dragon

Guys,

As I try to read the TA. I am struck by a couple of things I've read here and in the previously distributed NNP. Namely the increased reserve pay and the decreased days off for reserves in the summer.

If we are all allowed to work more, won't that mean that the company will be able to get along without so many of us? It's great that they will increase the reserve guarantee, but right now what we hit the ALV, we're done for the month. Now they'll be able to take us to ALV+15. This has got to hurt staffing especially in the summer months. My concern is we staff for summer and we'll be allowing them to work us that much harder.

forgot to bid

Personally I'd rather increase pay to get a bigger W2 then to increase how many hours an individual pilot can fly (or res days they can pick up) and therein reduce the # of pilots. Still trying to figure out if there is a balance.

dragon

Agreed, we've been conditioned to work more. Work smarter, not harder!

flyover

Im near the bottom of Delta's list and this concerns me. I also don't trust the furlough protection either as I've been burned by those type of agreements in the past at an ALPA regional. I feel DPA will fight harder for scope and furlough protection since ALPA is the union of most our regional carriers and this is a conflict of interest for ALPA and puts mgmt in a sweet spot to make Delta's pilot group smaller in order to cut costs and increase their own bonus and stock options.

Timbo

The company is ALWAYS trying to reduce head count, because they don't want to pay the '30% override' for benefits, above our pay rates. Lots of guys say they want to be more efficient, "Like South West" OK, but remember, they could operate this airline with 20% less pilots if we were that efficient!

Right now, the most inefficient thing we do is, operate a whole bunch of different fleet types. So we have a huge number of unproductive pilots stuck in training, all the time. That's not or OUR doing, that was purely a Management decision. They decide what airplanes to buy, not us. The FAA requires us to go get trained on them.

Years ago, when the company was crying about all the money they were spending on taining costs, the VP Flt. Ops. made the comment, "You guys cost too much! You are always going to training!" (they wanted to increase our seat lock in, from 1yr. to 2yrs.) I raised my hand and said, "Well, WHO'S IDEA WAS IT, to BUY EVERY AIRLINER EVER MADE?? Do you think we LIKE going to Training?? WE HATE IT! But YOU keep on buying all these different aircraft types, and the FAA requires us to TRAIN ON THEM!"

I think the compnay could get by with two fleets, one for Domestic, (737's, just like SW) and one for Int. (777's or 787's pick one) but that's going to be years into the future, if at all. In the mean time, they will always be offering to allow us all to fly more, every month, to reduce body count, ie. the 30% override, for our "Benefits".

sailingfun

You are correct however the contract surveys had the ability to work more as one of the most desired items by the pilot group. This totally baffles me but it is what it is. The simply followed pilot wishes in this regard.

gloopy

Not only that, but because marketing has so many fleet types to choose from, and have been given the green light to optimize revenue by any means necessary, we are stuck with far less productive trips per plane than if we had fewer fleet types. That trashes our schedules and QOL at the same time it amplifies the costs of our work rules while creating pressure to keep our work rules as weak as possible because they are always triggering them.

The massive training bubble coupled with the huge hit to pairing quality that comes from operating a million fleet types (including the regionals) throughout our network is responsibile for most or all of the productivity gap between us and SWA. Both of those things are 100% the company's fault and choice. Not only that, as expensive as it is from a cost point, it helps the company earn a revenue premium by optimizing every route and time of day. For us to then be punished for that by being expected to pay for the cost side of it is completely unreasonable.

orvil

Sailingfun,

Have you seen the survey results? I have not but I find it hard to believe guys want to work more. Get paid more but not work more days.

forgot to bid

Don't forget trip parking, guys will happily work longer for more. The unions job at times is to protect ourselves from ourselves, I have to get to that section but its sounding like the union has gotten out of the way of those who'd work themselves into a MD.

sailingfun

I posted on here that we needed a hard cap and fewer hours to bring back some of the 2500 jobs lost to work rules. I was blasted for it. I have not seen the TA. At least 3 reps have told me it was one of the highest rated items. Just look at trip parking and you have your answer.