Search

Notices

Details on Delta TA

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-02-2015, 07:01 AM
  #5361  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: undefined
Posts: 328
Default

[QUOTE=TED74;1893850]
Originally Posted by Check Essential

OK. I will admit it. I can be bought. (except maybe on scope)


For 50%, I'd probably verify ALL my sick leave and send in a weekly stool sample for monitoring. Less than that or significant concessions and I might just do the stool sample.
LOL! I can see it now.... hundreds of brown paper bags showing up at the CPO's with bic lighters taped to them...
pilotc90a is offline  
Old 06-02-2015, 07:05 AM
  #5362  
Get's Every Day Off
 
ExAF's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 1,860
Default

Originally Posted by Purple Drank
Can anyone confirm that Donatelli sent one of his aides to monitor the Council 1 meeting today?
Don't know if he was sent, or just happened to be in the local area, but the MEC Executive Vice Chairman was at the meeting and taking notes. I hope he was listening. After attending the meeting, I actually have a lot of faith in the LEC 1 reps. I really believe they are doing their best at holding the line. They aren't going to sign off on anything that doesn't follow the line pilot's guidance regardless of what the other reps or MEC admin do. They said things that PD posted, but they also said they think we are still in a good position and they think there are a lot of good things coming our way too. I'm cautiously optimistic. They got an earfull at the meeting and I think they take it to heart. I feel their pain when they want to say something but can't due to Mgt keeping their opener secret. I also think it's pretty clear that most of the rumors we are hearing are leaked by Mgt. Waiting for the real deal is a bi@tch.
ExAF is offline  
Old 06-02-2015, 07:09 AM
  #5363  
Gets Weekends Off
 
notEnuf's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,456
Default What does a raised bars look like?

Which elevation of the bar?

2004 rates + keep profit sharing.

Or

AA + 5% + keep profit sharing.

Or

36% increase in rates

Last edited by notEnuf; 06-02-2015 at 07:21 AM.
notEnuf is offline  
Old 06-02-2015, 08:11 AM
  #5364  
Straight QOL, homie
 
Purple Drank's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Default

Here's how I read the C44 update:

"On time. Pass the Beer Nuts."
Purple Drank is offline  
Old 06-02-2015, 08:28 AM
  #5365  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Flamer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Posts: 1,044
Default

Originally Posted by 300SMK
Thank God home prices and commodities haven't gone up 250% since then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well at least we got that going for us.
Flamer is offline  
Old 06-02-2015, 09:39 AM
  #5366  
Gets Weekends Off
 
redship's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: MD FO
Posts: 107
Default

Originally Posted by james014
I'm new to looking at this contract stuff for you guys. Can you tell me what 9966 means? I've seen it a few times now.
As some mentioned these are percentage increases to hourly pay rates. Keep in mind this does not necessarily mean your W2 will increase by this much. Rates can go up while W2 goes down if we lose ground in other sections of the contract.
redship is offline  
Old 06-02-2015, 10:30 AM
  #5367  
The Brown Dot +1
 
scambo1's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Default

Originally Posted by Hawaii50
Why bother to collect it at all then? It's really the only reference point they have on what the group wants/expects. There will always be the squeaky wheels but the mainstream submits their survey and expects that to speak for them with the collective result being the goal the negotiations work toward.
Sorry it took me so long to respond. I think you answered your own question. DALPA does the survey and gets their reference points...DONE. Now the membership is out of the loop until TA time.

I'm not going to go all in on cost neutral here, but in c12, do you think people asked to trade profit sharing? Do you, in your heart of hearts, believe the 717s weren't coming? Do you believe CDOs were at the "direction of the pilots?"

The rank and file, IMO, are seen as rabble to too many at the higher levels of D/ALPA. Too easy to control using fear and doubt. My opinion is that the survey is summarily disregarded by many after openers are exchanged...instead of being used as a touch stone during negotiations. Dissenters to this approach and dissenters to the company want list are attacked and shouted down then, later drummed out.

I haven't flown with anyone who thinks concessions in any form are acceptable. Most of the guys I fly with believe firmly that the company should max our 401ks every year. My microcosm may or may not be reflective of the wants of a majority of pilots.

Short story long, trust but verify hasn't worked, in my view, for a long time.
scambo1 is offline  
Old 06-02-2015, 10:39 AM
  #5368  
The Brown Dot +1
 
scambo1's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Default

Not a rumor, but just spitballin'.

We've heard the want to get rid of payback days and pay reserve greens double. They want pilot productivity.

I'm thinking that the company may float a proposal like nwa had with 1.5 pay over 80. I'm thinking, due to far 117, we should have double pay over 80 and keep GS's as they are too.

Anyone?
scambo1 is offline  
Old 06-02-2015, 10:56 AM
  #5369  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
Default

Originally Posted by scambo1
Not a rumor, but just spitballin'.

We've heard the want to get rid of payback days and pay reserve greens double. They want pilot productivity.

I'm thinking that the company may float a proposal like nwa had with 1.5 pay over 80. I'm thinking, due to far 117, we should have double pay over 80 and keep GS's as they are too.

Anyone?

I personally prefer our current system. Not sure that I would like the unintended consequences of 13,000 + Pilots motivated to fly well over 80 hours each month.

If even 5000 pilots flew to 90 hours a month that would approximate 1000 less pilots needed using a current baseline of 75 hours a month.

I bet management would love it.

90-75=15. 15x5000=75,000. 75,000/75hrs = 1000 less DAL Pilots.

Scoop
Scoop is offline  
Old 06-02-2015, 11:13 AM
  #5370  
The Brown Dot +1
 
scambo1's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Default

Originally Posted by Scoop
I personally prefer our current system. Not sure that I would like the unintended consequences of 13,000 + Pilots motivated to fly well over 80 hours each month.

If even 5000 pilots flew to 90 hours a month that would approximate 1000 less pilots needed using a current baseline of 75 hours a month.

I bet management would love it.

90-75=15. 15x5000=75,000. 75,000/75hrs = 1000 less DAL Pilots.

Scoop
Scoop, no disagreement here. Except that as I have run through my brain what management wants, the only thing I can come up with is this as a negotiable possibility. Therefore, I wrote it down with my rebuttal proposal.

What other possibilities can you come up with in the new far117 paradigm?

PS...if you fly to far max, you take two months off with reserve guarantee at the end of the (rolling) year. No staffing impact is possible.
scambo1 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Kilroy
ExpressJet
10671
01-11-2016 06:49 AM
FastDEW
Major
201
09-03-2011 06:42 AM
Quagmire
Major
253
04-16-2011 06:19 AM
ksatflyer
Hangar Talk
10
08-20-2008 09:14 PM
INAV8OR
Mergers and Acquisitions
66
05-15-2008 04:37 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices