Productivity Increase with the TA
05-31-2012 | 10:45 PM
#11
Banned
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
Solving problems while gaining 20% pay raises and improvements in work rules, sick leave, and scope tightening, while doing it all within the time normal negotiations would have taken? I guess, yes then.
05-31-2012 | 10:47 PM
#12
Banned
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
Unless I'm mistaken theses are called negotiations not demands. The company is always going to want increased productivity and they bought it with the increased pay for reserves. The company is cranking up hiring in the first quarter of next year to man the 717's and replace the early outs to try and even out the coming mass exodous unless the TA doesn't pass, then unless you're a fly on Richards wall it's all speculation beyond that.
05-31-2012 | 10:53 PM
#13
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
So, you want 65 hour lines every month except July and August, forever? I don't. Many guys also wanted 75 hours of pay on reserve, but can't believe it if that means they might actually fly 75 hours! We all want total restoration, except some want all of it now, when every other legacy hasn't helped at all. But, we can do it for them! (again). It's time to be realistic and go for realistic gains that do add up with shorter contracts.
Let's play 52 pick up!
06-01-2012 | 02:50 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,877
Likes: 194
Guys from the NN on work-rules:
"These changes will likely result in a contractual staffing reduction of approximately 300 pilots. However, the Pilot Retirement Medical Account Program (See Negotiators’ Notepad 12-07) and other changes to the PWA such as the increases to the staffing formula and to vacation and CQ training pay are expected to more than compensate for
this reduction."
While this is written to look neutral it is a big negative in my opinion. If nothing changed we would all advance accordingly when these "300" guys retired. It may not have be for 2 or three years but the advancement would then be a permanent improvement.
Now it will take approximately 300 retirees to just break even and we will "lose" the same advancement when those 300 guys would have retired in two or three years.
Am I making a mistake in my logic, or is trading productivity for an early retirement program a big loser in the long term?
Scoop
"These changes will likely result in a contractual staffing reduction of approximately 300 pilots. However, the Pilot Retirement Medical Account Program (See Negotiators’ Notepad 12-07) and other changes to the PWA such as the increases to the staffing formula and to vacation and CQ training pay are expected to more than compensate for
this reduction."
While this is written to look neutral it is a big negative in my opinion. If nothing changed we would all advance accordingly when these "300" guys retired. It may not have be for 2 or three years but the advancement would then be a permanent improvement.
Now it will take approximately 300 retirees to just break even and we will "lose" the same advancement when those 300 guys would have retired in two or three years.
Am I making a mistake in my logic, or is trading productivity for an early retirement program a big loser in the long term?
Scoop
You are correct as far as the early retirement program. It is not a offset to work rule changes and should not be sold as such. Those pilots would all likely as you point out be gone in the next two to three years. The changes to how training and vacation are handled are however real and will generate jobs to help offset the 300 jobs that could be lost to the other items. It looks to me like the net job loss is around 200 pilots not counting the increased value of vacation and training just the different application of it relative to the current method. The 300 number by the way is considered to be a worst case number. Its really hard to quantify such a number. As a example how many pilots today when they have say 60 hours of flying choose to yellow high and fly past the ALV? That has the same effect as ALV plus 15.
In summary
ALV 15- lost jobs
30 day months-lost jobs
84 hours-lost jobs
Vacation applied to reserve hours- slight gain in jobs
training applied to reserve hours- slight gain in jobs
5 to 6 extra x days per year- slight gain in jobs
Extra vacation and training pay-neutral to very slight gain
full when projection reaches reserve guarantee- slight gain in jobs
I do not think the staffing formula will protect any jobs as Dalpa believes. The reason for that is historically the company has never been able to staff right at the manning formula. We are staffed well above it today. It will create contractual jobs but will not create actual jobs which is what we all really care about.
06-01-2012 | 02:57 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,877
Likes: 194
realistic gains are 4/8.5/3/3? After losing your pension, years of equipment advancement due to age 65, and half of Delta being outsourced, you're ok with that? Oh, and that didn't even account for it... you had to give up profit sharing for that in a period where DL will be making billions.
Let's play 52 pick up!
Let's play 52 pick up!
If you believe half of Delta is outsourced then you must love the TA on scope. Currently half our domestic departures are outsourced however only about 14 percent of the passengers due to the small size of DCI aircraft and total seats. This TA reduces the amount of DCI flights so that we can get back some of those those jobs. If you want to use total departures as your metric for outsourcing then this TA is a big success. I prefer the passengers carried as my metric and while the TA reduces that count it is not nearly as much as departures.
06-01-2012 | 06:36 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,601
Likes: 0
From: Dismayed
If you believe half of Delta is outsourced then you must love the TA on scope. Currently half our domestic departures are outsourced however only about 14 percent of the passengers due to the small size of DCI aircraft and total seats. This TA reduces the amount of DCI flights so that we can get back some of those those jobs. If you want to use total departures as your metric for outsourcing then this TA is a big success. I prefer the passengers carried as my metric and while the TA reduces that count it is not nearly as much as departures.
06-01-2012 | 06:55 AM
#17
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Sailing, ALPA's numbers are 300 on the FAQ part of the forum, or 340 from the C1 Chairman. Those are their numbers, and many have come up with the same conclusion.
The PIRP is a one time take, the work rule changes last.
The PIRP is a one time take, the work rule changes last.
06-01-2012 | 07:26 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Plus the retirements were going to happen anyway in the near future.
06-01-2012 | 07:36 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
From: 757 Left
20% raise. Numbers compute and that is improvement. We can argue over whether it is enough of an improvement, but....
Improvements in work rules. If work rules change allowing the the company to man with 300 fewer pilots, then the work rule changes are concessionary. If management has too many pilots sitting around on reserve, that sounds like a good time to bid reserve, or bid down to a where you can hold a line.
Improvement in sick leave. Eliminating the 75% pay provision is an improvement, as is the extra hours for pilots with more than 20 years. But the monitoring program will not be eliminated as advertised by the MEC, but in fact is now part of the contract. IMO, this section is now worse than present book.
Tightening scope. With the SEA and Q400 carve out, I'm not not convinced. Allowing more 76 seat jets, while reducing the 50 seat??? I'm just not there. JV improvements? Great.
Doing all this early? I'm all for it if it meets the needs of the pilot group. Not meeting mine.
06-01-2012 | 08:04 AM
#20
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Let's look at the above:
20% raise. Numbers compute and that is improvement. We can argue over whether it is enough of an improvement, but....
Improvements in work rules. If work rules change allowing the the company to man with 300 fewer pilots, then the work rule changes are concessionary. If management has too many pilots sitting around on reserve, that sounds like a good time to bid reserve, or bid down to a where you can hold a line.
Improvement in sick leave. Eliminating the 75% pay provision is an improvement, as is the extra hours for pilots with more than 20 years. But the monitoring program will not be eliminated as advertised by the MEC, but in fact is now part of the contract. IMO, this section is now worse than present book.
Tightening scope. With the SEA and Q400 carve out, I'm not not convinced. Allowing more 76 seat jets, while reducing the 50 seat??? I'm just not there. JV improvements? Great.
Doing all this early? I'm all for it if it meets the needs of the pilot group. Not meeting mine.
20% raise. Numbers compute and that is improvement. We can argue over whether it is enough of an improvement, but....
Improvements in work rules. If work rules change allowing the the company to man with 300 fewer pilots, then the work rule changes are concessionary. If management has too many pilots sitting around on reserve, that sounds like a good time to bid reserve, or bid down to a where you can hold a line.
Improvement in sick leave. Eliminating the 75% pay provision is an improvement, as is the extra hours for pilots with more than 20 years. But the monitoring program will not be eliminated as advertised by the MEC, but in fact is now part of the contract. IMO, this section is now worse than present book.
Tightening scope. With the SEA and Q400 carve out, I'm not not convinced. Allowing more 76 seat jets, while reducing the 50 seat??? I'm just not there. JV improvements? Great.
Doing all this early? I'm all for it if it meets the needs of the pilot group. Not meeting mine.
I agree, the collective will of this group will prevail and all of us should accept that in the end. I know I will no matter if it fails or passes. I just hope it fails or passes by more than a few basis points. If that happens, it sets us up for ugliness until we have a merger where we can all unite.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
