Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
08-08-2013, 07:05 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
So PG,
You don't think productivity sits and going from concourse A to D every time you transit Atlanta could be solved by building rotations where pilots and FAs stay with the same plane?
It really is that simple.
Not a knock on the SOT. I think the company, for some reason, likes nonproductivity.
You don't think productivity sits and going from concourse A to D every time you transit Atlanta could be solved by building rotations where pilots and FAs stay with the same plane?
It really is that simple.
Not a knock on the SOT. I think the company, for some reason, likes nonproductivity.
Regarding productivity -- I think the real issue is pilots and Delta define productivity differently. We define it as flight pay per hours away from home; whereas they define it as flight pay per block hour. So sit arounds and 30 hour layovers generally cost them nothing, but cost us a lot. We need work rules that balance those two different goals. And that's why things like the Average Daily Guarantee were implemented last contract. It's less than we wanted to get, but more than Delta wanted to give.
08-08-2013, 07:13 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Advocating for effective communications is not incompatible with being level-headed, PG.
I'm not taking issue with the actions of the people involved, but I find the "marketing" of that effort a little weird. It's easy to see how Flamer might think we're taking ownership of the company's position by justifying it, i.e. "we're powerless to do any better, because it costs money, and here is the justification" (Fail).
A more successful approach would be to say that you've looked at the data/in some cases it costs more to produce better rotations/you've discussed it/the company is exercising their choice not to built more efficient rotations/you'll continue to ask for better/please continue to professionally discuss with your CPO. I don't see how this is being wishy-washy.
As far as submitting the data, they can make their own case, and submit their own exhibits, in defense of their position, and we can market our product a little better.
I'm not taking issue with the actions of the people involved, but I find the "marketing" of that effort a little weird. It's easy to see how Flamer might think we're taking ownership of the company's position by justifying it, i.e. "we're powerless to do any better, because it costs money, and here is the justification" (Fail).
A more successful approach would be to say that you've looked at the data/in some cases it costs more to produce better rotations/you've discussed it/the company is exercising their choice not to built more efficient rotations/you'll continue to ask for better/please continue to professionally discuss with your CPO. I don't see how this is being wishy-washy.
As far as submitting the data, they can make their own case, and submit their own exhibits, in defense of their position, and we can market our product a little better.
08-08-2013, 07:44 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Position: DTW744B
Posts: 61
08-08-2013, 08:01 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Right Seat 744
Posts: 946
Holding His What? - Family Feud - YouTube
08-08-2013, 08:18 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,325
08-08-2013, 08:28 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
I was actually struck more by the tone, than the data, which I glossed over. To be fair, I went back and looked at the data provided.
Initially, I don't quite know how to make sense of the last chart. I don't actually understand the title. It appears to be a chart that shows how much bigger a pilot's monthly credit would be, in order to increase average pay/calendar day. If I understand correctly, in order to make average pay/calendar day move from 5:20 to 5:49, the total amount of credit on a line would have to go up ~70%. Or maybe it's ~70% more synthetic credit pay, which I have no way of equating to a monthly cost.
I assume, but can't confirm, that the first chart shows that system-wide, in July 2013, that going up to 5:49/day would increase credit time by ~ 12,000 hours. In which case, we may be saying the Company is finding that ~1 hour/pilot/month is too expensive to make better rotations. Or is it more like 2 hours/pilot/month, since we're not including all fleets?
So, I have no objections to the union putting up data. If you're going to put up data, put up data to support our objectives. It would be 100% fine with me if the union had said the cost of making rotations that yield 29 minutes more/day, which gives us X more days at home on average, is about 1 (or 2) hour(s) per month per pilot. I think most guys wouldn't be surprised to have the Company explain that it finds this to be too expensive when they present their side of the story.
Where I balk, is when we write this in as an introduction to the last chart:
"...While overall rotation pay did increase in our testing, its increase was marginal compared to the percentage increase in both synthetic credit and deadhead hours..."
Why are we arguing that this benefit is marginal?
08-08-2013, 08:31 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 7,000
9. A short call pilot:
........
44 f. will be released from on-call duty not later than 1200 base time on his last on-call day
45 prior to a hard non-fly day.
From the current Live contract
Scoop
Last edited by Scoop; 08-08-2013 at 08:43 AM.
08-08-2013, 08:39 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Captain
Posts: 830
You don't think productivity sits and going from concourse A to D every time you transit Atlanta could be solved by building rotations where pilots and FAs stay with the same plane?
It really is that simple.
Not a knock on the SOT. I think the company, for some reason, likes nonproductivity.
Excuse iPhone syntax.
08-08-2013, 08:44 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
scambo1, I complained about that for 20+ years. Having said that, if there's one thing I've learned the past few years, it is that solutions that appear to be so obvious, really aren't. Or they would have been instituted by now.
Regarding productivity -- I think the real issue is pilots and Delta define productivity differently. We define it as flight pay per hours away from home; whereas they define it as flight pay per block hour. So sit arounds and 30 hour layovers generally cost them nothing, but cost us a lot. We need work rules that balance those two different goals. And that's why things like the Average Daily Guarantee were implemented last contract. It's less than we wanted to get, but more than Delta wanted to give.
Regarding productivity -- I think the real issue is pilots and Delta define productivity differently. We define it as flight pay per hours away from home; whereas they define it as flight pay per block hour. So sit arounds and 30 hour layovers generally cost them nothing, but cost us a lot. We need work rules that balance those two different goals. And that's why things like the Average Daily Guarantee were implemented last contract. It's less than we wanted to get, but more than Delta wanted to give.
Also, if crews were paired together with their planes, there wouldn't be a need for synthetic credit. A domestic guy would be flying a hard 6 plus hours, with the only thrash being if the plane was hard broken. As it is now, we are talking about synthetic credit and deadheading, but the nonproductivity issues really only show themselves when transiting a "base."
08-08-2013, 09:10 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: CA
Posts: 397
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
