Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-23-2012, 07:52 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
05-23-2012, 08:05 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
This is the staffing formula:
I apologize for any formatting goofs because I cut it from a PDF. Look at E, 12 month rolling average of reserve time. Look at 2b. where it says E/60. That is the average. If reserve pilots average more than 60 hours, you need more reserves. The changes in the bid period windows (July and August) and the change to the ALV will level out staffing requirements for the whole year. That is to take away the summer surge. Just for example, the staffing increase required by the increased vacation value (3+15, which is still too low in my book, see I can find negatives) will be more than the minimal decrease from the ALV+15.
The statement that staffing is not an average is just false. It is an average of an average. (double secret average)
There are also terms for Duty Periods worked (F/14) in the formula. That is because domestic pilots are more prone to having multiple duty periods with low block time (those goofy non-bid package rotations) and international pilots usually get more block time per day worked. The formula takes that into account to ensure that pilots aren't working 17 or 18 duty periods with low block time. I remember my two years as the plug MD-88 reserve captain under the old system (where junior guys ate it non stop) and that is why Duty Periods made it into that formula.
I apologize for any formatting goofs because I cut it from a PDF. Look at E, 12 month rolling average of reserve time. Look at 2b. where it says E/60. That is the average. If reserve pilots average more than 60 hours, you need more reserves. The changes in the bid period windows (July and August) and the change to the ALV will level out staffing requirements for the whole year. That is to take away the summer surge. Just for example, the staffing increase required by the increased vacation value (3+15, which is still too low in my book, see I can find negatives) will be more than the minimal decrease from the ALV+15.
The statement that staffing is not an average is just false. It is an average of an average. (double secret average)
There are also terms for Duty Periods worked (F/14) in the formula. That is because domestic pilots are more prone to having multiple duty periods with low block time (those goofy non-bid package rotations) and international pilots usually get more block time per day worked. The formula takes that into account to ensure that pilots aren't working 17 or 18 duty periods with low block time. I remember my two years as the plug MD-88 reserve captain under the old system (where junior guys ate it non stop) and that is why Duty Periods made it into that formula.
Thanks for responding. You are going to have to forgive me though. It's probably going to take me all afternoon to 1.) figure out the formulas, and 2.) figure out what you are trying to say.
Did humans negotiate this TA?
05-23-2012, 08:07 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Alpha,
Why aren't you commenting on the Average Daily Credit for reserves now being included in the formula? Seems like a significant improvement. For 2010 my pay would have been ~ 10 thousand more based on this provision alone. Am I interpreting this provision incorrectly?
Why aren't you commenting on the Average Daily Credit for reserves now being included in the formula? Seems like a significant improvement. For 2010 my pay would have been ~ 10 thousand more based on this provision alone. Am I interpreting this provision incorrectly?
05-23-2012, 08:08 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Never mind.
05-23-2012, 08:09 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
05-23-2012, 08:11 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
05-23-2012, 08:17 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
In rough terms, the CRJ 700 earns 40% more revenue on about a 15% operational cost increase when compared to the -200. The Next Gen 900 carries approximately 18% more revenue than a -700 at the same (to +5%) cost as a -700.
On a CASM basis the airlines report the Next Gen 900 is less expensive than a B717 (using AirTran's pay rates). At Delta the delta might be larger due to our better pay. Alpha and Slow have not come after me yet on this point, but I am told they disagree based on numbers from Delta management & I will admit that gleaning real data from the DOT numbers is difficult because of the complexity of the capacity purchase agreements.
My educated guess (confirmed by TA results) is that management wants the Next Gen -900 more than they want the 717.
While I think I am coming to the decision to vote "YES," there is no real fear that the 717 (or something else) hangs in the balance.
I also have not detected a FUD campaign from our MEC. My Reps have been candid in our discussions.
On a CASM basis the airlines report the Next Gen 900 is less expensive than a B717 (using AirTran's pay rates). At Delta the delta might be larger due to our better pay. Alpha and Slow have not come after me yet on this point, but I am told they disagree based on numbers from Delta management & I will admit that gleaning real data from the DOT numbers is difficult because of the complexity of the capacity purchase agreements.
My educated guess (confirmed by TA results) is that management wants the Next Gen -900 more than they want the 717.
While I think I am coming to the decision to vote "YES," there is no real fear that the 717 (or something else) hangs in the balance.
I also have not detected a FUD campaign from our MEC. My Reps have been candid in our discussions.
05-23-2012, 08:17 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: 320B
Posts: 781
Didn't the pilot group take a hugh paycut compared to the other employee groups at Delta? Looks to me that all the employees will be enjoying profit sharing and pay raises. The problem is the pilots are no where near prebankruptcy rates and everyone else is. We're also allowing more RJ's. The B717's will ensure the parking of a/c on the property, likely larger a/c. One last thought, I want to see the SURVEY results.
Just to throw some fact out there:
NWA bankruptcy wages in 2006:
12yr FO 757 = $96.75
12 yr FO A320= $93.12
Current TA January 2013:
12yr FO 7ER = $145.63
12yr FO A320 = $134.76
So these wages are between 43% & 50% more than the NWA bk rates which is more than I had expected. I don't have the pay tables for prior to bk at NWA or DAL so I don't really know what they look like in relation to those figures. I just can't believe that the bk rates were that bad. I just guess my mind doesn't want to remember those days.
05-23-2012, 08:20 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
88 pilots on reserve will probably see a 30% or so raise.
We all admit that this does not meet our expectations that we filled out in the survey.
The difference day one is 7.2% give or take. One must ask if the reward is worth the risk for 140 million dollars. Just an honest question.
You must take the emotion out of this, look at it objectively and go from there.
We all admit that this does not meet our expectations that we filled out in the survey.
The difference day one is 7.2% give or take. One must ask if the reward is worth the risk for 140 million dollars. Just an honest question.
You must take the emotion out of this, look at it objectively and go from there.
05-23-2012, 08:20 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 7ERB, no M88, no 7ER, no A320, NEXT!
Posts: 397
The biggest problem with the TA is that it is not what the pilots asked for in the survey. The problem we have is not with the company, but with ALPA. In this case ALPA has taken the position that they believe they know what is best for us. Why even bother surveying the pilot group then? No where in the survey was I asked what I would be willing to accept to get a quick deal. The survey was geared toward a normal section 6 process. Basically we have had almost no input as to what we would be willing to accept to get a quick deal. We have not been asked our time value of money.
If we ratify this TA we set a dangerous precedent, showing ALPA that they can ignore our input, or in this case not ask our input when it became clear that an expedited process might be possible.
We all pay dues to be represented and have our voices heard. In this instance, ALPA has ignored our input and crafted a TA based on the company's desire to get a deal quick. Who has ALPA represented here?
If we ratify this TA we set a dangerous precedent, showing ALPA that they can ignore our input, or in this case not ask our input when it became clear that an expedited process might be possible.
We all pay dues to be represented and have our voices heard. In this instance, ALPA has ignored our input and crafted a TA based on the company's desire to get a deal quick. Who has ALPA represented here?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
