|
I guess some can see sarcasm and some can't. I thought UT guys were a little brighter.;)
|
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
(Post 1199452)
Right now, I’m voting “Yes.” Here’s my reasoning:
I break this down in terms of pay and scope. First, let’s tackle pay. I’m a 2008 hire 73FO, which means that some months I sit reserve and some months I fly a line. Since I’m bad at math and keep terrible records, I costed out the effect of the TA on a year holding a line and on a year on Reserve in my current seat. First, Reserve: +20.7% (pay chart + DCI) -2% in profit-sharing loss + .375% in vacation pay +.1% per diem +3.1% Sick Leave, assuming I use all 125 hours +.1% Distance learning + CQ Training +8% Reserve pay TOTAL = +30.375% Next, Line: +20.7% (pay chart + DCI) -2% in profit-sharing loss + .375% in vacation pay +.1% per diem +3.1% Sick Leave, assuming I use all 125 hours +.1% Distance learning + CQ Training +10% as a function of Avg Daily Guarantee. This assumes it applies to 3 trips/month, as it did in March. TOTAL = +32.375% Going into negotiations, my minimum was +30% to my total compensation package. This TA meets that. Now, let’s talk about Scope. As a junior guy, I care about small-bore scope because I don’t want my seat sold out from under me. I care about large-bore scope and the Alaska codeshare because I’d like to move up and I’d like to move to the West Coast. First, we’ll go with small-bore. I’m not smart enough to understand block hours. I think in terms of seats. This TA puts 70 more 76-seaters in and pulls 125 50-seaters out. That’s a 930-seat subtraction from DCI. I can dig it. Second, we’ll look at large-bore. The TA does not change current Int’l JV’s, as near as I can tell. Under our current agreement, Richard Anderson is not required to negotiate with us prior to entering into any int’l JV. Under the TA, he is. If we don’t come to an agreement, he must accept that Delta flying be 75% of revenue share in any new JV. The maximum number of DAL seats on any Alaska flight goes from 50% to 30%. Going into negotiations, it was critical to me that we rein in both small- and large-bore scope. This TA does that. I’ve been obsessively reading APC for weeks, and I’ve followed the debate with great interest. I think my analysis is accurate, but I invite your criticism. I could be very wrong, but there is no way your W-2 is going to reflect a 32% pay increase. I don't believe it. Instead of using just blanket percentages, can you convert that to dollars and cents and see if you end up with a 32% increase in dollars? |
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
(Post 1199452)
Right now, I’m voting “Yes.” Here’s my reasoning:
I break this down in terms of pay and scope. First, let’s tackle pay. I’m a 2008 hire 73FO, which means that some months I sit reserve and some months I fly a line. Since I’m bad at math and keep terrible records, I costed out the effect of the TA on a year holding a line and on a year on Reserve in my current seat. First, Reserve: +20.7% (pay chart + DCI) -2% in profit-sharing loss + .375% in vacation pay +.1% per diem +3.1% Sick Leave, assuming I use all 125 hours +.1% Distance learning + CQ Training +8% Reserve pay TOTAL = +30.375% Next, Line: +20.7% (pay chart + DCI) -2% in profit-sharing loss + .375% in vacation pay +.1% per diem +3.1% Sick Leave, assuming I use all 125 hours +.1% Distance learning + CQ Training +10% as a function of Avg Daily Guarantee. This assumes it applies to 3 trips/month, as it did in March. TOTAL = +32.375% Going into negotiations, my minimum was +30% to my total compensation package. This TA meets that. Now, let’s talk about Scope. As a junior guy, I care about small-bore scope because I don’t want my seat sold out from under me. I care about large-bore scope and the Alaska codeshare because I’d like to move up and I’d like to move to the West Coast. First, we’ll go with small-bore. I’m not smart enough to understand block hours. I think in terms of seats. This TA puts 70 more 76-seaters in and pulls 125 50-seaters out. That’s a 930-seat subtraction from DCI. I can dig it. Second, we’ll look at large-bore. The TA does not change current Int’l JV’s, as near as I can tell. Under our current agreement, Richard Anderson is not required to negotiate with us prior to entering into any int’l JV. Under the TA, he is. If we don’t come to an agreement, he must accept that Delta flying be 75% of revenue share in any new JV. The maximum number of DAL seats on any Alaska flight goes from 50% to 30%. Going into negotiations, it was critical to me that we rein in both small- and large-bore scope. This TA does that. I’ve been obsessively reading APC for weeks, and I’ve followed the debate with great interest. I think my analysis is accurate, but I invite your criticism. |
KC10, I'll be happy to reconstruct and "show my work" during tomorrow's layover. Perhaps we'll find an error.
Alfa, thanks for the correction. |
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
(Post 1199539)
KC10, I'll be happy to reconstruct and "show my work" during tomorrow's layover. Perhaps we'll find an error.
Alfa, thanks for the correction. |
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
(Post 1199452)
Right now, I’m voting “Yes.” Here’s my reasoning:
I break this down in terms of pay and scope. First, let’s tackle pay. I’m a 2008 hire 73FO, which means that some months I sit reserve and some months I fly a line. Since I’m bad at math and keep terrible records, I costed out the effect of the TA on a year holding a line and on a year on Reserve in my current seat. First, Reserve: +20.7% (pay chart + DCI) -2% in profit-sharing loss + .375% in vacation pay +.1% per diem +3.1% Sick Leave, assuming I use all 125 hours +.1% Distance learning + CQ Training +8% Reserve pay TOTAL = +30.375% Next, Line: +20.7% (pay chart + DCI) -2% in profit-sharing loss + .375% in vacation pay +.1% per diem +3.1% Sick Leave, assuming I use all 125 hours +.1% Distance learning + CQ Training +10% as a function of Avg Daily Guarantee. This assumes it applies to 3 trips/month, as it did in March. TOTAL = +32.375% Going into negotiations, my minimum was +30% to my total compensation package. This TA meets that. Now, let’s talk about Scope. As a junior guy, I care about small-bore scope because I don’t want my seat sold out from under me. I care about large-bore scope and the Alaska codeshare because I’d like to move up and I’d like to move to the West Coast. First, we’ll go with small-bore. I’m not smart enough to understand block hours. I think in terms of seats. This TA puts 70 more 76-seaters in and pulls 125 50-seaters out. That’s a 930-seat subtraction from DCI. I can dig it. Second, we’ll look at large-bore. The TA does not change current Int’l JV’s, as near as I can tell. Under our current agreement, Richard Anderson is not required to negotiate with us prior to entering into any int’l JV. Under the TA, he is. If we don’t come to an agreement, he must accept that Delta flying be 75% of revenue share in any new JV. The maximum number of DAL seats on any Alaska flight goes from 50% to 30%. Going into negotiations, it was critical to me that we rein in both small- and large-bore scope. This TA does that. I’ve been obsessively reading APC for weeks, and I’ve followed the debate with great interest. I think my analysis is accurate, but I invite your criticism. To me the breakdown of compensation increases looks like: + 19.7% Hourly pay (as of Jan, 2015) + 1.0% DC increase - 2.0% in profit-sharing loss (maybe...) + .375% in vacation pay + .1% per diem + 0.0% Sick Leave (I won't possibly max out my sick pay) + .1% Distance learning + CQ Training + 0.0% Reserve pay (this is not an increase in pay, it's an increase in work) =19.275% over 2.5 years. however, lest we forget... - 6% Inflation (at 2.4%/yr) =13.275% of actual pay increases (over 2.5 yrs) If you must add the Reserve guarantee, I would conservatively use the lowest number, and assume a 2 hour increase in pay: + 2.8% Reserve guarantee (+2 hr pay equivalent) = 16.075% increase (over 2.5 years) If you use the rosy scenario 10 hour increase in reserve guarantee as a pay increase, then: + 14.2% Reserve guarantee (+10 hr pay equivalent) = 27.475% increase (over 2.5 years) This 'best case' scenario still doesn't meet your 30% requirement, however. This TA does increase pay significantly, I can't ignore that, but I also can't sign off on a TA that provides a modest 16% raise over 2.5 years AND allows more 76 seat aircraft on property... I'm still a solid no. |
Originally Posted by Jughead
(Post 1199503)
What is the matter with you? I really doubt, and really hope, you don't speak to people like this.
I prefer this forum over others because of the relative civility - maybe you should simply offer us your opinion and stop condemning everybody else who might have an opposing view. |
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
(Post 1199452)
Right now, I’m voting “Yes.” Here’s my reasoning:
I break this down in terms of pay and scope. First, let’s tackle pay. I’m a 2008 hire 73FO, which means that some months I sit reserve and some months I fly a line. Since I’m bad at math and keep terrible records, I costed out the effect of the TA on a year holding a line and on a year on Reserve in my current seat. First, Reserve: +20.7% (pay chart + DCI) -2% in profit-sharing loss + .375% in vacation pay +.1% per diem +3.1% Sick Leave, assuming I use all 125 hours +.1% Distance learning + CQ Training +8% Reserve pay TOTAL = +30.375% Next, Line: +20.7% (pay chart + DCI) -2% in profit-sharing loss + .375% in vacation pay +.1% per diem +3.1% Sick Leave, assuming I use all 125 hours +.1% Distance learning + CQ Training +10% as a function of Avg Daily Guarantee. This assumes it applies to 3 trips/month, as it did in March. TOTAL = +32.375% Going into negotiations, my minimum was +30% to my total compensation package. This TA meets that. Now, let’s talk about Scope. As a junior guy, I care about small-bore scope because I don’t want my seat sold out from under me. I care about large-bore scope and the Alaska codeshare because I’d like to move up and I’d like to move to the West Coast. First, we’ll go with small-bore. I’m not smart enough to understand block hours. I think in terms of seats. This TA puts 70 more 76-seaters in and pulls 125 50-seaters out. That’s a 930-seat subtraction from DCI. I can dig it. Second, we’ll look at large-bore. The TA does not change current Int’l JV’s, as near as I can tell. Under our current agreement, Richard Anderson is not required to negotiate with us prior to entering into any int’l JV. Under the TA, he is. If we don’t come to an agreement, he must accept that Delta flying be 75% of revenue share in any new JV. The maximum number of DAL seats on any Alaska flight goes from 50% to 30%. Going into negotiations, it was critical to me that we rein in both small- and large-bore scope. This TA does that. I’ve been obsessively reading APC for weeks, and I’ve followed the debate with great interest. I think my analysis is accurate, but I invite your criticism. Frank, Pretty good breakdown with one possible exception, I believe you might be making a mistake with the average daily guarantee. Out of LAX this would only apply if you were basically flying all three day 10.5 hour trips that sign in prior to 2200. On the LAX bid package only a few trips consistently meets this requirement - the SAN redeye and the MCO red-eye. The SNA trip often goes fairly senior but you can probably get all the MCO that you want. :eek: So if you plan on flying out of LAX - three day 10.5 hour trips might regrettably still be in your future. Scoop |
Originally Posted by boog123
(Post 1199528)
I guess some can see sarcasm and some can't. I thought UT guys were a little brighter.;)
|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1199564)
Fair enough. I don't suffer fools nor trolls well though. Zoomie is nothing but a troll and his opinion should be worth nothing to this group. It is really really sad if it does have any value.
I'm not the one who's resorted to name calling. What about my post is inaccurate or worthy of the insult you're spitting out? Does inflation not exist? I won't get to vote no on this since I'm not a super Delta pilot like you. You act like DLs contract is the best thing since sliced bread. You don't want to admit that this TA is selling scope for a modest 8.5% pay raise. That's a fact when you take inflation into account. Do you think that DL management will be the same forever? What happens when someone who isn't as pilot friendly as RA sees you're "scope protections" in this TA? All legacy carriers have been hosed by scope, and some people will never learn. Might want to lay off that 6th cup of coffee, you seem to get worked up over a simple conversational thread. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:12 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands