Civil discussion is good. BTW-- I agree with you..IMO, the "wind is blowing" in the direction of an attempt at:
(C15-some of the onerous/unacceptable stuff + a few other items for us) for a new TA
That being said-- since you asked for feedback, here is mine:
>>So, after seeing what went down last summer, I believe the company needs big help with staffing.<<
What you probably saw from your vantage point was a harried summer with a lot of GS in your category. In fact the ER flew over half the GS in the month I checked. What the company saw was a summer with record completion factors, money rolling in and a very "efficient" use of their pilot resources. RA crowed about some of this on the last earnings call, both because he was happy about it and (IMO) for other reasons--the guy plays chess and not checkers as it's said. <source-22D2/3 reports on Crew resources page and ALPA GS reports on the CA section of the DALPA web site> With some reduction in the 57 and hiring/training over the winter, the manning situation next summer may not be as bleak as you perceive.
>>Can anyone see anything wrong with allowing pilots to fly while on vacation (after all white slips go out), in exchange for something good.<<
You'd have to define "good" here, and it would need to be pretty outstanding. Allowing flying over vacation is clearly a staffing CONCESSION. Although a relatively small subset of pilots might be happy to get some extra money over certain months, staffing concessions result in slower advancement for everyone, which cascades downhill, affecting the junior pilots the most. Those guys are the ones who of course have much less vacation to use in this fashion, so they would get most of the pain and little of the gain.
>>It's voluntary. A lot of pilots would take advantage of it. And I believe we could get some good things in exchange for allowing this. Plus, I think we could protect against them taking advantage of it. <<
As an old Captain told me in my first year-- "We have a union and a contract for two reasons. The first is to protect you from the company. The second is to protect us from each other."
>>Win. Win. Win. (I think )<<
While I agree that it would make some pilots happy in the short term, I disagree with the idea overall because it will reduce Delta's need for pilots. This should be an "UP" contract, meaning we get BOTH more money AND more days off.
>>if I attach a clause that stipulates that if pilots are allowed to fly on some vacation days, hiring MUST continue at 150-200 new hires per month, no displacements, and staffing levels must remain the same, or better, for all fleets and seats -- oh yeah, and let's give guys and extra APD, that is not lose it or lose it, for every time they fly on vacation?<<
Several of the "good deals" you mention here are exactly opposite of what is likely to happen if we grant staffing concessions. The company "might" allow you to get some of these things into a TA, but they would either renege later or they'd happily guarantee something that doesn't cost more than they'd be spending anyway (thinking of your hiring/displacement guarantee here).
I will give you credit for throwing out an idea, but I'm not on board with this one. BTW-- tried to use different colors and fonts in my reply to make things clearer, but was unable. Thanks to those who muddled through nonetheless.
CCN