Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
01-02-2015, 10:50 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
RE: MOAB
You need to read the details. It looks good until you realize that it's all based on pilots from another base bidding out and going to another. Some growth, yes. But nowhere near what it looks like at first glance. This is NOT the MOAB. It's moving the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The 777 is a perfect example. 25 ATL CA positions. 10 747 displacements. 10 positions dependent upon 10 DTW 777 CA bidding to ATL, otherwise the positions don't exist. That leaves 5 new slots.
Sorry to be Debby Downer. But, this scenario repeats itself across all of the categories. Even the 73N in SEA is dependent upon SLC and CVG bidding into it.
I'm a little disappointed. But, I'm married and I'm used to it.
You need to read the details. It looks good until you realize that it's all based on pilots from another base bidding out and going to another. Some growth, yes. But nowhere near what it looks like at first glance. This is NOT the MOAB. It's moving the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The 777 is a perfect example. 25 ATL CA positions. 10 747 displacements. 10 positions dependent upon 10 DTW 777 CA bidding to ATL, otherwise the positions don't exist. That leaves 5 new slots.
Sorry to be Debby Downer. But, this scenario repeats itself across all of the categories. Even the 73N in SEA is dependent upon SLC and CVG bidding into it.
I'm a little disappointed. But, I'm married and I'm used to it.
Let's say all 10 747 captains bump down to DTW 777 and 330 positions. Doesn't that increase the amount of 777 and 330 captains to be awarded in NYC and ATL?
The whole "Vacancies Contingent on not Backfilling" thing is confusing. But, it seems like it's much better than them saying they aren't backfilling at all.
Of course, all of this is based on me understanding on what they are saying. And that never happens.
01-02-2015, 10:50 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Position: On the hotel shuttle
Posts: 5,907
Why an equal of NYC 330A's and B's. Shouldn't it be 1-2?
01-02-2015, 11:02 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
01-02-2015, 11:11 AM
meh
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 828
Well I was kind of excited and feeling good about this AE until I read this:
"Our projection is at least 50 SEA crews (50 Captains and 50 F/Os) by the end of 2015. There are 15 SEA-73N Captain and 15 SEA-73N First Officer positions contingent on CVG and SLC pilots bidding out."
Hmm... That tells me that possibly 15% reduction in SLC staffing to fund SEA... what a bummer. That would wipe out ALL the gains I was predicted to make in SLC for the next couple years, plus the single guy I've moved up in the last 3 years. Shrinking the SLC cat will make my bidding power effectively decrease significantly. How this is all reconciled with the 35 posted and unfilled SLC 73NB positions for "new guys" I don't know... I suspect it shows that the projected "growth" in SLC was totally illusory and doesn't exist, as they are NOW trying to shrink SLC (and/or CVG, looks like they don't care which) by up to 15%.
Every time some advancement or good seniority news happens, I only have to wait a month or two to get slapped in the face again with more backwards sliding. We'll see what happens on this AE, but the Network desire to shrink SLC 73 by up to 15 guys (15%) doesn't bode well.
"Our projection is at least 50 SEA crews (50 Captains and 50 F/Os) by the end of 2015. There are 15 SEA-73N Captain and 15 SEA-73N First Officer positions contingent on CVG and SLC pilots bidding out."
Hmm... That tells me that possibly 15% reduction in SLC staffing to fund SEA... what a bummer. That would wipe out ALL the gains I was predicted to make in SLC for the next couple years, plus the single guy I've moved up in the last 3 years. Shrinking the SLC cat will make my bidding power effectively decrease significantly. How this is all reconciled with the 35 posted and unfilled SLC 73NB positions for "new guys" I don't know... I suspect it shows that the projected "growth" in SLC was totally illusory and doesn't exist, as they are NOW trying to shrink SLC (and/or CVG, looks like they don't care which) by up to 15%.
Every time some advancement or good seniority news happens, I only have to wait a month or two to get slapped in the face again with more backwards sliding. We'll see what happens on this AE, but the Network desire to shrink SLC 73 by up to 15 guys (15%) doesn't bode well.
01-02-2015, 11:23 AM
Doesn't Get Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,598
Well I was kind of excited and feeling good about this AE until I read this:
"Our projection is at least 50 SEA crews (50 Captains and 50 F/Os) by the end of 2015. There are 15 SEA-73N Captain and 15 SEA-73N First Officer positions contingent on CVG and SLC pilots bidding out."
Hmm... That tells me that possibly 15% reduction in SLC staffing to fund SEA... what a bummer. That would wipe out ALL the gains I was predicted to make in SLC for the next couple years, plus the single guy I've moved up in the last 3 years. Shrinking the SLC cat will make my bidding power effectively decrease significantly. How this is all reconciled with the 35 posted and unfilled SLC 73NB positions for "new guys" I don't know... I suspect it shows that the projected "growth" in SLC was totally illusory and doesn't exist, as they are NOW trying to shrink SLC (and/or CVG, looks like they don't care which) by up to 15%.
Every time some advancement or good seniority news happens, I only have to wait a month or two to get slapped in the face again with more backwards sliding. We'll see what happens on this AE, but the Network desire to shrink SLC 73 by up to 15 guys (15%) doesn't bode well.
"Our projection is at least 50 SEA crews (50 Captains and 50 F/Os) by the end of 2015. There are 15 SEA-73N Captain and 15 SEA-73N First Officer positions contingent on CVG and SLC pilots bidding out."
Hmm... That tells me that possibly 15% reduction in SLC staffing to fund SEA... what a bummer. That would wipe out ALL the gains I was predicted to make in SLC for the next couple years, plus the single guy I've moved up in the last 3 years. Shrinking the SLC cat will make my bidding power effectively decrease significantly. How this is all reconciled with the 35 posted and unfilled SLC 73NB positions for "new guys" I don't know... I suspect it shows that the projected "growth" in SLC was totally illusory and doesn't exist, as they are NOW trying to shrink SLC (and/or CVG, looks like they don't care which) by up to 15%.
Every time some advancement or good seniority news happens, I only have to wait a month or two to get slapped in the face again with more backwards sliding. We'll see what happens on this AE, but the Network desire to shrink SLC 73 by up to 15 guys (15%) doesn't bode well.
Are there really 35 unfilled positions on the 73N from the last couple bids?
01-02-2015, 11:39 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
So 132 positions on this AE are "contingent". This seems to be a new technique that I haven't seen before. Has anyone else seen a "contingent" bid before?
I'm assuming that the issue is the training pipeline. I.e., have a DTW-777A bid ATL-777A to "right size" the base. If they don't bid out of DTW, we'll just deadhead them...but we really don't want more training events. Am I reading this right?
It seems training has finally become an issue. If the company truly wanted to "right-size" each base then they'd simply displace as they've done in the past.
I'm assuming that the issue is the training pipeline. I.e., have a DTW-777A bid ATL-777A to "right size" the base. If they don't bid out of DTW, we'll just deadhead them...but we really don't want more training events. Am I reading this right?
It seems training has finally become an issue. If the company truly wanted to "right-size" each base then they'd simply displace as they've done in the past.
01-02-2015, 12:08 PM
Doesn't Get Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,598
So 132 positions on this AE are "contingent". This seems to be a new technique that I haven't seen before. Has anyone else seen a "contingent" bid before?
I'm assuming that the issue is the training pipeline. I.e., have a DTW-777A bid ATL-777A to "right size" the base. If they don't bid out of DTW, we'll just deadhead them...but we really don't want more training events. Am I reading this right?
It seems training has finally become an issue. If the company truly wanted to "right-size" each base then they'd simply displace as they've done in the past.
I'm assuming that the issue is the training pipeline. I.e., have a DTW-777A bid ATL-777A to "right size" the base. If they don't bid out of DTW, we'll just deadhead them...but we really don't want more training events. Am I reading this right?
It seems training has finally become an issue. If the company truly wanted to "right-size" each base then they'd simply displace as they've done in the past.
01-02-2015, 12:29 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
So 132 positions on this AE are "contingent". This seems to be a new technique that I haven't seen before. Has anyone else seen a "contingent" bid before?
I'm assuming that the issue is the training pipeline. I.e., have a DTW-777A bid ATL-777A to "right size" the base. If they don't bid out of DTW, we'll just deadhead them...but we really don't want more training events. Am I reading this right?
It seems training has finally become an issue. If the company truly wanted to "right-size" each base then they'd simply displace as they've done in the past.
I'm assuming that the issue is the training pipeline. I.e., have a DTW-777A bid ATL-777A to "right size" the base. If they don't bid out of DTW, we'll just deadhead them...but we really don't want more training events. Am I reading this right?
It seems training has finally become an issue. If the company truly wanted to "right-size" each base then they'd simply displace as they've done in the past.
My opinion only, but I think crew resources uses pilot AE desires, prior to a bid, to model the possibilities of bid management. What I mean is that some guys have a standing bid, and crew resources models using that (IMO bad information).
Stated another way, and this is how I see it shaking out, look at the Dtw 747 and Dtw 777 categories. Neither is deltas sweetheart fleet. If dal wants to close both categories and minimize training, they use standing bid data. If the crews want to trick the system, 747 pilots should all have a standing displacement bid for the 777 Dtw and Dtw 777 pilots should all have a standing displacement preference for Dtw 747.
That scenario would IMO, cause some serious consternation and hand ringing in crew resources.
I hope that was clear.
01-02-2015, 12:35 PM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Elvis good to have you back.
My opinion only, but I think crew resources uses pilot AE desires, prior to a bid, to model the possibilities of bid management. What I mean is that some guys have a standing bid, and crew resources models using that (IMO bad information).
Stated another way, and this is how I see it shaking out, look at the Dtw 747 and Dtw 777 categories. Neither is deltas sweetheart fleet. If dal wants to close both categories and minimize training, they use standing bid data. If the crews want to trick the system, 747 pilots should all have a standing displacement bid for the 777 Dtw and Dtw 777 pilots should all have a standing displacement preference for Dtw 747.
That scenario would IMO, cause some serious consternation and hand ringing in crew resources.
I hope that was clear.
My opinion only, but I think crew resources uses pilot AE desires, prior to a bid, to model the possibilities of bid management. What I mean is that some guys have a standing bid, and crew resources models using that (IMO bad information).
Stated another way, and this is how I see it shaking out, look at the Dtw 747 and Dtw 777 categories. Neither is deltas sweetheart fleet. If dal wants to close both categories and minimize training, they use standing bid data. If the crews want to trick the system, 747 pilots should all have a standing displacement bid for the 777 Dtw and Dtw 777 pilots should all have a standing displacement preference for Dtw 747.
That scenario would IMO, cause some serious consternation and hand ringing in crew resources.
I hope that was clear.
Could this be bargaining power?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
