The Case For Voting Yes - Multiple Parts
07-03-2015, 09:10 AM
#43
New Hire
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Posts: 6
[QUOTE=UGBSM;1921219]-
- Losing voluntary verification to protect unverified time is THE KEY. If we lose this I would rather have a sick bank/PPT system like everyone else.
I have been trying to project what impact the sick leave portion of the TA might have. UGBSM, can you give a specific scenario how losing the voluntary verification could play out? Thanks
- Losing voluntary verification to protect unverified time is THE KEY. If we lose this I would rather have a sick bank/PPT system like everyone else.
I have been trying to project what impact the sick leave portion of the TA might have. UGBSM, can you give a specific scenario how losing the voluntary verification could play out? Thanks
07-03-2015, 09:14 AM
#44
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: assume it
Posts: 54
Fence sitter no longer...
Part 3
Here's the elephant in the room - One must ask the question: Should I turn down $4,400 a month (or whatever your number is for your seat) with significant downside protection to protect some sick leave abuse and triple dipping pilots?
In short, the money is significant and most of the concessions will have minimal impact to the vast majority of the pilot group. 100% of the pay raises do affect us and they are significantly more important in the event of bad times. Unless of course in the continuing line of fantasies - downturns, black swans, terrorist attacks and unfair competition are things of the past.
Much has been made on both sides of the debate of what will happen if this TA is voted down. After all the speculation the only true answer is that no one knows. I do know what I get in the TA if it passes.
If this TA is voted down and there is no quick resolution and profits disappear - it will be interesting.
I do not see a quick resolution as I thought before and surprisingly (or maybe not due to certain agendas) many on here DO NOT want a quick resolution. Some want to clean house and/or want to vote in DPA as I forgo some serious coin - for a year. Maybe two. In part at least, much of the shrill hyperbole on here has convinced me that voting yes is a better choice. Good job.
Do I think we were still manipulated and played? Somewhat, but we did extract value. Do I wish sick leave had remain unchanged? Yes, but it's not really that much different. Did this TA fall short of my survey? Yes, however, the TA before us is what it is. It is real money and at this time will pay 20% more than our largest competitor. This TA still has significant net pay far above our peers. Reality is a *****. Pay was #1 on the survey. Here it is.
Each person should vote what is in their best interest for them and their family. As will I. If you're married to someone with significant income, a doctor perhaps, I can see why you're willing to vote no and roll the dice. If you're worried about sick leave, like I was, I get it. Drill into the details more. If you don't think this TA is enough money - get a clue. Everyone looks at this TA through their own lens of how it affects them personally. For me, this TA in spite of its drawbacks is still a significant plus.
Here's the elephant in the room - One must ask the question: Should I turn down $4,400 a month (or whatever your number is for your seat) with significant downside protection to protect some sick leave abuse and triple dipping pilots?
In short, the money is significant and most of the concessions will have minimal impact to the vast majority of the pilot group. 100% of the pay raises do affect us and they are significantly more important in the event of bad times. Unless of course in the continuing line of fantasies - downturns, black swans, terrorist attacks and unfair competition are things of the past.
Much has been made on both sides of the debate of what will happen if this TA is voted down. After all the speculation the only true answer is that no one knows. I do know what I get in the TA if it passes.
If this TA is voted down and there is no quick resolution and profits disappear - it will be interesting.
I do not see a quick resolution as I thought before and surprisingly (or maybe not due to certain agendas) many on here DO NOT want a quick resolution. Some want to clean house and/or want to vote in DPA as I forgo some serious coin - for a year. Maybe two. In part at least, much of the shrill hyperbole on here has convinced me that voting yes is a better choice. Good job.
Do I think we were still manipulated and played? Somewhat, but we did extract value. Do I wish sick leave had remain unchanged? Yes, but it's not really that much different. Did this TA fall short of my survey? Yes, however, the TA before us is what it is. It is real money and at this time will pay 20% more than our largest competitor. This TA still has significant net pay far above our peers. Reality is a *****. Pay was #1 on the survey. Here it is.
Each person should vote what is in their best interest for them and their family. As will I. If you're married to someone with significant income, a doctor perhaps, I can see why you're willing to vote no and roll the dice. If you're worried about sick leave, like I was, I get it. Drill into the details more. If you don't think this TA is enough money - get a clue. Everyone looks at this TA through their own lens of how it affects them personally. For me, this TA in spite of its drawbacks is still a significant plus.
07-03-2015, 09:28 AM
#45
FlySmarterNotHarder
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: fifi flyer
Posts: 573
[QUOTE=Weaselorlando;1921337]
Weaselorlando, thats easy. With this TA here is an example of how a non-abuser has to verify sick time or even release medical records:
In July you sprain your ankle. It is not a surgery, it is not a broken bone, and it does not require hospitalization. But you do go to a doctor and use up 15 sick days what with the crutches for a few weeks and all. How do I know? I've sprained my ankle before.
In August you now get a cold. Now you have to go to a doctor again and verify you have the sniffles. For the next 365 days you have to verify any minor ailment.
Even those that are difficult or impossible to verify. Getting a divorce and have a huge fight with your wife before a trip and don't sleep a wink? Explain that one to a doctor. Get bad news about your parents, kids, or any trauma that understandably emotionally upsets you for a day? Explain that to a doctor.
Im sure you can think of many more instances where it is undesirable and completely unnecessary to explain your personal private problems to a DHS company doctor or your chief pilot. Under our current PWA you can self verify the sprained ankle sick time and preserve your 100 hours of unverified sick time. Can't do that with this TA.
We need unverified sick time because unlike every other employee at this company we can't just self medicate and go sit in your cubicle all day.
Voluntary verification preserves the necessary unverified sick time that we pilots uniquely need because of our FAA medical license and the release we sign before every flight saying we are 100% ready to fly.
IMO.
-
- Losing voluntary verification to protect unverified time is THE KEY. If we lose this I would rather have a sick bank/PPT system like everyone else.
I have been trying to project what impact the sick leave portion of the TA might have. UGBSM, can you give a specific scenario how losing the voluntary verification could play out? Thanks
- Losing voluntary verification to protect unverified time is THE KEY. If we lose this I would rather have a sick bank/PPT system like everyone else.
I have been trying to project what impact the sick leave portion of the TA might have. UGBSM, can you give a specific scenario how losing the voluntary verification could play out? Thanks
In July you sprain your ankle. It is not a surgery, it is not a broken bone, and it does not require hospitalization. But you do go to a doctor and use up 15 sick days what with the crutches for a few weeks and all. How do I know? I've sprained my ankle before.
In August you now get a cold. Now you have to go to a doctor again and verify you have the sniffles. For the next 365 days you have to verify any minor ailment.
Even those that are difficult or impossible to verify. Getting a divorce and have a huge fight with your wife before a trip and don't sleep a wink? Explain that one to a doctor. Get bad news about your parents, kids, or any trauma that understandably emotionally upsets you for a day? Explain that to a doctor.
Im sure you can think of many more instances where it is undesirable and completely unnecessary to explain your personal private problems to a DHS company doctor or your chief pilot. Under our current PWA you can self verify the sprained ankle sick time and preserve your 100 hours of unverified sick time. Can't do that with this TA.
We need unverified sick time because unlike every other employee at this company we can't just self medicate and go sit in your cubicle all day.
Voluntary verification preserves the necessary unverified sick time that we pilots uniquely need because of our FAA medical license and the release we sign before every flight saying we are 100% ready to fly.
IMO.
Last edited by UGBSM; 07-03-2015 at 09:50 AM.
07-03-2015, 09:58 AM
#46
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
07-03-2015, 10:14 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
07-03-2015, 10:28 AM
#48
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
We've been in Section 6 status quo since April 1st.
Just as an aside: I think that's why management walked back their revisions to the commuting policy a few weeks ago. That also violated the RLA.
If we vote this down we are not in uncharted waters. We have a contract. It remains unchanged.
07-03-2015, 10:31 AM
#49
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,999
I don't see why they couldn't buy the E-190/5's any time they wanted. As far as OE trips for FO's - didn't we already "trade" something for that back from the company (23K) in a past LOA or perhaps the FAR 117 LOA????
We trade away so much that we had previously bargained for I can't keep track.
Scoop
07-03-2015, 10:57 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 360
Upon further reflection there is a case for voting Yes and it is multi-layered.
First, even as they are held in disdain by many, the pay rate raises in this TA are significant. In all, a 21.45% increase in pay rates which will give a 767 Captain a raise of $1,486 a month based on 82 hours on July 1. On January 1 it becomes a raise of $2,706. Not insignificant amounts. These pay raises remain in place independent of any decrease in profits. These are conservative calculations. At 90 hours it is almost $3,000 a month more beginning in January. $4,400 more a month based on 90 hours by 2018. The above net gains assume profit will stay at 16% of W-2 after the profit sharing cut as profits increase - which everyone assumes they will (at this time). PS payout for 2/15/2016 is estimated to be 22%. So, 22% - 5.44% = 16.56%. Almost the same as last year. Also, if Delta adds employees and profit sharing does become diluted your pay is locked in with pay rates.
Also, if profits drop you are in fact protected by the increased pay rates.
Additionally, vacation and training pay increase. Per diem increases at the derided nickel rate which matches inflation almost perfectly. DCSP increases 1%. Think compound interest if you're young.
Much has been made of the net pay raises or lack thereof. In fact, after all profit sharing adjustments are made it is a pay raise of 5.34% a year [ (21.45% - 5.44%) / 3 ]. (In 2018 the profit sharing reduction after net pay raises reduces the trade to 5.14% from 5.74%. Therefore I calculate the net trade average over three years at 5.44%). An average net 5.34% net increase in pay is significant.
This contract is not that much different than C2012 in terms of money. C2012 was a net 17.7% increase and C2015 is a net 16.54% increase. About 1% difference. 16.54% on top of our previous contract is in sum worth more than the total pay increase last time. For example, $100 X 17.17% = $117.70 but $117.70 X 16.54% = $137.17. $1.77 more. I don't care how you slice it this TA is some serious coin. Just what everyone has been screaming for. Here it is.
For me $4,400 a month. $52,800 a year.
Let me guess. I shouldn't believe my lying eyes.
This plus increasing profit sharing will put us about 20% more than American. For those assuming we could easily obtain more than that may be living in fantasyland as has been stated by those on the NMB.
First, even as they are held in disdain by many, the pay rate raises in this TA are significant. In all, a 21.45% increase in pay rates which will give a 767 Captain a raise of $1,486 a month based on 82 hours on July 1. On January 1 it becomes a raise of $2,706. Not insignificant amounts. These pay raises remain in place independent of any decrease in profits. These are conservative calculations. At 90 hours it is almost $3,000 a month more beginning in January. $4,400 more a month based on 90 hours by 2018. The above net gains assume profit will stay at 16% of W-2 after the profit sharing cut as profits increase - which everyone assumes they will (at this time). PS payout for 2/15/2016 is estimated to be 22%. So, 22% - 5.44% = 16.56%. Almost the same as last year. Also, if Delta adds employees and profit sharing does become diluted your pay is locked in with pay rates.
Also, if profits drop you are in fact protected by the increased pay rates.
Additionally, vacation and training pay increase. Per diem increases at the derided nickel rate which matches inflation almost perfectly. DCSP increases 1%. Think compound interest if you're young.
Much has been made of the net pay raises or lack thereof. In fact, after all profit sharing adjustments are made it is a pay raise of 5.34% a year [ (21.45% - 5.44%) / 3 ]. (In 2018 the profit sharing reduction after net pay raises reduces the trade to 5.14% from 5.74%. Therefore I calculate the net trade average over three years at 5.44%). An average net 5.34% net increase in pay is significant.
This contract is not that much different than C2012 in terms of money. C2012 was a net 17.7% increase and C2015 is a net 16.54% increase. About 1% difference. 16.54% on top of our previous contract is in sum worth more than the total pay increase last time. For example, $100 X 17.17% = $117.70 but $117.70 X 16.54% = $137.17. $1.77 more. I don't care how you slice it this TA is some serious coin. Just what everyone has been screaming for. Here it is.
For me $4,400 a month. $52,800 a year.
Let me guess. I shouldn't believe my lying eyes.
This plus increasing profit sharing will put us about 20% more than American. For those assuming we could easily obtain more than that may be living in fantasyland as has been stated by those on the NMB.
I get it. It's all about the money for you and those that share your view. It looks as though you are a 767 captain so yes, it would be an attractive number for you by year 2018 if I read your post correctly - I wish I could have your optimism. Please realize that there are those, including me that will net less than $1000/ month more in the first couple years of the TA once the government and DALPA are done reaching their grubby hands into my paycheck. And the pilot demographic that will see those net increases less than $1000/month is growing in case you haven't noticed. But again, I understand your view from the top is all sunshine and blue skies.
Several folks on APC have stated that they oppose the TA based on QOL issues. I ask you and all the others salivating over the pay raises to consider that approach - think and act like a member of a UNION. You mention in a later post that you're viewing the TA from your own individual lens. Please widen your aperture to the pilot group as a whole - it looks like you are a 767 captain and unless you've made some really poor life choices, you shouldn't be hurting for money so badly that you need these TA raises.
This TA sets a bad precedent for future DAL contracts and the industry as a whole. You, as an international captain, should realize the detrimental effects that the new JV language will have. And once the top end scope crumbles, career progression takes a step backwards for everyone on the seniority list regardless of whether they expect to fly wide bodies or not. If the company can cram a TA that has lower raises and more concessions than C2012 while the company makes profits that are orders of magnitude greater, what can our expectations be in the future when the economic picture isn't so rosy? I don't like the likely answer to that question and am willing to forgo the less than impressive raises and any NMB/ PEB boogy man to stand up for a QOL that already falls short of what it should be. Again, I ask you to consider the TA as a member of a UNION.
Happy 4th of July.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
