Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-25-2014, 08:43 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,596
Not jealous at all. In fact, how do you know I'm not doing that sort of thing myself? BTW, you don't get Greenslip pay until you are over the ALV either. And the concept of no GS#2 until everyone else has had a shot is flawed due to the fact that one has to be available and in position to take GS#1. Lot's of guys that are willing to answer the phone at 1AM or have dropped a lousy trip to create a hole in their schedule are getting GS#2+ while others who would like to get GS#1 are out flying their regular line.It's a total crapshoot. Premium pay over a certain credit threshold is not.
03-25-2014, 08:49 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,596
Heyas Timbo,
When people call out the NWA system, they typically forget that NWA had exactly what you stated.
One half of the premium pay system was 1.5 over 80. Some people got into premium pay right out of the box with the bid line.
The good deal here is that everything counted. Pick up any flying, any time during the month, and you got the premium. No waiting by the phone and no to trying to do a last minute commute
But there were also "premium trips", which were essentially the same as a GS except you could tell which trips were "premium" in open time. If you were awarded one, you got the 1.5 even if your time was below 80.
You really got into the money if you got a premium trip and were over 80. That paid %2.25.
But here's the thing: Like Shiz said, you absolutely do not want a system like this off the leash, which by just adopting the 1.5 x 80 is what you would have.
What people forget is that NWA had a fairly rigid cap system. Rather than an ALV, you had a "max scheduled" that was set like the ALV (it was roughly equivalent to ALV +7:30). You couldn't be scheduled over that amount. You could do a "high time" (HIT) request, which permitted max schedule +5:00, but then your requests were worked after everyone else who wasn't HIT.
There was also a max actual time, which was 2:30 over the max scheduled. If you projected to go over the max actual, you had to drop a trip to take you below it.
There was also negative bank flyback, up to 15:00, but you had to have a negative bank to do that.
You could take training events for pay, no credit.
So if you had a Max scheduled of 80, and 15:00 of NBFB, 5 hours of HIT, plus had 2:30 hours of overfly, the most you could do was 102:30. Throw in a schoosh more if you had CQ that month that you took for pay, no credit. And that was it, and that's only if you had 15 hours of negative bank. If you had a zero bank, then the actual max you could do was 87:30, plus any CQ.
If you implemented the 1.5x for 80 with the same kind of cap system, the people working the system would scream bloody murder.
To make the system worthwhile to change, in my personal opinion, it would have to be:
1.5 over ALV, and all time counts
Premium trips (AKA GS) remain at 2x
Multipliers still stack
Implement at more rigid cap system, perhaps with a max scheduled of +15:00 over ALV, PERIOD. I'm not sure if a forced drop due to over max actual is worthwhile, but I'd check into it.
Anything over ALV +7.:30 (or pick a number) goes into a separate bucket, permitting people below ALV +7:30 to bid for open time first.
Nu
When people call out the NWA system, they typically forget that NWA had exactly what you stated.
One half of the premium pay system was 1.5 over 80. Some people got into premium pay right out of the box with the bid line.
The good deal here is that everything counted. Pick up any flying, any time during the month, and you got the premium. No waiting by the phone and no to trying to do a last minute commute
But there were also "premium trips", which were essentially the same as a GS except you could tell which trips were "premium" in open time. If you were awarded one, you got the 1.5 even if your time was below 80.
You really got into the money if you got a premium trip and were over 80. That paid %2.25.
But here's the thing: Like Shiz said, you absolutely do not want a system like this off the leash, which by just adopting the 1.5 x 80 is what you would have.
What people forget is that NWA had a fairly rigid cap system. Rather than an ALV, you had a "max scheduled" that was set like the ALV (it was roughly equivalent to ALV +7:30). You couldn't be scheduled over that amount. You could do a "high time" (HIT) request, which permitted max schedule +5:00, but then your requests were worked after everyone else who wasn't HIT.
There was also a max actual time, which was 2:30 over the max scheduled. If you projected to go over the max actual, you had to drop a trip to take you below it.
There was also negative bank flyback, up to 15:00, but you had to have a negative bank to do that.
You could take training events for pay, no credit.
So if you had a Max scheduled of 80, and 15:00 of NBFB, 5 hours of HIT, plus had 2:30 hours of overfly, the most you could do was 102:30. Throw in a schoosh more if you had CQ that month that you took for pay, no credit. And that was it, and that's only if you had 15 hours of negative bank. If you had a zero bank, then the actual max you could do was 87:30, plus any CQ.
If you implemented the 1.5x for 80 with the same kind of cap system, the people working the system would scream bloody murder.
To make the system worthwhile to change, in my personal opinion, it would have to be:
1.5 over ALV, and all time counts
Premium trips (AKA GS) remain at 2x
Multipliers still stack
Implement at more rigid cap system, perhaps with a max scheduled of +15:00 over ALV, PERIOD. I'm not sure if a forced drop due to over max actual is worthwhile, but I'd check into it.
Anything over ALV +7.:30 (or pick a number) goes into a separate bucket, permitting people below ALV +7:30 to bid for open time first.
Nu
03-25-2014, 09:00 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,431
1.5 doesn't cut it.
They tried that before here at Delta. Reduced greenslips to 1.5 and then found out most pilots didn't want to give up their days off for that. The company gladly went back to 2.0 greenslips. It's the proper incentive to get trips covered.
And limiting you to one greenslip until everyone in category has had a chance for one addresses your spread the wealth issue.
They tried that before here at Delta. Reduced greenslips to 1.5 and then found out most pilots didn't want to give up their days off for that. The company gladly went back to 2.0 greenslips. It's the proper incentive to get trips covered.
And limiting you to one greenslip until everyone in category has had a chance for one addresses your spread the wealth issue.
Who flies most GS? Senior guys.
When are most GS passed out? In the summer.
When do most senior guys have vacation? In the summer.
Therefore...most senior guys had zero incentive to fly GS, because the fact that they had vacation weeks almost ensured that the GS would only pay straight pay.
Then, the only guys really putting in GS were the reserves (where a GS really acts more like a GS with conflict, with the payback days).
The company was having destabilized categories, and it was all their own doing. ALPA told the company, "pay the GS double, AND count vacation and CQ back into the GS trigger, and your problem is solved."
Which is exactly what happened.
But, the moral of this post (now that I have rambled some) is that there is a big difference between guaranteed 1.5x pay that you know about days or even weeks in advance as you build up your line value with WS, swaps etc, versus waiting until the day of or day prior to "maybe" get a GS, and maybe not.
And of course there is always the decision you have to make. "Do I put in a WS at straight pay, where the odds are good that I will get a call from scheduling, or do I hold out for double pay?" And of course if you get a WS, then someone junior to you gets a GS, then you slap yourself because "hey if only I had known...."
But the opposite happens as well. Perhaps you have put in for a GS, none have been passed out, and an easy WS gets awarded to someone junior to you. Once again the "if I had only known that no GS would be offered, then I would have put in for a WS."
We shouldn't have to approach things that way. Just put in for more flying if you like, don't wait to get the "magic" GS call the day of or day prior, and if you get assigned more flying, anything over 75 or 80 pays 1.5x. What's not to like?
03-25-2014, 09:01 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 106
You are correct. My bad for not detailing that. However, that does not diminish the point I was making which was to counter the argument that 1.5 over 80 was bad because you had to get over 80 to get any premium $. Both systems require some base level of straight pay work before any premium applies. I'm amazed at how many pilots I talk to who think that the guy who drops most of his month and then flies nothing but big greenslips (intl) is getting double pay for his whole month...
03-25-2014, 09:06 AM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
All of these schemes for picking up more time do nothing but delay people's upgrades to the next higher paying seat. We should be figuring out how to work FEWER hours, not more.
If an old school trade unionist could read these boards he would be shocked.
03-25-2014, 09:13 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: 7er
Posts: 1,673
I'm not sure. The main driver of hiring and required pilots is block hours. Delta figures the average pilot is going to fly xx.xx of hours per month and I don't think they really care how they do it.
03-25-2014, 09:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,431
Probably a better, and more comprehensive argument than what I formulated above, but I find it very difficult to take the 1.5>80 calmly. Every change to a contract is designed to reward/incentivize or discourage certain behaviors and actions. This one is such a grotesque, obvious attempt to pull the blanket one way, it reminds me of the Age 65 argument.
On the surface, there is a certain appeal to the simple argument "1.5>80", especially when guys are jealous about pilots getting GS (which are designed to reward an exception). That's about it. Once you start scratching the veneer, this is obviously a attempted robbery.
On the surface, there is a certain appeal to the simple argument "1.5>80", especially when guys are jealous about pilots getting GS (which are designed to reward an exception). That's about it. Once you start scratching the veneer, this is obviously a attempted robbery.
So if an hourly worker works 40 hours a week in a factory, and his supervisor asks him if he would like to work 50 hours the next week, are you saying that he should NOT want to get 1.5x overtime pay, and in fact SHOULD want to work those extra 10 hours at straight pay, all for some philosophical "greater good?"
I don't get it. And yet that is exactly your stance when you oppose automatic premium pay over a certain threshold (80, 75, or whatever).
How about this? You get a schedule. If you fly over some trigger for WHATEVER reason (WS, swap, reroute, weather delay) all time above that is considered overtime, and you get premium pay for it. I don't get why you would oppose that, unless it is some marxist economic approach.
This isn't about "whoring" or whatever pejorative term you can think up, it is about rewarding overtime work. Not everyone is trying to fly 100+ hours (I sure am not). But if I am scheduled to fly 80 hours, and I swap an inefficient, low-time trip (30 hour layover, anyone?) for another, higher-time trip that spans the same days--and that puts me up to 84 hours, why would you oppose my getting premium pay for those last four hours? It makes ZERO sense.
03-25-2014, 09:25 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,431
Usually I fly 75-80 hours. Some months I fly more, most less. But I like the flexibility. However we have a very large system that doesn't really lend itself to glib statements of "we should all work less."
A four day crappy domestic that has a long 30 hour layover (due to FAR 117) and only pays 18+ hours is not in the same universe as an uber-efficient international trips paying 20+ hours for a 3-day that signs in on the afternoon of day one and returns 48 hours later.
You really can't shoehorn this large pilot group into one approach when it comes to the "appropriate" amount of flying a guy should do.
I do think that we need some limits on our flying, but I hesitate to tell someone else that I have the right to tell him what he should think.
I guess that is why we have LEC reps who direct the negotiators. Ultimately we all decide what is best.
03-25-2014, 09:40 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,169
You and your reasonable "compromise"... Ugh. It's a pretty decent idea on paper, it looks like it would work in the real world.
I don't want to give an incentive for "SET CONDITION MAX CREDIT". The extra hours is the extra pay. If you want to work more that is your own business, but I do not submit that it should come out of the compensation package for other pilots who don't/can't fly extra.
A premium of 7.5 hours of 1.5 is 3:45. Theat 3:45 per month equates to 45 hours per year. I would propose putting that value towards the following:
APD (4-days) be dropped with pay ≈ 21:00
One extra week of Vacation = 22:45-24:00*
Where would others like to see more pay for the same amount of work?
*Prefer the VAC day value be increased again in C2015. Does not account for the large staffing impact of the extra week off for every pilot...Which is huge.
I don't want to give an incentive for "SET CONDITION MAX CREDIT". The extra hours is the extra pay. If you want to work more that is your own business, but I do not submit that it should come out of the compensation package for other pilots who don't/can't fly extra.
A premium of 7.5 hours of 1.5 is 3:45. Theat 3:45 per month equates to 45 hours per year. I would propose putting that value towards the following:
APD (4-days) be dropped with pay ≈ 21:00
One extra week of Vacation = 22:45-24:00*
Where would others like to see more pay for the same amount of work?
*Prefer the VAC day value be increased again in C2015. Does not account for the large staffing impact of the extra week off for every pilot...Which is huge.
) and just have an ADG of at least 5:15, with > 5:45 being preferable. Get rid of the 2200-0200 carveout while we're at it. 117 created a boatload of 30 hour layovers that end up making 18 hr 4-days, 13:30 hr 3-days, etc. REGs aren't even protected by that, and RSV's don't get DPA....We're at work, pay us for our time.-I'd like to extend your APD idea, and make it redeemable (and paid) in up to 4 chunks. There have been several years when I used the APD but only needed it really for one day. If it was paid, it would be nice to be able to retain the remaining un-needed days for later use. Further, un-used APD days would rollover as SUPP vacation days if they aren't used in a calendar year. Sorta like a super-PB day where you don't need "company concurrence" to use it.
-I'd like to see GS pay protection, possibly with some reasonable recovery obligation in the footprint of the original trip. I hauled ass up to the airport to help you guys out, and now I'm only getting suit-up pay (2 hours) for a NOOP???
Once you get burned on that, you don't forget-Remove any exceptions for Reroute pay. If I am home more than x hours after I was supposed to, that and any subsequent duty periods should all be at 2X.
-RSV guarantee = ALV, ditch the minus 2 thing and let it go all the way up to 84. Or better yet, reel in the upper limit of the ALV down to 83 or 82 - baby steps, but at least let's get it going in the right direction.
-DC to 16 or 17%
-If not an extra vacation week, at least slide the accrual schedule up halfway. So if it takes 6 years to reach each extra week now, maybe we could settle on getting to each accrual step a few years early - if they won't go for the extra week, this would at least be a step in that direction for everyone that's not maxed out. Those that are maxed out get an extra 30 hours of sick time a year anyways, so that's like a super vacation week that they're already getting <---TIC
03-25-2014, 09:59 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
...that he has a contract, and needs to be paid double, not 1.5. He would also think about whether he has a request for overtime. Assuming he does not have a request for overtime, he would suggest to the supervisor to check the list to see who does. That person should get the double pay. If not, that supervisor should find a junior worker to do the work at double pay. If the supervisor refused, that initial person should perform the work as an assignment, and then make sure the right person is also paid. That's the way he would do it, if he was unionized airline pilot.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
