to obtain 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep. In addition, as the FAA pointed out in the preamble to final rule, specific sleep situations ‘‘are difficult to capture in a regulatory standard.’’ That is why § 117.25(f) requires the flightcrew member to notify the certificate holder if the flightcrew member determines that he or she cannot get the requisite amount of uninterrupted sleep.
2. Interruptions to the Sleep Opportunity That Are Not Caused by Carrier
A4A, APA, and AE asked whether an interruption not from the air carrier, such as a hotel fire alarm, would interrupt the 8-hour sleep opportunity. A4A and AE asked whether the flightcrew member is required to inform the carrier if a sleep opportunity has been interrupted.
Subsection 117.25(f) requires a flightcrew member to notify the air carrier if the flightcrew member determines that his/her rest period will not provide 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep. This section provides the flightcrew member with discretion to determine whether his or her sleep has been interrupted. However, if the flightcrew member determines that his/her sleep has been interrupted, then the flightcrew member must notify the air carrier of the interruption. For this determination, it is irrelevant whether the interruption to the flightcrew member’s sleep was caused by the air carrier.
Taking the fire alarm example, if the fire alarm sounds for only a few seconds, some flightcrew members may have no problem getting back to sleep, and they may determine that their sleep was not interrupted. Conversely, other flightcrew members may find it difficult to get back to sleep even if their sleep was interrupted for only a short period of time. These flightcrew members may determine that their sleep opportunity was interrupted, at which point they would have to notify the carrier of the interruption.
If you're tired, don't fly.
Here's the FAR verbatim:
FAR 117.25
(e) No certificate holder may schedule and no flightcrew member may accept an assignment for any reserve or flight duty period unless the flightcrew member is given a rest period of at least 10 consecutive hours immediately before beginning the reserve or flight duty period measured from the time the flightcrew member is released from duty. The 10 hour rest period must provide the flightcrew member with a minimum of 8 uninterrupted hours of sleep opportunity.
What part of "minimum of 8 uninterrupted hours of sleep opportunity" do you not understand? The FAR requires that we have an opportunity for 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep. It doesn't require that we actually sleep 8 hours, and it leaves it to the individual crew member to determine whether or not he/she is adequately rested. But it does require that we have an opportunity for 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep.
Ask yourself the following two questions:
1 - Does the FAR require an opportunity for 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep?
2 - With exactly 8 hours "behind the door" in a hotel room, does any human being have the opportunity for 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep?
As I see it, there are basically two issues here. And that is the reason I'm making such a big deal about it.
First issue: DALPA, by creatively interpreting this to mean exactly the same as our contractual "8 hours behind the door" is encouraging the company to do the same. After all, it's to the company's benefit if they can minimize flight delays.
I had an experience with this exact issue a couple of trips ago. (Didn't expect to have to test this so soon.) At that time, the crew tracker I worked with over the phone totally agreed with me that I needed the opportunity to sleep for 8 hours (I was already in the hotel room and ready for bed when the issue occurred) and that the pickup time would have to be adjusted to accommodate not only 8 hours of sleep from that point but also enough time to get up and get ready the next morning. How long do you think it's going to take before the company seizes the opportunity DALPA is providing them to redefine it to where we are only entitled to "8 hours behind the door?" Next time I talk to a crew tracker in this situation, I might not get the same answer.
Second issue: By putting out this erroneous interpretation of the FAR, DALPA is encouraging Delta pilots to violate the law. Certainly, there are some of us (myself included) who aren't buying it. But there are a significant number of pilots here who rely on the information provided to them by DALPA.
What do you think would happen if a flight crew agreed to "8 hours behind the door" and then, heaven forbid, had some kind of incident or accident the next morning? When the FAA investigates and finds out that they only had 8 hours in the hotel room, they will be in violation of the FAR and they're going to get hung out to dry. I don't think "because DALPA told me that's okay" is going to be a satisfactory answer.
And if you still don't believe me (which I'm sure you probably don't... because you DALPA guys are always the smartest guys in the room), consider the following, which I found on the FAA's web site:
LINK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 117, 119, and 121
Docket No.: FAA-2009-1093; Amdt. Nos. 117-1, 119-16, 121-357
RIN 2120–AJ58
Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule
Excerpt:
The FAA notes that, while some of the studies used in the final rule have not been validated in the aviation context, the major provisions of this rule are based on uncontroversial scientific findings that apply to all human beings. As the NPRM pointed out, sleep science, while still evolving, is clear in several important respects: most people need eight hours of sleep to function effectively, most people find it more difficult to sleep during the day than during the night, resulting in greater fatigue if working at night; the longer one has been awake and the longer one spends on task, the greater the likelihood of fatigue; and fatigue leads to an increased risk of making a mistake.
These uncontroversial scientific findings form the basis for almost all of the major provisions in this rule. The FAA has concluded that, even though some of these findings were not based on aviation data, flightcrew members have the same fatigue concerns as other human beings, and as such, there is no reason to believe that these findings would not apply to flightcrew members.
Again, here is the FAR in question:
FAR 117.25
(e) No certificate holder may schedule and no flightcrew member may accept
an assignment for any reserve or flight duty period unless the flightcrew member is given a rest period of at least 10 consecutive hours immediately before beginning the reserve or flight duty period measured from the time the flightcrew member is released from duty. The 10 hour rest period must provide the flightcrew member with a minimum of 8 uninterrupted hours of sleep opportunity.
If it was supposed to mean 8 hours behind the door, then that part of the FAR would have read something like this: "The 10 hour rest period must provide the flightcrew member with a minimum of 8 hours in the hotel behind the door, during which the flightcrew member has an uninterrupted sleep opportunity."
Any questions?
Last edited by DAL 88 Driver; 02-05-2014 at 03:00 PM.
02-05-2014 | 02:44 PM
#9043
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
You mean if we had just asked we could have kept the higher profit sharing? I wish I had known that!
On a more serious note the numbers above are also wrong. We had 3.4 billion in profit per the agreed method of accounting. I am surprised since all the company had to do was ask, they did not change it to the actual profit reported. That would have knocked the profit sharing checks down even more!
On a more serious note the numbers above are also wrong. We had 3.4 billion in profit per the agreed method of accounting. I am surprised since all the company had to do was ask, they did not change it to the actual profit reported. That would have knocked the profit sharing checks down even more!
Sorry, I gotta side with the young guns on this one. The company came to us to negotiate a new contract outside of section 6. We didn't have to give them anything on this issue. Yes, we got the pay codified (I guess that's the word), but I should have trusted my own investment knowledge to believe that DAL is on a trajectory that will lead to big profit sharing checks going forward. OK... so we gave that up for a little more pay. I think we blew that one. SO imho, going forward, we are gonna want more money to reflect DAL's performance. Lots more money. Now the company is in a quandry because they either have to give us back more profit sharing which would hide our pay increases from Wall Street, or give us more in pay rates. On THAT count, I think the company blew it....
02-05-2014 | 03:01 PM
#9044
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
From: 777 Sim Instructor
Yet we gave when we didn't have to give in the face of the company positioned (and it did come to fruition) to make more money than it ever has. If you would admit that, we can move on. That is the whole point here.
The 717s weren't guaranteed by the contract, so I'm going to stop you right there on any points you're trying to make about that.
I will concede that there were improvements for rsvs and the ADG was better than nothing. I'm on the airbus and most of the time a lineholder... I avoid trips where it goes below 5:15 a day unless it's for a green slip.
The DPA is self mitigating, but the attitudes and spin by ALPA guys have done nothing but promote their cause. The C2012 spin was worth almost 1000 DPA cards all on its own. If you check the sales job at the door, you're doing us all a favor.
btw- we ARE allowed in lounges of places where we aren't based- what's your point there? That's a very bad precedent if that is the justification for them getting booted.
The 717s weren't guaranteed by the contract, so I'm going to stop you right there on any points you're trying to make about that.
I will concede that there were improvements for rsvs and the ADG was better than nothing. I'm on the airbus and most of the time a lineholder... I avoid trips where it goes below 5:15 a day unless it's for a green slip.
The DPA is self mitigating, but the attitudes and spin by ALPA guys have done nothing but promote their cause. The C2012 spin was worth almost 1000 DPA cards all on its own. If you check the sales job at the door, you're doing us all a favor.
btw- we ARE allowed in lounges of places where we aren't based- what's your point there? That's a very bad precedent if that is the justification for them getting booted.
The rest of the industry has caught up giving us a big advantage vis a vis 2012 when we were already ahead of most of our competitors.
Did we learn from 2012 ? I think both DALPA and the pilot group learned from the whole 2012 TA process, both good and bad. We as a group need both pro and con views, that's why I continue to waste my time on APC, I just hope we all pull on the same end of the rope for contract 2015
02-05-2014 | 03:22 PM
#9045
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Likes: 0
We squeaked in above 2.5 billion at around 2.7 billion. Let's do the math:
15% (pre C2012) of 2.5 billion is 375,000,000 vs. 10% (C2012) of 2.5 billion is 250,000,000.
20% (the amount above 2.5 billion) of 200,000,000 is 40,000,000.
415,000,000 (pre C2012 concessionary value) is more than 290,000,000 (C2012 value), right?
That works out to be about a 6000 dollar reduction for me.
That is a 30.2% reduction in profit sharing money that we could have had. We gave up something we didn't need to give up in C2012. Trying to spin it any other way helps the DPA.
edit: I can't remember if pre 2012 it was 15% for all values. Just to cover my bases, that would have been 405 million vice 290 million, yielding a 28.4% reduction in payout in C2012.
15% (pre C2012) of 2.5 billion is 375,000,000 vs. 10% (C2012) of 2.5 billion is 250,000,000.
20% (the amount above 2.5 billion) of 200,000,000 is 40,000,000.
415,000,000 (pre C2012 concessionary value) is more than 290,000,000 (C2012 value), right?
That works out to be about a 6000 dollar reduction for me.
That is a 30.2% reduction in profit sharing money that we could have had. We gave up something we didn't need to give up in C2012. Trying to spin it any other way helps the DPA.
edit: I can't remember if pre 2012 it was 15% for all values. Just to cover my bases, that would have been 405 million vice 290 million, yielding a 28.4% reduction in payout in C2012.
The profit sharing pool was $506m this year. The only piece we gave up was 5% of the first $2.5B, which equals $125m. So the total profit sharing pool, absent the change, would have been $631m (506+125). If $506m resulted in an 8.2% payout, then $631 would be 10.2%. So, you received 2% less of your 2013 wages; I doubt that equals $6000.
02-05-2014 | 04:06 PM
#9046
Banned
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Your math is way off, 80.
The profit sharing pool was $506m this year. The only piece we gave up was 5% of the first $2.5B, which equals $125m. So the total profit sharing pool, absent the change, would have been $631m (506+125). If $506m resulted in an 8.2% payout, then $631 would be 10.2%. So, you received 2% less of your 2013 wages; I doubt that equals $6000.
The profit sharing pool was $506m this year. The only piece we gave up was 5% of the first $2.5B, which equals $125m. So the total profit sharing pool, absent the change, would have been $631m (506+125). If $506m resulted in an 8.2% payout, then $631 would be 10.2%. So, you received 2% less of your 2013 wages; I doubt that equals $6000.
02-05-2014 | 04:17 PM
#9048
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,869
Likes: 188
Sorry, I gotta side with the young guns on this one. The company came to us to negotiate a new contract outside of section 6. We didn't have to give them anything on this issue. Yes, we got the pay codified (I guess that's the word), but I should have trusted my own investment knowledge to believe that DAL is on a trajectory that will lead to big profit sharing checks going forward. OK... so we gave that up for a little more pay. I think we blew that one. SO imho, going forward, we are gonna want more money to reflect DAL's performance. Lots more money. Now the company is in a quandry because they either have to give us back more profit sharing which would hide our pay increases from Wall Street, or give us more in pay rates. On THAT count, I think the company blew it....
02-05-2014 | 04:22 PM
#9049
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,823
Likes: 168
From: window seat
If they are dumb enough to tank the stock just to lash out a blow against the pilots at a phenominaly well performing company, that presents a great low price point buyback opportunity to further reduce the volatility and restore shareholder value in the future.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
