Details on Delta TA
#2021
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
I certainly agree on no erosion of QOL or productivity.
That said, I'm intrigued by Option B in Question 28 of the survey. This is the question on pay banding and asks if we would be in favor in a staffing neutral way, e.g., more vacation. This could give the pilot group fewer trips to Virginia Avenue in exchange for more vacation, saving us more negotiating dollars for $$$, while not reducing pilot staffing or requiring more work.
Thoughts on that?
That said, I'm intrigued by Option B in Question 28 of the survey. This is the question on pay banding and asks if we would be in favor in a staffing neutral way, e.g., more vacation. This could give the pilot group fewer trips to Virginia Avenue in exchange for more vacation, saving us more negotiating dollars for $$$, while not reducing pilot staffing or requiring more work.
Thoughts on that?
They might even get creative and increase the freezes by not increasing the length, but rather just when they start. Move award to actual training start date, whic they can control, as the start of the freeze and you add 6-12 months to the freeze while still being able to call it a "2 year freeze". Or they could try and raise it to 2.5 or 3 years. Either way we should resist that.
#2022
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
That is a concession. It reeks of cost neutrality. Why on earth would we do that?
My thoughts are, you are floating another lead trial balloon for DALPA.
My thoughts are, only a hardened hack would attempt to spin the concession of longer freezes as a positive by promoting it as "fewer trips to Virginia Avenue."
You appear to have abandoned all pretense of being a neutral line pilot unaffiliated with DALPA. Or are you still trying to obfuscate your intent?
My thoughts are, you are floating another lead trial balloon for DALPA.
My thoughts are, only a hardened hack would attempt to spin the concession of longer freezes as a positive by promoting it as "fewer trips to Virginia Avenue."
You appear to have abandoned all pretense of being a neutral line pilot unaffiliated with DALPA. Or are you still trying to obfuscate your intent?
Oh and we also gave them "voicemail notification" for the first time ever. And we gave up 2 hours of day one start time, going down to FAR minimums and calling it a victory over the old 5am because the old 5am was illegal, 10am was the soonest legal, and we were sitting on 12pm. In their defense though, we were going to give that up with our without paying to remove the CDO's the company supposedly didn't care about, pilots didn't even know was an issue anyway and which may be back soon anyway.
Wait, what?
#2023
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
I did not take it as him "lecturing" us. I voted for the big pay cut because I was led to believe it would keep us out of BK. I was wrong and feel that we as a pilot group were "taken to the cleaners" by management.
I now believe that we were going into BK with or without pay-cuts and management played us. I think there is something there when it is said that we unwittingly helped or participated in the reset to our wages.
Scoop - Just my 2 cents
I now believe that we were going into BK with or without pay-cuts and management played us. I think there is something there when it is said that we unwittingly helped or participated in the reset to our wages.
Scoop - Just my 2 cents
We can't go back and run an experiment, but you can't say that airlines that waited until bankruptcy did better than those that took concessions before. In fact, the opposite is true.
#2024
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,431
You're forgetting the software issues though. Everyone knows software can only be programmed to give us our end in due time, while it can be instantly programmed to give the company its end. That's just basic computer science. Coming to a tablet near you. Eventually. Maybe.
Oh and we also gave them "voicemail notification" for the first time ever. And we gave up 2 hours of day one start time, going down to FAR minimums and calling it a victory over the old 5am because the old 5am was illegal, 10am was the soonest legal, and we were sitting on 12pm. In their defense though, we were going to give that up with our without paying to remove the CDO's the company supposedly didn't care about, pilots didn't even know was an issue anyway and which may be back soon anyway.
Wait, what?
Oh and we also gave them "voicemail notification" for the first time ever. And we gave up 2 hours of day one start time, going down to FAR minimums and calling it a victory over the old 5am because the old 5am was illegal, 10am was the soonest legal, and we were sitting on 12pm. In their defense though, we were going to give that up with our without paying to remove the CDO's the company supposedly didn't care about, pilots didn't even know was an issue anyway and which may be back soon anyway.
Wait, what?
#2025
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
Not that there is anything that can be done to change it now, but if you look at the four airlines that went into bankruptcy around the same time, United and US Air did not do concessions before and Delta and Northwest did. Delta ended up with the best work rules, the highest pay rates, and the best bankruptcy returns. Northwest alone retained their defined benefit plan.
We can't go back and run an experiment, but you can't say that airlines that waited until bankruptcy did better than those that took concessions before. In fact, the opposite is true.
We can't go back and run an experiment, but you can't say that airlines that waited until bankruptcy did better than those that took concessions before. In fact, the opposite is true.
Alfa,
You are correct - we can not go back, and I am all for looking forward.
I have heard guys argue that we helped lower the bar with the big pay cuts and have heard others it would not have mattered - all moot now.
Scoop
#2029
Yes. I want our reps talking about restoration yesterday (and now). I don't want them screaming, whining, throwing a fit about it, etc. But I do want them to articulate in a professional and measured way that our objective is to restore the standard of living that was provided by our compensation during most of the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's. Since they refuse to do that... and since they actually make arguments against that, saying it's "unreasonable"... then it's very clear to me that their objective is NOT restoration or anything even close.
If you have a lower opinion of the value of our profession, then that's certainly your prerogative. I don't know what your background is. If you're worried about rocking the boat with you being near the bottom of the seniority list, I can understand that concern. I've only got 10 years left (to age 65) and I can understand the temptation to keep things on an even keel and play it ultra conservative. I'm in the left seat and am making pretty darn good money compared to what the average person makes out there in the real world doing other things. My retirement accounts are on track to provide a nice income when I retire.
But here's the thing. I have too much respect for the value of what we do to accept that it is appropriately worth 34% less than it was for decades prior to bankruptcy... especially given the dramatic turnaround and restructuring of our industry and our company. There's just no legitimate reason to continue compensating us as if the company was on the verge of bankruptcy. It's wrong. And I'd like to leave this profession in some semblance of the shape I found it in when I first started. You may not have that same appreciation. Your standards may be lower. I just hope you are not representative of the new generation of airline pilots.
If you have a lower opinion of the value of our profession, then that's certainly your prerogative. I don't know what your background is. If you're worried about rocking the boat with you being near the bottom of the seniority list, I can understand that concern. I've only got 10 years left (to age 65) and I can understand the temptation to keep things on an even keel and play it ultra conservative. I'm in the left seat and am making pretty darn good money compared to what the average person makes out there in the real world doing other things. My retirement accounts are on track to provide a nice income when I retire.
But here's the thing. I have too much respect for the value of what we do to accept that it is appropriately worth 34% less than it was for decades prior to bankruptcy... especially given the dramatic turnaround and restructuring of our industry and our company. There's just no legitimate reason to continue compensating us as if the company was on the verge of bankruptcy. It's wrong. And I'd like to leave this profession in some semblance of the shape I found it in when I first started. You may not have that same appreciation. Your standards may be lower. I just hope you are not representative of the new generation of airline pilots.
Your post is attempts to discredit me by suggesting I have a low opinion of our profession and that I have low standards. You provided zero examples of why you believe this. I've explained very clearly why I think your arguments aren't good but instead of backing your argument up you've attacked me.
Feel free to continue attacking me, I'll keep calling you out when I feel you make bad arguments. We can let others decide who is more rational.
#2030
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post