acl65pilot

I see the thinking of adding bodies as strategic planning. Even if they gave the airlines two years to comply, it would take DAL two to three years at full steam to hire 1700 pilots. That alone with the need for all of the aircraft/base move training events means that the school house is going to be very very busy.
If we start hiring this next year, which I think is a real possibility, it is to allow us the time to get the bodies on board. It takes time. DAL was running 60-70 a month in 07 and 08 they still had guys coming to indoc and then going home for four to six weeks waiting for their sim sessions.


In the end ideas, like added staffing, and virtual basing appear to be DAL management looking over the third hill at possible outcomes to this re-authorization bill.

shiznit

BTW:
both FDX and UPS still max under 248.
DAL has a DC plan.....You probably meant DB plans.

What did the FDX pilots "give up" to get 6/hr days?
What did the UPS guys "give up" to get 237/hr?
What did the FDX guys "give up to get 246/hr?
What did UPS and FDX "give up" to have solid DB's?
What was "given up" to have higher per diem rates?
NOTHING.

There is no more "giving up" in my opinion and hopefully none at the LEC/MEC level, although it looks like you already have accepted defeat before the first shots of the upcoming war have been fired.

acl65pilot

Amen!
The ATM is closed. Time for a deposit guys! A large one at that!

1234

That is one way of setting up your bid. If you are using multiple lines requesting the same days (only reducing by one or two) you would want to use an "All or Nothing" or "Forget" and "Redo".

Example of not using All or Nothing or Forget % Redo:

1. Prefer off December 25, 24, 26, 23, 12, 05
2. Prefer off December 25, 24, 26, 23, 12

What is going to happen in denial is (after it has removed all the lower negative preferences) is remove the 12th, then the 23rd, then the 26 and so on from line 2. Then it will move up to line one and remove the 5th, 12th, etc.

Bucking Bar

What I like about Armando is that he will consider and accept good ideas. That is representation.

I've seen many of DN's ideas showing up in other places and I think that is a good thing. Although, it must bug DN to have beaten by others (not just AG) who borrowed freely from DN's material.

You've got a great attitude about running and are smart to know you are on mile one of a marathon.

Bucking Bar

Agreed - but we also need to consider the profitability of FDX and UPS in comparison to the passenger biz and be realistic.

There are two ways to higher pay. Higher hourly rates is one, growth is another.

I really hope these new rest requirements don't limit just US airlines just as International carriers need some place to put excess capacity. Particularly in Delta's case, we need to be competitive on a global scale. These rest laws will need to comply universally or else we will be at a competitive disadvantage.

finis72

Shiznet, I agree with no more giving but you are comparing a different industry.Dl makes/looses money flying pax,FDX and UPS make money consistently flying boxes.Flame away but if it goes to arbitration we will not be able to point to the cargo outfits,only other airlines.

acl65pilot

It it bugged me, I have not business in the business of representing our pilots. I really do not care who gets credit for the successes or the idea. I just want the ideas to result in success. It is not about the originator, just the idea.

Much like what has happened in my past, people will realize I was and am the real deal after the decision is made. I am used to being told NO, all it does is make me redouble my efforts, and try to find another point of entry.

I would like to serve our pilots within the association or from outside the association. I am an advocate for this pilot group. But as with my nature, I get long winded, and the short answer is, No I am not bugged at all. The results were a mandate IMHO!

(of those who voted that is )

sailingfun

I am not sure where the 1700 number came from. It is not however a correct number for Delta. The ALPA proposal which will not be the final rule more then likely would require a modest increase in pilot manning at Delta. Somewhere in the area of 200 to 300 pilots. If it is watered down which is likely under the intense pressure from the ATA then the increase will be less. The Delta contract already requires much of what the new rule requires. The driving factors for pilot jobs at Delta are simple. How many total pilot block hours does the company have to man and what percentage of that ends up being credit time. Required Block hours plus credit time equals jobs. Even with the thousands of jobs we gave up via work rules and elimination of the cap the new ruling wont cause a big job boost at Delta. It may cause domestic pilots to work more days to get the same number of hours but it wont increase the number of pilots. Contractual changes in the next contract such as restoring vacation to pay and credit could make a huge difference but that is several years away at best.

acl65pilot

I agree with your numbers but I will tell you that the 1700-1800 number is what is floating around in many circles besides Flt Ops (4th floor) I think we would need a few hundred at best, because simply put what ALPA is proposing looks like our rules sans the 9 hrs of block based upon report time. It is almost what we have. (Almost)

I also want to see the last week of vacation back. Plus what you proposed a few 100 pages ago.