Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-06-2011, 07:02 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
So the best DALPA can negotiate is furlough 1500 pilots, park planes - assuming work rules don't change -, and start some of those shrink rj seats triggers, to give pilots SWA pay? At least according to the DALPA boards?
Question, this company can't take a $500M cost increase?
Is the purpose of lowering expectations so as to ensure The outcome looks better than it was? DALPA doesn't want, and nobody would, want to be painted in a corner by having to match SWA pay or be ousted. Rather, get rid of the threat of being replaced and get expectations down to furloughs and pay cuts so that a cola increase in pay with an 86 seat scope sale looks awesome.
But at the end of the day Delta pilots will be pointing to SWA and FedEx pilot pay. Those airlines count. UAL and Captain whats his name that said you're not worth anything are not the only airlines we will compare ourselves too.
Question, this company can't take a $500M cost increase?
Is the purpose of lowering expectations so as to ensure The outcome looks better than it was? DALPA doesn't want, and nobody would, want to be painted in a corner by having to match SWA pay or be ousted. Rather, get rid of the threat of being replaced and get expectations down to furloughs and pay cuts so that a cola increase in pay with an 86 seat scope sale looks awesome.
But at the end of the day Delta pilots will be pointing to SWA and FedEx pilot pay. Those airlines count. UAL and Captain whats his name that said you're not worth anything are not the only airlines we will compare ourselves too.
09-06-2011, 07:09 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,038
never mind ... off topic
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 09-06-2011 at 08:06 AM.
09-06-2011, 07:11 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I missed your post but I think you're spot on. The mission is status quo.
09-06-2011, 07:15 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,614
Here is the problem that hopefully DALPA has solved or is working on: How are we line pilots supposed to believe the true results of the contract survey? Yeah...I know...it will be an outside company tallying the results and deriving statistical data...(paid for by whom?) Sorry for being skeptical...but...I will go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe, just maybe... it could be just a minor CONFLICT OF INTEREST to have DALPA tell us what the majority of us want?
I think a better barometer is to see what the opener is... and see if the opener causes the DPA website to crash due to overwhelming requests to download and send off cards....or not!?? Either way...that will really determine whether pilots feel their survey results were well-represented or fixed.
With exception to the DALPA guys...and a few other "complete the mission types" (CTM types) I have not heard anyone say they are willing to accept anything less that SWA; day one for MD88! It is frustrating to read some of the threads on the DALPA forum that suggest we will have to trade the bottom 1500 of the seniority list for these kind of gains! Crazy...but even more scary; it is coming from DALPA guys and not the usual koolaid drinking CTM types!
I think a better barometer is to see what the opener is... and see if the opener causes the DPA website to crash due to overwhelming requests to download and send off cards....or not!?? Either way...that will really determine whether pilots feel their survey results were well-represented or fixed.
With exception to the DALPA guys...and a few other "complete the mission types" (CTM types) I have not heard anyone say they are willing to accept anything less that SWA; day one for MD88! It is frustrating to read some of the threads on the DALPA forum that suggest we will have to trade the bottom 1500 of the seniority list for these kind of gains! Crazy...but even more scary; it is coming from DALPA guys and not the usual koolaid drinking CTM types!
I don't believe anyone on the DALPA forums has stated we will sacrifice the bottom 1500 guys. What I have seen posted is a simple fact. If we switched to the SWA contract today and staffed at the level of manning SWA uses we would have a large surplus of pilots.
I for one am not willing to give up any work rules that would decrease manning. We already gave up 3000 jobs in work rules. We don't need to give up any more. When you look at SWA compensation you do however have to look at the total package and the final pilot block hour costs.
The form 10's for 2010 had Delta at 690 an hour and SWA at 698 within a buck or two. There are two reasons the pilot cost per block hour are so close. SW is more efficient and Delta has 3 and 4 man operations that skew the numbers in favor of SWA. Still even accounting for the 3 and 4 man operations are total pilot costs per block hour are not as different as many suggest and post on here.
When you go into negotiations and ask for SWA you need to be very careful. There could be lost of negative consequences. I for one don't think SWA has much relevance to Delta.
I want their hourly rate at a minimum however I want our retirement plan and work rules. That will put Delta costs well above SWA total block costs. I think Delta can afford it and my contract survey will reflect that.
Some will put they want total restoration and nothing less. Its a great goal but is it achievable in one contract. I don't think so. In fact I think that if we opened for that we assure ourselves of only 1 thing. We will work under the current contract for at least the next 5 years. Personally I think that a two step process will put a lot more money in my pocket and produce a higher quality of life. I would rather be working on our second contract in 2016 then still negotiating this one.
09-06-2011, 07:29 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 478
Give me the names of the DALPA guys who have told you they are willing to take less then SWA. I have not meet one. Everytime I have asked on here I get BS responses. No one can even give dates let alone names.
I don't believe anyone on the DALPA forums has stated we will sacrifice the bottom 1500 guys. What I have seen posted is a simple fact. If we switched to the SWA contract today and staffed at the level of manning SWA uses we would have a large surplus of pilots.
I for one am not willing to give up any work rules that would decrease manning. We already gave up 3000 jobs in work rules. We don't need to give up any more. When you look at SWA compensation you do however have to look at the total package and the final pilot block hour costs.
The form 10's for 2010 had Delta at 690 an hour and SWA at 698 within a buck or two. There are two reasons the pilot cost per block hour are so close. SW is more efficient and Delta has 3 and 4 man operations that skew the numbers in favor of SWA. Still even accounting for the 3 and 4 man operations are total pilot costs per block hour are not as different as many suggest and post on here.
When you go into negotiations and ask for SWA you need to be very careful. There could be lost of negative consequences. I for one don't think SWA has much relevance to Delta.
I want their hourly rate at a minimum however I want our retirement plan and work rules. That will put Delta costs well above SWA total block costs. I think Delta can afford it and my contract survey will reflect that.
Some will put they want total restoration and nothing less. Its a great goal but is it achievable in one contract. I don't think so. In fact I think that if we opened for that we assure ourselves of only 1 thing. We will work under the current contract for at least the next 5 years. Personally I think that a two step process will put a lot more money in my pocket and produce a higher quality of life. I would rather be working on our second contract in 2016 then still negotiating this one.
I don't believe anyone on the DALPA forums has stated we will sacrifice the bottom 1500 guys. What I have seen posted is a simple fact. If we switched to the SWA contract today and staffed at the level of manning SWA uses we would have a large surplus of pilots.
I for one am not willing to give up any work rules that would decrease manning. We already gave up 3000 jobs in work rules. We don't need to give up any more. When you look at SWA compensation you do however have to look at the total package and the final pilot block hour costs.
The form 10's for 2010 had Delta at 690 an hour and SWA at 698 within a buck or two. There are two reasons the pilot cost per block hour are so close. SW is more efficient and Delta has 3 and 4 man operations that skew the numbers in favor of SWA. Still even accounting for the 3 and 4 man operations are total pilot costs per block hour are not as different as many suggest and post on here.
When you go into negotiations and ask for SWA you need to be very careful. There could be lost of negative consequences. I for one don't think SWA has much relevance to Delta.
I want their hourly rate at a minimum however I want our retirement plan and work rules. That will put Delta costs well above SWA total block costs. I think Delta can afford it and my contract survey will reflect that.
Some will put they want total restoration and nothing less. Its a great goal but is it achievable in one contract. I don't think so. In fact I think that if we opened for that we assure ourselves of only 1 thing. We will work under the current contract for at least the next 5 years. Personally I think that a two step process will put a lot more money in my pocket and produce a higher quality of life. I would rather be working on our second contract in 2016 then still negotiating this one.
Could not agree more.
09-06-2011, 07:47 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
I want their hourly rate at a minimum however I want our retirement plan and work rules. That will put Delta costs well above SWA total block costs. I think Delta can afford it and my contract survey will reflect that.
Some will put they want total restoration and nothing less. Its a great goal but is it achievable in one contract. I don't think so. In fact I think that if we opened for that we assure ourselves of only 1 thing. We will work under the current contract for at least the next 5 years.
Some will put they want total restoration and nothing less. Its a great goal but is it achievable in one contract. I don't think so. In fact I think that if we opened for that we assure ourselves of only 1 thing. We will work under the current contract for at least the next 5 years.
Basic negotiating strategy is to open for more than you're ultimately willing to settle on. So if you think it's wrong to open with a 70% increase, yet you think it's wrong to open with anything less than a 50% increase (I'm assuming that because you said your contract survey "will reflect that")... don't you think that is too narrow a range and does not allow the room needed for negotiation? It just seems to me that you're making an inconsistent and/or unrealistic argument here.
09-06-2011, 08:02 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,038
Give me the names of the DALPA guys who have told you they are willing to take less then SWA. I have not meet one. Everytime I have asked on here I get BS responses. No one can even give dates let alone names.
I don't believe anyone on the DALPA forums has stated we will sacrifice the bottom 1500 guys. What I have seen posted is a simple fact. If we switched to the SWA contract today and staffed at the level of manning SWA uses we would have a large surplus of pilots.
I for one am not willing to give up any work rules that would decrease manning. We already gave up 3000 jobs in work rules. We don't need to give up any more. When you look at SWA compensation you do however have to look at the total package and the final pilot block hour costs.
The form 10's for 2010 had Delta at 690 an hour and SWA at 698 within a buck or two. There are two reasons the pilot cost per block hour are so close. SW is more efficient and Delta has 3 and 4 man operations that skew the numbers in favor of SWA. Still even accounting for the 3 and 4 man operations are total pilot costs per block hour are not as different as many suggest and post on here.
When you go into negotiations and ask for SWA you need to be very careful. There could be lost of negative consequences. I for one don't think SWA has much relevance to Delta.
I want their hourly rate at a minimum however I want our retirement plan and work rules. That will put Delta costs well above SWA total block costs. I think Delta can afford it and my contract survey will reflect that.
Some will put they want total restoration and nothing less. Its a great goal but is it achievable in one contract. I don't think so. In fact I think that if we opened for that we assure ourselves of only 1 thing. We will work under the current contract for at least the next 5 years. Personally I think that a two step process will put a lot more money in my pocket and produce a higher quality of life. I would rather be working on our second contract in 2016 then still negotiating this one.
I don't believe anyone on the DALPA forums has stated we will sacrifice the bottom 1500 guys. What I have seen posted is a simple fact. If we switched to the SWA contract today and staffed at the level of manning SWA uses we would have a large surplus of pilots.
I for one am not willing to give up any work rules that would decrease manning. We already gave up 3000 jobs in work rules. We don't need to give up any more. When you look at SWA compensation you do however have to look at the total package and the final pilot block hour costs.
The form 10's for 2010 had Delta at 690 an hour and SWA at 698 within a buck or two. There are two reasons the pilot cost per block hour are so close. SW is more efficient and Delta has 3 and 4 man operations that skew the numbers in favor of SWA. Still even accounting for the 3 and 4 man operations are total pilot costs per block hour are not as different as many suggest and post on here.
When you go into negotiations and ask for SWA you need to be very careful. There could be lost of negative consequences. I for one don't think SWA has much relevance to Delta.
I want their hourly rate at a minimum however I want our retirement plan and work rules. That will put Delta costs well above SWA total block costs. I think Delta can afford it and my contract survey will reflect that.
Some will put they want total restoration and nothing less. Its a great goal but is it achievable in one contract. I don't think so. In fact I think that if we opened for that we assure ourselves of only 1 thing. We will work under the current contract for at least the next 5 years. Personally I think that a two step process will put a lot more money in my pocket and produce a higher quality of life. I would rather be working on our second contract in 2016 then still negotiating this one.
09-06-2011, 08:21 AM
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Give me the names of the DALPA guys who have told you they are willing to take less then SWA. I have not meet one. Everytime I have asked on here I get BS responses. No one can even give dates let alone names.
I don't believe anyone on the DALPA forums has stated we will sacrifice the bottom 1500 guys. What I have seen posted is a simple fact. If we switched to the SWA contract today and staffed at the level of manning SWA uses we would have a large surplus of pilots.
I for one am not willing to give up any work rules that would decrease manning. We already gave up 3000 jobs in work rules. We don't need to give up any more. When you look at SWA compensation you do however have to look at the total package and the final pilot block hour costs.
The form 10's for 2010 had Delta at 690 an hour and SWA at 698 within a buck or two. There are two reasons the pilot cost per block hour are so close. SW is more efficient and Delta has 3 and 4 man operations that skew the numbers in favor of SWA. Still even accounting for the 3 and 4 man operations are total pilot costs per block hour are not as different as many suggest and post on here.
When you go into negotiations and ask for SWA you need to be very careful. There could be lost of negative consequences. I for one don't think SWA has much relevance to Delta.
I want their hourly rate at a minimum however I want our retirement plan and work rules. That will put Delta costs well above SWA total block costs. I think Delta can afford it and my contract survey will reflect that.
Some will put they want total restoration and nothing less. Its a great goal but is it achievable in one contract. I don't think so. In fact I think that if we opened for that we assure ourselves of only 1 thing. We will work under the current contract for at least the next 5 years. Personally I think that a two step process will put a lot more money in my pocket and produce a higher quality of life. I would rather be working on our second contract in 2016 then still negotiating this one.
I don't believe anyone on the DALPA forums has stated we will sacrifice the bottom 1500 guys. What I have seen posted is a simple fact. If we switched to the SWA contract today and staffed at the level of manning SWA uses we would have a large surplus of pilots.
I for one am not willing to give up any work rules that would decrease manning. We already gave up 3000 jobs in work rules. We don't need to give up any more. When you look at SWA compensation you do however have to look at the total package and the final pilot block hour costs.
The form 10's for 2010 had Delta at 690 an hour and SWA at 698 within a buck or two. There are two reasons the pilot cost per block hour are so close. SW is more efficient and Delta has 3 and 4 man operations that skew the numbers in favor of SWA. Still even accounting for the 3 and 4 man operations are total pilot costs per block hour are not as different as many suggest and post on here.
When you go into negotiations and ask for SWA you need to be very careful. There could be lost of negative consequences. I for one don't think SWA has much relevance to Delta.
I want their hourly rate at a minimum however I want our retirement plan and work rules. That will put Delta costs well above SWA total block costs. I think Delta can afford it and my contract survey will reflect that.
Some will put they want total restoration and nothing less. Its a great goal but is it achievable in one contract. I don't think so. In fact I think that if we opened for that we assure ourselves of only 1 thing. We will work under the current contract for at least the next 5 years. Personally I think that a two step process will put a lot more money in my pocket and produce a higher quality of life. I would rather be working on our second contract in 2016 then still negotiating this one.
cough cough, up North, cough cough
09-06-2011, 08:53 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
That was never stated. Go read straight from the horses mouth on our forum. More DPA apologist lies.
09-06-2011, 08:56 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
Buzz,
As was mentioned before, if you are more than 5 hours negative bank, this is probably the section that applies to you. It's under "Full Service Bank" in Section 12:
As far as turning around and withdrawing it, I don't think you will be able to do it. You can take a look at your time card, take a look at where it says "Bank Opt Limit 1." I believe this is what you can use the bank to fill up to every month. This month mine will only let me fill up to 77 hours based on an ALV of 72 hours.
Denny
As was mentioned before, if you are more than 5 hours negative bank, this is probably the section that applies to you. It's under "Full Service Bank" in Section 12:
In each bid period:
21 a. a pilot may deposit into his bank account up to 20 hours of credit that is accumulated
22 in excess of 80 hours in such bid period.
23 b. the first five hours of credit a pilot accumulates in excess of 80 hours will be
24 automatically applied against a negative bank balance. Such repayment does not
25 constitute a deposit21 a. a pilot may deposit into his bank account up to 20 hours of credit that is accumulated
22 in excess of 80 hours in such bid period.
23 b. the first five hours of credit a pilot accumulates in excess of 80 hours will be
24 automatically applied against a negative bank balance. Such repayment does not
As far as turning around and withdrawing it, I don't think you will be able to do it. You can take a look at your time card, take a look at where it says "Bank Opt Limit 1." I believe this is what you can use the bank to fill up to every month. This month mine will only let me fill up to 77 hours based on an ALV of 72 hours.
Denny
Thanks guys!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
