No it doesn't and worse yet DAL extended the Pinnacle CRJ-200 contracts five years to 2022 before we even sign...

On the flip side it might very well give us the edge in terms of timeline should the TA be rejected...

Cheers
George

 

And the furlough agreement will not protect the bottom of the list and DAL will get get the 717s (if they do will park the most unprofitable airplanes - the 50 seaters anyway, older 319s/320s, older 757s) - so worst case we'll all be in trouble and I'll be back on the bottom near furlough again.

 

I'm assuming you're referring to pilots NOT on the seniority list as of 7/1/12? Because the no furlough agreement & flow down most certainly protected the bottom of our list before the latest round of new hires. That was with oil over $145 per barrel!

 

Alfa,
Read the slide and you will find your answer:



The slide is an example in response to the talking point:
"Don't worry, Delta can't fly you to ALV+15, because the staffing formula would require an increase in reserves"

Then I looked at the 60hrs/annual average. I sounds like it would do the trick, but does it?

The slide illustrates how flying 90hrs for three months of the year and 50hrs/month for the remaining months still keeps the average at 60/hrs anually.
The staffing formula would only kick in if all pilot exceeded 60hrs/month anually and one exceeded it by more...

Averages and percentages are sometimes hard to understand but often easier to grasp visually. The slide illustrates how the technical measurements of the staffing formula won't provide "protection" from flying ALV+15.

Cheers
George

 

Wow, that was sure some scary analysis for a hypothetical example. I mean let's not try to stay within the bounds of possibilities let's see if we can come up with the stupidest example possible and then try to scare pilots who don't understand your subtle complexities. Can you give one valid reason why reserve flying would increase by 80% from winter to summer? The current shift is 2%. The current change in block hours is 13%. Remember there are many other things the company does to deal with that shift including limiting vacation weeks available, decreasing training, and changing the ALV. How in the world did you come up with 80%?

I mean hypothetically, if this TA fails, Delta could buy 1,000 RJ-50's and 1,000 Q-400's and shut down the mainline domestic fleet. So why shouldn't I make some slide showing the hypothetical staffing for mainline getting cut by 2/3. That wouldn't be any different than your slide would it? I mean it's possible right?

Hypothetically, I could hit a home run every time I went to bat in a major league game. I can pick up a bat, I can jog around 4 bases, I can swing the bat with enough force to hit it over the fence. So what is the possibility that I could hit 500 home runs next year in the major leagues? How about even 1? How about that I could even get one base hit? That is the difference between hypothetically and possibility.

Your slide was so completely at odds with reality that it is nothing more than a scare tactic. Since there is only a 1 or 2% drop in reserve hours flown from summer to winter, what your slide should show is guys flying 90 hours per month in the summer and then averaging flying 88 hours the rest of the year. Now, how does that average out to 60 hours.

So in some mythical, hypothetical world where airplanes run on cotton candy, yes your scenario averages out to 60. In the real world where real constraints exist, your slide is nothing but propaganda. Propaganda that has no basis in fact, no basis in reality, no statistical backing. It is just a made up scare tactic and it is just a complete fabrication.

The title of your slide is:

"Staffing Formula Won't Prevent Loss of Jobs from ALV and Work Rule Changes".

That is just a lie. That has no basis in reality. This is just one example of how you try to present yourself as some teller of truth with insight and analysis. Instead you are just a propaganda artist that is trying to sway votes through deception.

 

Alfa,

I like your analysis and input that answers questions and counters arguments with facts and I generally agree with you. The above post though is beneath you. I've met George and believe him to be an honorable person. I don't believe George is one to stoop to name calling etc. (Unlike others, I cannot remember any of his posts where he has done this.) Show him and explain where he is wrong and refute his arguments with facts. Thanks for listening.

Denny

 

How many times on the line have you seen a situation where the company has gone against the "spirit" of some work rules to exploit a pilot, squeezing more out to the detriment of the QOL and health of that pilot? Oh yeah, you dont fly the line.

You accuse george of giving a silly example to illustrate a work rule. Have you read what your buddies are putting in the various NNPs lately? Give me a friggin break.

You said: "you are just a propaganda artist that is trying to sway votes through deception". Many would say this is precisely what DALPA has been doing from start to finish on this TA...."We have an opportunity.....we will not hurry or reduce our goals blah blah blah...." Again, the tilted selling of POS12 is disgusting and dishonest.

There is a history of guys like you stating how things are nailed down...."this work rule....you wont even notice it". Then in real life it goes completely sideways and the guys on the line pay the price. I can't tell you how much that pi$$es me off. Bottom line, this productivity work rule change is another set back for the pilots of Delta airlines regardless of what you are saying. If it goes through we will never get back the option we had to fly less as an in base reserve. You wont be on this board selling then though. You will be sipping margaritas with your FPL buddies. Take your nonsense elsewhere.

 

That is true. If the work rule goes sideways we will need to go back and ask for it to be returned to what it was. When you do that, you are giving up asking for an improvement somewhere else just to return back to what you gave up.

We're swinging for singles and hoping to get hit in the head and be allowed to advance to first while they hit grand slams when they're up to bat and if they don't, well, hope that we don't have an error.

 

I am sorry, but there is not other explanation for his presentation. Just from a common sense view, how could anyone assume that 20 DC-9s produce almost twice as many jobs as 30 MD-90's and half as many jobs as 88 717's? If there was one or two mistakes on his slides, then I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Instead, every slide contains gross errors that all fall on one side of the coin, against the TA. This can't be random.

I have shown him where he is wrong and he never attempted to fix even the most gross errors, instead he hems and haws and offers more misdirection. This was just an attempt to mislead pilots and scare them into voting the way he wanted them to vote.

I am sure he doesn't kick dogs or steal candy from little babies. In this case, his worst side prevailed, he did not attempt to give a balanced view of anything and instead mostly made up "facts" and then presented them in a very authoritative, well produced document to try to scare people.

It is funny, ALPA gets roundly criticized for using the 87 hour average for line holders, even though it is the ACTUAL AVERAGE. So we back off and use 80 to avoid this criticism and avoid misleading anyone. He puts out complete lies and is supposed to get a free pass. Not from me.

 

You've flat out lied to this pilot group when you posted: "This TA includes the addition of 1,000 plus mainline jobs." When I corrected you, you just continued the lie and misdirection.

Carl