Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
01-05-2010, 06:44 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I don't think so. They have the right to prevent cascading events by creating a a legitimate (i.e. correct) award where they control the total number of pilots that go into a category, or displace. Fine. That doesn't give them the right to avoid solving errors, just because the resolution of errors would cause a cascade. These are two vastly different concepts.
...
Let's play with an example.
Four pilots, in seniority order, A,B,C,D. All are very senior F/O's. The bid only offers two positions: a WB Captain position, and a NB Captain position.
-A, B, D bid WB Captain first, then NB Captain.
-C bids the senior NB Captain position only.
-A & B put several restrictions, all of which are met in the awards.
-D puts no restrictions.
First scenario: the company decides to offer an extra seat in the WB category, because it would suit their purposes, for whatever reason, and not award the position in the NB category.
-A & B are WB Captains.
-C gets nothing.
The company manipulated the total number of people in both categories, but seniority is respected. End of story.
Second scenario: the Company doesn't deviate from the planned number, and awards what was posted: one WB Captain., one NB Captain. Except it makes a mistake: itfails to recognize that A & B's restrictions for WB Captain are met, and only awards D WB Captain, and C NB Captain.
-A complaints.
-B doesn't catch on, and fails to complaint.
-Company moves A to WB Captain category, keeps D there, and carries the overage of 1.
As you can see, failing to complaint means that B gets neither his first, nor his second choice. So, one type of manipulation (changing the total people in a category without discrimination) can affect pilots in general, but correcting errors selectively can affect individual pilots, out of seniority.
My argument: You can't solve A's problem, and ignore B.
...
Let's play with an example.
Four pilots, in seniority order, A,B,C,D. All are very senior F/O's. The bid only offers two positions: a WB Captain position, and a NB Captain position.
-A, B, D bid WB Captain first, then NB Captain.
-C bids the senior NB Captain position only.
-A & B put several restrictions, all of which are met in the awards.
-D puts no restrictions.
First scenario: the company decides to offer an extra seat in the WB category, because it would suit their purposes, for whatever reason, and not award the position in the NB category.
-A & B are WB Captains.
-C gets nothing.
The company manipulated the total number of people in both categories, but seniority is respected. End of story.
Second scenario: the Company doesn't deviate from the planned number, and awards what was posted: one WB Captain., one NB Captain. Except it makes a mistake: itfails to recognize that A & B's restrictions for WB Captain are met, and only awards D WB Captain, and C NB Captain.
-A complaints.
-B doesn't catch on, and fails to complaint.
-Company moves A to WB Captain category, keeps D there, and carries the overage of 1.
As you can see, failing to complaint means that B gets neither his first, nor his second choice. So, one type of manipulation (changing the total people in a category without discrimination) can affect pilots in general, but correcting errors selectively can affect individual pilots, out of seniority.
My argument: You can't solve A's problem, and ignore B.
Sink, I agree with the premise. I just stated that they are given a ton of latitude to stop the flow quickly by keeping a few extra bodies in a seat. I am not saying that if A and B have problems that you ignore one but deal with the other. My point is that they can stop a downward cascade by this process being liberal. They should not stop upward progress.
Also, did anyone notice that they admitted they did not fill all of the AE's on the ATL 7ER? They stated that at the Crew Lounge visit on Friday.
I thought that if they posted them, they had to fill em. I was told no, but that just is a little counter-intuitive to me.
01-05-2010, 06:45 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Up a buck right now! 8.82% 12.22
01-05-2010, 06:45 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
01-05-2010, 06:45 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
New, the South 757ER's have two. The rest have one. (The old TWO birds)
01-05-2010, 06:48 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
The industry appears to be up today.
AMR up .57
CAL up 2.08
UAUA up 1.126
WN up .49
AMR up .57
CAL up 2.08
UAUA up 1.126
WN up .49
01-05-2010, 06:49 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Guys,
I want to say that the folks over at Crew Resources have worked particularly hard during the past couple of weeks.
There may be a couple errors in the bid, but I'm sure that they are reviewing the entire bid from top to bottom and I would imagine that ALPA and Management are watching this closely. We all have to have confidence in this system, but also must realize that there may be mistakes. This is where we come in. All of us need to closely scrutinize our particular results. For the most part, you can tell if you receive the correct award.
When this bid is complete and put through some type of QA, perhaps we (ALPA) should take a look at how the bids are processed so this won't be a normal occurrence.
TC
I want to say that the folks over at Crew Resources have worked particularly hard during the past couple of weeks.
There may be a couple errors in the bid, but I'm sure that they are reviewing the entire bid from top to bottom and I would imagine that ALPA and Management are watching this closely. We all have to have confidence in this system, but also must realize that there may be mistakes. This is where we come in. All of us need to closely scrutinize our particular results. For the most part, you can tell if you receive the correct award.
When this bid is complete and put through some type of QA, perhaps we (ALPA) should take a look at how the bids are processed so this won't be a normal occurrence.
TC
Even WRT to the AE process, I'm open to the idea that it remains a valid process, and willing to learn more. I don't even really know that I was affected personally, or that there is a significant problem with it. Any evidence of a problem is strictly anectdotal.
Nonetheless, I'm a little disturbed by the suggestion that the company should simply get a pass on resolving the "cascade" effects of an error, and can limit themselves to solving only errors only for the individuals that happen to catch them.
It's a big process, with many permutations. It's pretty easy to see if a junior pilot got the ward you diserved, but a lot more difficult to see how the parts ofthe system work together. Which tells you the integrity of the process, the methods used, must be beyond reproach.
01-05-2010, 06:50 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: 330
Posts: 106
Just the south 757ER's have 2 jumpseats.
01-05-2010, 06:54 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 503
01-05-2010, 06:56 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
WRT to stock prices... yesterday CAL reported traffic and capacity growth YOY, and RASM was only down around 5%. The big, big number is RASM. It's been down as much as almost 20% for some carriers, at some point during the year. They (CAL) are the only major to report RASM, to my knowledge, but they also are usually the first to report.
UAL reported flat traffic YOY. Flat is good, right now.
UAL reported flat traffic YOY. Flat is good, right now.
01-05-2010, 06:56 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 1,308
edit: didn't mean to repeat what you wrote there Sink.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
