View Poll Results: Minimum Acceptable Contractual Pay Raises
<5% day 1, 15% life of contract
4
3.33%
>5%<10% day 1, 15%
2
1.67%
>5%<10% day 1 20%
1
0.83%
>5%<10% day 1 25%
4
3.33%
>10%<20% day 1 25%
17
14.17%
>10%<20% day 1 30%
17
14.17%
>10%<20% day 1 35%
10
8.33%
>10%<20% day 1 40%
65
54.17%
Voters: 120. You may not vote on this poll
DAL Contract Survey
02-23-2011, 01:54 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Still in one
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Sink r8
I think you're misunderstanding what at least this person had to say: it's not that payrates are unimportant, it's that they are the final piece of the puzzle.
02-23-2011, 02:52 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
I think another way to think about this is:
Payrates in a new contract tell me how much I'll probably make
Workrules in a new contract tell me two things:
-how easy (or hard) it will be for me to make money, and
-what my work-life will be like, and how much it will interfere with the rest of my life.
I judge a contract by all these factors, but it's mostly about how my life will be overall. There are a lot of people making my salary, and many making much much more, but it usually doesn't come without ongoing sacrifices in every other area. In our profession, the sacrifices are normally front-loaded, and lately they're ongoing too. I'd rather have more in terms of a comfortable, quality life, than in a W-2 I have to [oldest profession] for. Thisis why I would negotiate payrates last, to fine tune the overall package, and squeeze evrything we can squeeze out of a contract.
By the way, this is a completely different concept from a debate about whether you want to risk killing the golden goose, or whether to be a lap-dog for fear the company might go wanting. We can always debate how much we need to get from the company. I'm only making the point about what is more valuable to me when it's time to cash in a given amount of negotiated currency.
Payrates in a new contract tell me how much I'll probably make
Workrules in a new contract tell me two things:
-how easy (or hard) it will be for me to make money, and
-what my work-life will be like, and how much it will interfere with the rest of my life.
I judge a contract by all these factors, but it's mostly about how my life will be overall. There are a lot of people making my salary, and many making much much more, but it usually doesn't come without ongoing sacrifices in every other area. In our profession, the sacrifices are normally front-loaded, and lately they're ongoing too. I'd rather have more in terms of a comfortable, quality life, than in a W-2 I have to [oldest profession] for. Thisis why I would negotiate payrates last, to fine tune the overall package, and squeeze evrything we can squeeze out of a contract.
By the way, this is a completely different concept from a debate about whether you want to risk killing the golden goose, or whether to be a lap-dog for fear the company might go wanting. We can always debate how much we need to get from the company. I'm only making the point about what is more valuable to me when it's time to cash in a given amount of negotiated currency.
02-23-2011, 02:53 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,594
Originally Posted by TANSTAAFL
I like the arguments about work rules because it requires an accurate costing of there value to determine the percentage improvement of a contract and we have the same data for when/if the Co. comes to us with their hand out. I would expect the MEC to present these values as part of any future TA.
Without the costing of those work rules the only thing you have to go on is pay rates, hence the survey. Work rules must be quantifiable in what they yield. To wit one will usually net more with an upgrade to the left seat over an incremental pay raise. Yet do the work rules allow for perhaps a more efficient schedule that allows you to make more for your day at the office but requires less staffing delaying upgrades? We need the whole picture, not just the one either the MEC and/or the Co. want to paint for us.
I find it very interesting that some here are saying, the above notwithstanding, that pay is not that important. I hope you don't have anything to do with the union. Next you'll be defending the Co. can only afford to pay XY or Z.
Without the costing of those work rules the only thing you have to go on is pay rates, hence the survey. Work rules must be quantifiable in what they yield. To wit one will usually net more with an upgrade to the left seat over an incremental pay raise. Yet do the work rules allow for perhaps a more efficient schedule that allows you to make more for your day at the office but requires less staffing delaying upgrades? We need the whole picture, not just the one either the MEC and/or the Co. want to paint for us.
I find it very interesting that some here are saying, the above notwithstanding, that pay is not that important. I hope you don't have anything to do with the union. Next you'll be defending the Co. can only afford to pay XY or Z.
02-23-2011, 05:19 PM
#24
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 793
Originally Posted by Jesse
Can't vote on that selection as all of them are unacceptable.
Originally Posted by sinca3
I don´t disagree but do you honestly think or have you ever heard of any union anywhere in any industry that got great than a 40% raise at DOS? Maybe I just have low expectations of ALPA and their backbone....
Personally, I don't think it's too much to have an expectation that 30% on day one could be on the high end (vs <20%), and 60% for the life of the contract. Others may have lower expectations, but others (I hope) have expectations for higher.
02-23-2011, 06:29 PM
#25
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Curious how the numbers would shake out?
Here's where the numbers have been...
http://www.airlinefinancials.com/upl...a_mainline.pdf
Here's where the numbers are probably going and you can monkey with it if you do the interactive version for DAL...
Airline comparison charts
If you look, we accounted for $1.488B in W2 earnings in 2009 and probably $2.239B in total cost or just tack on 35% above W2 equals total pilot cost. We're approximately 32.7% of the total employee costs for Delta, or let's say 33%. There are no pilot only numbers for 2010 but 2010 was lower than 2009. So I'd assume since we didn't retire many people that costs increased not decreased from 09 to 10. Probably by a percentage proportional to our average hourly increase percentage between 09 and 10.
So just to see what would happen when we give ourselves a hefty immediate raise, I'm going to...
Now if all of the other employees get to piggyback and make a 40% increase in pay, they lose $793M.
So if Delta said, here's the deal, 2010 was great but 2011 and beyond are going to suck, double dip, extremely high oil prices, international unrest, blah blah blah, and whatever we give you we have to give everyone else or they'll unionize. So for the sake of the company, we're not going to allow 2011 to go below a $1B net income projection.
That means you guys get a 13% increase in total cost and we still have $1.030B in net income which we could lose anyways if the economy tanks. But what you could negotiate is "okay, 13% increase in first year of the new contract but it increases at a number disproportionate to what the rest of the employees get. Nobody is going to pay attention to year 2 anyways, so we say, hey pilots negotiated a pay raise and therefore everyone gets a pay raise but only for year 1 and then the pilots get another large increase in year 2 while the other employees return to the normal increase."
Where is Bar?
Alright, I'm going back to studying.
or I might just go to the bathroom.
Here's where the numbers have been...
http://www.airlinefinancials.com/upl...a_mainline.pdf
Here's where the numbers are probably going and you can monkey with it if you do the interactive version for DAL...
Airline comparison charts
If you look, we accounted for $1.488B in W2 earnings in 2009 and probably $2.239B in total cost or just tack on 35% above W2 equals total pilot cost. We're approximately 32.7% of the total employee costs for Delta, or let's say 33%. There are no pilot only numbers for 2010 but 2010 was lower than 2009. So I'd assume since we didn't retire many people that costs increased not decreased from 09 to 10. Probably by a percentage proportional to our average hourly increase percentage between 09 and 10.
So just to see what would happen when we give ourselves a hefty immediate raise, I'm going to...
assume contract 2012 is 2011 signed on January 1, 2011 and pay becomes effective immediately. I'm going to give us a 4% raise from 2009 to 2010 and thus we cost $2.329B and $1.51B in W2 for 2010.
If I take out the other 67% employees and give them a standard 5% raise so their total cost is $4.678B in 2011 and ours with a 0% increase is $1.51B.
Thus and all of that to say, for every 5% we ask above 2010 numbers we increase costs by $116M and $75M in W2 wages. Take it to a 40% pay increase and that's a total $.932B increase in total cost and $.529B in W2 wages.
So that would amount to a 17.6% increase in total wages, salaries and benefits which if I then plug into the airlinefinancials interactive spreadsheet for 2011 projection I end up going from a $1.57B net income to $719M net income. If I take out the other 67% employees and give them a standard 5% raise so their total cost is $4.678B in 2011 and ours with a 0% increase is $1.51B.
Thus and all of that to say, for every 5% we ask above 2010 numbers we increase costs by $116M and $75M in W2 wages. Take it to a 40% pay increase and that's a total $.932B increase in total cost and $.529B in W2 wages.
Now if all of the other employees get to piggyback and make a 40% increase in pay, they lose $793M.
So if Delta said, here's the deal, 2010 was great but 2011 and beyond are going to suck, double dip, extremely high oil prices, international unrest, blah blah blah, and whatever we give you we have to give everyone else or they'll unionize. So for the sake of the company, we're not going to allow 2011 to go below a $1B net income projection.
That means you guys get a 13% increase in total cost and we still have $1.030B in net income which we could lose anyways if the economy tanks. But what you could negotiate is "okay, 13% increase in first year of the new contract but it increases at a number disproportionate to what the rest of the employees get. Nobody is going to pay attention to year 2 anyways, so we say, hey pilots negotiated a pay raise and therefore everyone gets a pay raise but only for year 1 and then the pilots get another large increase in year 2 while the other employees return to the normal increase."
Where is Bar?
Alright, I'm going back to studying.
or I might just go to the bathroom.
02-24-2011, 03:55 AM
#29
Senior by choice
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 425
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
Curious how the numbers would shake out?
Here's where the numbers have been...
http://www.airlinefinancials.com/upl...a_mainline.pdf
Here's where the numbers are probably going and you can monkey with it if you do the interactive version for DAL...
Airline comparison charts
If you look, we accounted for $1.488B in W2 earnings in 2009 and probably $2.239B in total cost or just tack on 35% above W2 equals total pilot cost. We're approximately 32.7% of the total employee costs for Delta, or let's say 33%. There are no pilot only numbers for 2010 but 2010 was lower than 2009. So I'd assume since we didn't retire many people that costs increased not decreased from 09 to 10. Probably by a percentage proportional to our average hourly increase percentage between 09 and 10.
So just to see what would happen when we give ourselves a hefty immediate raise, I'm going to...
Now if all of the other employees get to piggyback and make a 40% increase in pay, they lose $793M.
So if Delta said, here's the deal, 2010 was great but 2011 and beyond are going to suck, double dip, extremely high oil prices, international unrest, blah blah blah, and whatever we give you we have to give everyone else or they'll unionize. So for the sake of the company, we're not going to allow 2011 to go below a $1B net income projection.
That means you guys get a 13% increase in total cost and we still have $1.030B in net income which we could lose anyways if the economy tanks. But what you could negotiate is "okay, 13% increase in first year of the new contract but it increases at a number disproportionate to what the rest of the employees get. Nobody is going to pay attention to year 2 anyways, so we say, hey pilots negotiated a pay raise and therefore everyone gets a pay raise but only for year 1 and then the pilots get another large increase in year 2 while the other employees return to the normal increase."
Where is Bar?
Alright, I'm going back to studying.
or I might just go to the bathroom.
Here's where the numbers have been...
http://www.airlinefinancials.com/upl...a_mainline.pdf
Here's where the numbers are probably going and you can monkey with it if you do the interactive version for DAL...
Airline comparison charts
If you look, we accounted for $1.488B in W2 earnings in 2009 and probably $2.239B in total cost or just tack on 35% above W2 equals total pilot cost. We're approximately 32.7% of the total employee costs for Delta, or let's say 33%. There are no pilot only numbers for 2010 but 2010 was lower than 2009. So I'd assume since we didn't retire many people that costs increased not decreased from 09 to 10. Probably by a percentage proportional to our average hourly increase percentage between 09 and 10.
So just to see what would happen when we give ourselves a hefty immediate raise, I'm going to...
assume contract 2012 is 2011 signed on January 1, 2011 and pay becomes effective immediately. I'm going to give us a 4% raise from 2009 to 2010 and thus we cost $2.329B and $1.51B in W2 for 2010.
If I take out the other 67% employees and give them a standard 5% raise so their total cost is $4.678B in 2011 and ours with a 0% increase is $1.51B.
Thus and all of that to say, for every 5% we ask above 2010 numbers we increase costs by $116M and $75M in W2 wages. Take it to a 40% pay increase and that's a total $.932B increase in total cost and $.529B in W2 wages.
So that would amount to a 17.6% increase in total wages, salaries and benefits which if I then plug into the airlinefinancials interactive spreadsheet for 2011 projection I end up going from a $1.57B net income to $719M net income. If I take out the other 67% employees and give them a standard 5% raise so their total cost is $4.678B in 2011 and ours with a 0% increase is $1.51B.
Thus and all of that to say, for every 5% we ask above 2010 numbers we increase costs by $116M and $75M in W2 wages. Take it to a 40% pay increase and that's a total $.932B increase in total cost and $.529B in W2 wages.
Now if all of the other employees get to piggyback and make a 40% increase in pay, they lose $793M.
So if Delta said, here's the deal, 2010 was great but 2011 and beyond are going to suck, double dip, extremely high oil prices, international unrest, blah blah blah, and whatever we give you we have to give everyone else or they'll unionize. So for the sake of the company, we're not going to allow 2011 to go below a $1B net income projection.
That means you guys get a 13% increase in total cost and we still have $1.030B in net income which we could lose anyways if the economy tanks. But what you could negotiate is "okay, 13% increase in first year of the new contract but it increases at a number disproportionate to what the rest of the employees get. Nobody is going to pay attention to year 2 anyways, so we say, hey pilots negotiated a pay raise and therefore everyone gets a pay raise but only for year 1 and then the pilots get another large increase in year 2 while the other employees return to the normal increase."
Where is Bar?
Alright, I'm going back to studying.
or I might just go to the bathroom.
02-24-2011, 03:58 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Still in one
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
Curious how the numbers would shake out?
Now if all of the other employees get to piggyback and make a 40% increase in pay, they lose $793M.
So if Delta said, here's the deal, 2010 was great but 2011 and beyond are going to suck, double dip, extremely high oil prices, international unrest, blah blah blah, and whatever we give you we have to give everyone else or they'll unionize. So for the sake of the company, we're not going to allow 2011 to go below a $1B net income projection.
Now if all of the other employees get to piggyback and make a 40% increase in pay, they lose $793M.
So if Delta said, here's the deal, 2010 was great but 2011 and beyond are going to suck, double dip, extremely high oil prices, international unrest, blah blah blah, and whatever we give you we have to give everyone else or they'll unionize. So for the sake of the company, we're not going to allow 2011 to go below a $1B net income projection.
If this is what the union tries to sell to us in expectations we are doomed before we even start.
I guess the flavor of the real contract survey and the direction the questions take will be very telling.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
