The Many Reasons a Delta Captain Votes NO
06-11-2012, 01:43 PM
#101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A330B
Posts: 102
Bill, yes, and at a min we have to trade traditional openers for Section 6, but there are bigger things out there that Plan A, and B have in them. The DCI changes are the items DAL needs to go forward with their significantly cheaper choices. A few hundred million is not worth what they want to do. Honestly, with what I see within this agreement, I do not care how long it takes to get it right. I am not willing to vote yes for an agreement that even though it has great concepts, falls short in the protection department. Why would I not vote for something that could be renegotiated by the time any of it really matters you ask?
Well, I do not want to spend negotiating capital in three, four, five years on things we can fix today. We need to build a PWA and section 1 that plans for worst case, this TA does not.
In this agreement the ratios do not have a one way check valve allowing say a 3-4% swing in mainline domestic block hrs before DCI also takes the hit. The current set up/ratio versus the plan is 1.56-1 versus 1.76-1. That's a lot of slop in mainline flying, and may in fact be your capt job.
In this agreement, the JV protection is a great step. I wanted this very badly, but it gave us revenue sharing on top of profit loss. It does not define a pro rate or other type of revenue agreement that could be used under a JV. How about a CS type revenue stream with a nation state airline that we apply for jv protection with? Yep, not covered. The exclusion clauses in the definition of profit/loss are telling. Do it once and do it right.
In this agreement holding company protections were gained, another thing I have been strongly pushing for, for the last few year. The cutout is not tight enough. It needs to be very spelled out and its not.
Where is transnational merger protection?
We are allowing 70 more large rj's for a quid that I do not see as balanced. Its that simple. I do not see a road map that gets us to where we want to be. I see us kicking the football and real fight down the road to another type of agreement that mirrors this for the remainder of the 50's and the 70's. After that I see massive retirements and a situation where DAL will not be able to keep up with the international growth and domestic backfilling. This is where the 100 seat battle with happen. A sunset clause or disciplined pulldown of DCI does this, and its not there.
Looking at the Section 1 language, and the history of modifying this language right as we hit the scope limits; like we did with the furlough protections allowance of more RJ's, like we are doing now, I see us doing it again right at the 70th RJ is on property. Whether or not this language is a set up for an acquisition of an airline with large rj's or and outright purchase, a merger puts us even higher above these ratios and makes mainline block hrs that much more the initial accumulator. The news reports are stating that the Bombardier production line is closing down, if we are not going to get the RJ's from them, how are we going to renegotiate these CPA's? Could this just be a lesson in how other airlines are going to remove their large RJ sublift and we take it over, or is this a set up for a merger? Who has large RJ's and who has large RJ's that are could or are being dumped by other airlines though CH11 or contract expiration? The whole thing is very interesting.
Section 1 needs to stand alone, and frankly it doesn't.
Moving to the rest of the agreement we all agree, pay is not where it needs to be, we are giving up headcount with a likely merger or acquisition that may or may not come with pilots in the next year or two, reroute was not covered, reserves still are not getting paid like line holders, nor are they getting rotation guarantee; which would nullify the reserve changes, the commuter clause was not made contractual, retirement contributions are not enough, the sick leave policy though improved has some clearing up on release of medical records, and many more.
Of those:
I cannot figure out why we are giving up staffing going in to a likely period of further consolidation. That will effect many if not all pilots on the list. 3-4 seats in each category in each base, does add up. Its short sighted imo.
On the change to allow reserves to fly to ALV+15, it is now stated that this is for international categories. Well every category except the 9 flies internationally. Of course they mean ones with longer trips. My issue is if this was the idea, then make it for specific categories. The way its written, a reserve "may not fly" to 99 hrs but they will be on the hook for it. That means sitting SC's that you may have not sat, more rotations broken up to keep this on reserves versus gs's etc. Saying it will not mean more work for a reserve from today or year past when we were correctly staffed is not accurate. Scheduling is getting really good at layering reserves. Add these new components to it, and its changes the game. We vote this in, and we will learn very quickly what these changes will do to your home qol, never mind a sli.
Are we still at a point in time where reserves should not have rotation guarantee? I do not think so. I have been in reserve most of the last five years, and I can tell you that even when above ALV a reroute or cancellation costs you money. It has me. Rotation guarantee is very important.
The CDA of 4+30 basically does not force the company in to constructing more efficient trips. It means more of the same, with a few rotations getting a little more pay. The industry avg of 6 forces that. Furthermore, it should be a min day. If they want me to sit for 30 hrs in RIC and fly my tush off for the other three days, that's their call, we should make more money for that.
How about vacation pay of time and a half. Other employee groups and airlines get it, and this would solve a huge issue with staffing over holidays.
Suffice to say, minimum things were omitted in this expedited process. It was a change to fix a lot and keep moving forward. Problem is there are a ton of quid in this agreement. In section 1 the quid are not worth what the pro quo is. It is apparent that the company values these RJ's a lot more than we do. Its a mistake. In the rest of the agreement, we gave and got here and there, but its still a net negative.
I will not even discuss pay profit sharing or retirement expect to say that more DC is a great way for the company to compensate us more without paying all of the taxes they do on our wages.
I am willing to take however long it takes to get this better nailed down. Voting for this guarantees negotiating capital will need to be used in the future to fix a bunch of it. I have looked at this agreement for the better part of the month to find a way to vote yes for it; I can't and will be casting a vote to reengage the company and fix the 20-30 items that need to be made right. If that takes three years(it will not) so be it.
Well, I do not want to spend negotiating capital in three, four, five years on things we can fix today. We need to build a PWA and section 1 that plans for worst case, this TA does not.
In this agreement the ratios do not have a one way check valve allowing say a 3-4% swing in mainline domestic block hrs before DCI also takes the hit. The current set up/ratio versus the plan is 1.56-1 versus 1.76-1. That's a lot of slop in mainline flying, and may in fact be your capt job.
In this agreement, the JV protection is a great step. I wanted this very badly, but it gave us revenue sharing on top of profit loss. It does not define a pro rate or other type of revenue agreement that could be used under a JV. How about a CS type revenue stream with a nation state airline that we apply for jv protection with? Yep, not covered. The exclusion clauses in the definition of profit/loss are telling. Do it once and do it right.
In this agreement holding company protections were gained, another thing I have been strongly pushing for, for the last few year. The cutout is not tight enough. It needs to be very spelled out and its not.
Where is transnational merger protection?
We are allowing 70 more large rj's for a quid that I do not see as balanced. Its that simple. I do not see a road map that gets us to where we want to be. I see us kicking the football and real fight down the road to another type of agreement that mirrors this for the remainder of the 50's and the 70's. After that I see massive retirements and a situation where DAL will not be able to keep up with the international growth and domestic backfilling. This is where the 100 seat battle with happen. A sunset clause or disciplined pulldown of DCI does this, and its not there.
Looking at the Section 1 language, and the history of modifying this language right as we hit the scope limits; like we did with the furlough protections allowance of more RJ's, like we are doing now, I see us doing it again right at the 70th RJ is on property. Whether or not this language is a set up for an acquisition of an airline with large rj's or and outright purchase, a merger puts us even higher above these ratios and makes mainline block hrs that much more the initial accumulator. The news reports are stating that the Bombardier production line is closing down, if we are not going to get the RJ's from them, how are we going to renegotiate these CPA's? Could this just be a lesson in how other airlines are going to remove their large RJ sublift and we take it over, or is this a set up for a merger? Who has large RJ's and who has large RJ's that are could or are being dumped by other airlines though CH11 or contract expiration? The whole thing is very interesting.
Section 1 needs to stand alone, and frankly it doesn't.
Moving to the rest of the agreement we all agree, pay is not where it needs to be, we are giving up headcount with a likely merger or acquisition that may or may not come with pilots in the next year or two, reroute was not covered, reserves still are not getting paid like line holders, nor are they getting rotation guarantee; which would nullify the reserve changes, the commuter clause was not made contractual, retirement contributions are not enough, the sick leave policy though improved has some clearing up on release of medical records, and many more.
Of those:
I cannot figure out why we are giving up staffing going in to a likely period of further consolidation. That will effect many if not all pilots on the list. 3-4 seats in each category in each base, does add up. Its short sighted imo.
On the change to allow reserves to fly to ALV+15, it is now stated that this is for international categories. Well every category except the 9 flies internationally. Of course they mean ones with longer trips. My issue is if this was the idea, then make it for specific categories. The way its written, a reserve "may not fly" to 99 hrs but they will be on the hook for it. That means sitting SC's that you may have not sat, more rotations broken up to keep this on reserves versus gs's etc. Saying it will not mean more work for a reserve from today or year past when we were correctly staffed is not accurate. Scheduling is getting really good at layering reserves. Add these new components to it, and its changes the game. We vote this in, and we will learn very quickly what these changes will do to your home qol, never mind a sli.
Are we still at a point in time where reserves should not have rotation guarantee? I do not think so. I have been in reserve most of the last five years, and I can tell you that even when above ALV a reroute or cancellation costs you money. It has me. Rotation guarantee is very important.
The CDA of 4+30 basically does not force the company in to constructing more efficient trips. It means more of the same, with a few rotations getting a little more pay. The industry avg of 6 forces that. Furthermore, it should be a min day. If they want me to sit for 30 hrs in RIC and fly my tush off for the other three days, that's their call, we should make more money for that.
How about vacation pay of time and a half. Other employee groups and airlines get it, and this would solve a huge issue with staffing over holidays.
Suffice to say, minimum things were omitted in this expedited process. It was a change to fix a lot and keep moving forward. Problem is there are a ton of quid in this agreement. In section 1 the quid are not worth what the pro quo is. It is apparent that the company values these RJ's a lot more than we do. Its a mistake. In the rest of the agreement, we gave and got here and there, but its still a net negative.
I will not even discuss pay profit sharing or retirement expect to say that more DC is a great way for the company to compensate us more without paying all of the taxes they do on our wages.
I am willing to take however long it takes to get this better nailed down. Voting for this guarantees negotiating capital will need to be used in the future to fix a bunch of it. I have looked at this agreement for the better part of the month to find a way to vote yes for it; I can't and will be casting a vote to reengage the company and fix the 20-30 items that need to be made right. If that takes three years(it will not) so be it.
06-11-2012, 01:44 PM
#102
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
I agree completely. Plus, I would just like to add an observation that the last guy I flew with had (a govt affairs type who got called in to see the TA as the reps were voting). Anyone who thinks the Company came up with this in 6 weeks is nuts. The Company has been working on this probably since the merger and they probably have version 2.0 sitting on a shelf waiting to push across the table when the time comes and who knows what is in that one.
I'm not as upset by the money as I once was as I was. I was one of the guys who wanted the section 3 stuff in work rules anyway (to hide the raise from the other employee me too money grubbers
) The increase in the vacation day alone is another 1%.
I'm not trying to convince anyone on how to vote. I'll never try to argue against a NO vote as that was my opinion on my first look. I'm not happy with it but I'll hold my nose and say yes
as I don't think it's a "toss it back on the grill for a few" situation either.
Ferd
I'm not as upset by the money as I once was as I was. I was one of the guys who wanted the section 3 stuff in work rules anyway (to hide the raise from the other employee me too money grubbers
) The increase in the vacation day alone is another 1%.I'm not trying to convince anyone on how to vote. I'll never try to argue against a NO vote as that was my opinion on my first look. I'm not happy with it but I'll hold my nose and say yes
as I don't think it's a "toss it back on the grill for a few" situation either.Ferd
06-11-2012, 03:29 PM
#103
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Its not just about pay for me T. I would expect retro, and would vote no in three years if there wasn't any.
As for what I would find acceptable in three years, time value what the reps time valued for direction this time around. It does not have to be 30-40% with retro. For me its about a solid agreement that includes good raises. Its part of the deal not all of it.
As for what I would find acceptable in three years, time value what the reps time valued for direction this time around. It does not have to be 30-40% with retro. For me its about a solid agreement that includes good raises. Its part of the deal not all of it.
06-11-2012, 04:00 PM
#104
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 93
ACL, you've got quite the essay here. I don't agree with some of it. Maybe you could fill me in on some of the stuff I may not be correct on:
Honestly, with what I see within this agreement, I do not care how long it takes to get it right.
3 years? 7? Guessing at some point there is a limit to your and my patience. We don't want to be unthinking in our opposition do we?
Well, I do not want to spend negotiating capital in three, four, five years on things we can fix today. We need to build a PWA and section 1 that plans for worst case, this TA does not.
Sounds great. What do you mean?
In this agreement the ratios do not have a one way check valve allowing say a 3-4% swing in mainline domestic block hrs before DCI also takes the hit. The current set up/ratio versus the plan is 1.56-1 versus 1.76-1. That's a lot of slop in mainline flying, and may in fact be your capt job.
There is a one way check valve. It's called a hard limit on DCI of 450 aircraft. Above max utilization rate of those aircraft, it's all our flying. Are you suggesting that once it's all our flying, and after we grow, and then some reason causes the network to shrink, we shrink proportionally with DCI from what was 100% all our flying? Step me through the logic on that.
In this agreement, the JV protection is a great step. I wanted this very badly, but it gave us revenue sharing on top of profit loss. It does not define a pro rate or other type of revenue agreement that could be used under a JV.
I think it does. Proportion of revenue forces a proportion of Block Hours. Simple. Go back and read it again and I'll think you'll understand it.
The cutout is not tight enough. It needs to be very spelled out and its not.
Spell it out for us. I think it is very clear.
Where is transnational merger protection?
It is in Section 1. Company agrees to oppose foreign ownership, and Section 1.C.1. the flying is performed under our PWA.
We are allowing 70 more large rj's for a quid that I do not see as balanced.
Right...
At DCI:
Fewer Jets/Aircraft
Fewer ASMs/Block Hours
Fewer Pilots
Fewer Seats
And we get 88+ 717s, and 18% more domestic flying.
I agree, it is not balanced.
Its that simple. I do not see a road map that gets us to where we want to be. I see us kicking the football and real fight down the road to another type of agreement that mirrors this for the remainder of the 50's and the 70's.
Rhetoric?
After that I see massive retirements and a situation where DAL will not be able to keep up with the international growth and domestic backfilling. This is where the 100 seat battle with happen. A sunset clause or disciplined pulldown of DCI does this, and its not there.
Disagree. Gradually increasing costs eliminate smaller aircraft. The 100 seat aircraft will be flown at mainline or not at all.
Looking at the Section 1 language, and the history of modifying this language right as we hit the scope limits; like we did with the furlough protections allowance of more RJ's, like we are doing now, I see us doing it again right at the 70th RJ is on property.
You see it continuing that way. Continuing to recapture Jets, ASMs, Seats, and pilot jobs, like in this agreement? If you have an emotional attachment to the number "76", then it may lead you to continued paralysis and an inability to reach any agreement ever, and forgo any scope gains at all.
Whether or not this language is a set up for an acquisition of an airline with large rj's or and outright purchase, a merger puts us even higher above these ratios and makes mainline block hrs that much more the initial accumulator. The news reports are stating that the Bombardier production line is closing down, if we are not going to get the RJ's from them, how are we going to renegotiate these CPA's?
Reference Section 1.C.1. Flying has to be done under our PWA. A merger will require negotiation. If an RJ production line is shut down, great. It could help get rid of more RJs. Maybe we won't need to renegotiate any CPAs. Furthermore, whacking 300 senior guys off the top via the early retirement package moves all of us up about one stove pipe position in a merger. That in itself is a reason to vote yes.
Section 1 needs to stand alone, and frankly it doesn't.
Writing it does not make it so. It is the best scope section out there.
Moving to the rest of the agreement we all agree, pay is not where it needs to be, we are giving up headcount with a likely merger or acquisition that may or may not come with pilots in the next year or two, reroute was not covered, reserves still are not getting paid like line holders, nor are they getting rotation guarantee; which would nullify the reserve changes, the commuter clause was not made contractual, retirement contributions are not enough, the sick leave policy though improved has some clearing up on release of medical records, and many more.
Paralysis by analysis, or it is so complicated I just can't make up my mind.
Of those:
I cannot figure out why we are giving up staffing going in to a likely period of further consolidation. That will effect many if not all pilots on the list. 3-4 seats in each category in each base, does add up. Its short sighted imo.
-300 on the ALV. +100 on factoring the known absences into the staffing formula, and a few small things like scheduling recency training like CQ, and maybe you need 1 less pilot per category. Maybe. All that in exchange for a reserve pilot getting 3-14% more pay, and all the other gains. Once again, if you were expecting the NC to go in and just demand things, we'd still be demanding in a few years.
On the change to allow reserves to fly to ALV+15, it is now stated that this is for international categories. Well every category except the 9 flies internationally. Of course they mean ones with longer trips. My issue is if this was the idea, then make it for specific categories. The way its written, a reserve "may not fly" to 99 hrs but they will be on the hook for it.
Reserves are on the hook for reserve guarantee. If they go over, they are done. If a reserve flies every day available for 17 days out of the month and gets the average daily guarantee of 4.5 hours/day he's got 76.5. Tell me how he's going to get 99? Not going to happen unless it's that odd international 9 day trip that cannot be assigned to anyone else. The bucket system levels reserves out, and add on top of that going over the reserve guarantee costs the company extra money, and it is an incentive for the company to not do exactly what you think they will. You have it backwards.
That means sitting SC's that you may have not sat, more rotations broken up to keep this on reserves versus gs's etc. Saying it will not mean more work for a reserve from today or year past when we were correctly staffed is not accurate. Scheduling is getting really good at layering reserves. Add these new components to it, and its changes the game. We vote this in, and we will learn very quickly what these changes will do to your home qol, never mind a sli.
You are a reserve international pilot. You time on short call is actually reduced. 24x6=144 hours on short call max now. Under the TA, you'll be at 14x7=98. 46 less hours on short call, max. It is an improvement.
Are we still at a point in time where reserves should not have rotation guarantee? I do not think so.
I'm sure the company would go for the exact same guarantees for reserves and regular line holders. It would save them a ton of money. Think about it, all the guarantees are the same with these exceptions:
Regular line holders get DPA.
Reserve line holders get reserve guarantee.
So you want to go to the same guarantees, i.e. give up your 70 hour reserve guarantee/month in exchange for Duty Period Average? You and the rest of us 2000 guys on reserve would lose big time with that idea.
I have been in reserve most of the last five years, and I can tell you that even when above ALV a reroute or cancellation costs you money. It has me. Rotation guarantee is very important.
See above. The average reserve pilot, even if they had DPA would not break the reserve guarantee. You want to give up a guaranteed 72-80 hours for DPA? Not smart.
The CDA of 4+30 basically does not force the company in to constructing more efficient trips. It means more of the same, with a few rotations getting a little more pay. The industry avg of 6 forces that.
What? Industry average of 6? What do you mean?
Furthermore, it should be a min day. If they want me to sit for 30 hrs in RIC and fly my tush off for the other three days, that's their call, we should make more money for that.
It is a calendar day with exceptions. I'd go back and read that section again.
How about vacation pay of time and a half. Other employee groups and airlines get it, and this would solve a huge issue with staffing over holidays.
Great reason to vote No? Come on. This is just forum fodder to stimulate some churn for the forumites that are emotionally addicted to this place.
Suffice to say, minimum things were omitted in this expedited process. It was a change to fix a lot and keep moving forward. Problem is there are a ton of quid in this agreement. In section 1 the quid are not worth what the pro quo is. It is apparent that the company values these RJ's a lot more than we do.
It is apparent that the company is willing to make concessions to get rid of these RJs. They do not value them.
Its a mistake. In the rest of the agreement, we gave and got here and there, but its still a net negative.
Net negative? Hardly. From what I can tell it saves them a few $100 million over the term of the contract, and gives us $860 million. Net positive to pilots.
I will not even discuss pay profit sharing or retirement expect to say that more DC is a great way for the company to compensate us more without paying all of the taxes they do on our wages.
Certain income is always better than at risk compensation.
I am willing to take however long it takes to get this better nailed down.
Voting for this guarantees negotiating capital will need to be used in the future to fix a bunch of it. I have looked at this agreement for the better part of the month to find a way to vote yes for it; I can't and will be casting a vote to reengage the company and fix the 20-30 items that need to be made right. If that takes three years(it will not) so be it.
So be it. Let me know how that works out for you.
3 years? 7? Guessing at some point there is a limit to your and my patience. We don't want to be unthinking in our opposition do we?
Well, I do not want to spend negotiating capital in three, four, five years on things we can fix today. We need to build a PWA and section 1 that plans for worst case, this TA does not.
Sounds great. What do you mean?
In this agreement the ratios do not have a one way check valve allowing say a 3-4% swing in mainline domestic block hrs before DCI also takes the hit. The current set up/ratio versus the plan is 1.56-1 versus 1.76-1. That's a lot of slop in mainline flying, and may in fact be your capt job.
There is a one way check valve. It's called a hard limit on DCI of 450 aircraft. Above max utilization rate of those aircraft, it's all our flying. Are you suggesting that once it's all our flying, and after we grow, and then some reason causes the network to shrink, we shrink proportionally with DCI from what was 100% all our flying? Step me through the logic on that.
In this agreement, the JV protection is a great step. I wanted this very badly, but it gave us revenue sharing on top of profit loss. It does not define a pro rate or other type of revenue agreement that could be used under a JV.
I think it does. Proportion of revenue forces a proportion of Block Hours. Simple. Go back and read it again and I'll think you'll understand it.
The cutout is not tight enough. It needs to be very spelled out and its not.
Spell it out for us. I think it is very clear.
Where is transnational merger protection?
It is in Section 1. Company agrees to oppose foreign ownership, and Section 1.C.1. the flying is performed under our PWA.
We are allowing 70 more large rj's for a quid that I do not see as balanced.
Right...
At DCI:
Fewer Jets/Aircraft
Fewer ASMs/Block Hours
Fewer Pilots
Fewer Seats
And we get 88+ 717s, and 18% more domestic flying.
I agree, it is not balanced.
Its that simple. I do not see a road map that gets us to where we want to be. I see us kicking the football and real fight down the road to another type of agreement that mirrors this for the remainder of the 50's and the 70's.
Rhetoric?
After that I see massive retirements and a situation where DAL will not be able to keep up with the international growth and domestic backfilling. This is where the 100 seat battle with happen. A sunset clause or disciplined pulldown of DCI does this, and its not there.
Disagree. Gradually increasing costs eliminate smaller aircraft. The 100 seat aircraft will be flown at mainline or not at all.
Looking at the Section 1 language, and the history of modifying this language right as we hit the scope limits; like we did with the furlough protections allowance of more RJ's, like we are doing now, I see us doing it again right at the 70th RJ is on property.
You see it continuing that way. Continuing to recapture Jets, ASMs, Seats, and pilot jobs, like in this agreement? If you have an emotional attachment to the number "76", then it may lead you to continued paralysis and an inability to reach any agreement ever, and forgo any scope gains at all.
Whether or not this language is a set up for an acquisition of an airline with large rj's or and outright purchase, a merger puts us even higher above these ratios and makes mainline block hrs that much more the initial accumulator. The news reports are stating that the Bombardier production line is closing down, if we are not going to get the RJ's from them, how are we going to renegotiate these CPA's?
Reference Section 1.C.1. Flying has to be done under our PWA. A merger will require negotiation. If an RJ production line is shut down, great. It could help get rid of more RJs. Maybe we won't need to renegotiate any CPAs. Furthermore, whacking 300 senior guys off the top via the early retirement package moves all of us up about one stove pipe position in a merger. That in itself is a reason to vote yes.
Section 1 needs to stand alone, and frankly it doesn't.
Writing it does not make it so. It is the best scope section out there.
Moving to the rest of the agreement we all agree, pay is not where it needs to be, we are giving up headcount with a likely merger or acquisition that may or may not come with pilots in the next year or two, reroute was not covered, reserves still are not getting paid like line holders, nor are they getting rotation guarantee; which would nullify the reserve changes, the commuter clause was not made contractual, retirement contributions are not enough, the sick leave policy though improved has some clearing up on release of medical records, and many more.
Paralysis by analysis, or it is so complicated I just can't make up my mind.
Of those:
I cannot figure out why we are giving up staffing going in to a likely period of further consolidation. That will effect many if not all pilots on the list. 3-4 seats in each category in each base, does add up. Its short sighted imo.
-300 on the ALV. +100 on factoring the known absences into the staffing formula, and a few small things like scheduling recency training like CQ, and maybe you need 1 less pilot per category. Maybe. All that in exchange for a reserve pilot getting 3-14% more pay, and all the other gains. Once again, if you were expecting the NC to go in and just demand things, we'd still be demanding in a few years.
On the change to allow reserves to fly to ALV+15, it is now stated that this is for international categories. Well every category except the 9 flies internationally. Of course they mean ones with longer trips. My issue is if this was the idea, then make it for specific categories. The way its written, a reserve "may not fly" to 99 hrs but they will be on the hook for it.
Reserves are on the hook for reserve guarantee. If they go over, they are done. If a reserve flies every day available for 17 days out of the month and gets the average daily guarantee of 4.5 hours/day he's got 76.5. Tell me how he's going to get 99? Not going to happen unless it's that odd international 9 day trip that cannot be assigned to anyone else. The bucket system levels reserves out, and add on top of that going over the reserve guarantee costs the company extra money, and it is an incentive for the company to not do exactly what you think they will. You have it backwards.
That means sitting SC's that you may have not sat, more rotations broken up to keep this on reserves versus gs's etc. Saying it will not mean more work for a reserve from today or year past when we were correctly staffed is not accurate. Scheduling is getting really good at layering reserves. Add these new components to it, and its changes the game. We vote this in, and we will learn very quickly what these changes will do to your home qol, never mind a sli.
You are a reserve international pilot. You time on short call is actually reduced. 24x6=144 hours on short call max now. Under the TA, you'll be at 14x7=98. 46 less hours on short call, max. It is an improvement.
Are we still at a point in time where reserves should not have rotation guarantee? I do not think so.
I'm sure the company would go for the exact same guarantees for reserves and regular line holders. It would save them a ton of money. Think about it, all the guarantees are the same with these exceptions:
Regular line holders get DPA.
Reserve line holders get reserve guarantee.
So you want to go to the same guarantees, i.e. give up your 70 hour reserve guarantee/month in exchange for Duty Period Average? You and the rest of us 2000 guys on reserve would lose big time with that idea.
I have been in reserve most of the last five years, and I can tell you that even when above ALV a reroute or cancellation costs you money. It has me. Rotation guarantee is very important.
See above. The average reserve pilot, even if they had DPA would not break the reserve guarantee. You want to give up a guaranteed 72-80 hours for DPA? Not smart.
The CDA of 4+30 basically does not force the company in to constructing more efficient trips. It means more of the same, with a few rotations getting a little more pay. The industry avg of 6 forces that.
What? Industry average of 6? What do you mean?
Furthermore, it should be a min day. If they want me to sit for 30 hrs in RIC and fly my tush off for the other three days, that's their call, we should make more money for that.
It is a calendar day with exceptions. I'd go back and read that section again.
How about vacation pay of time and a half. Other employee groups and airlines get it, and this would solve a huge issue with staffing over holidays.
Great reason to vote No? Come on. This is just forum fodder to stimulate some churn for the forumites that are emotionally addicted to this place.
Suffice to say, minimum things were omitted in this expedited process. It was a change to fix a lot and keep moving forward. Problem is there are a ton of quid in this agreement. In section 1 the quid are not worth what the pro quo is. It is apparent that the company values these RJ's a lot more than we do.
It is apparent that the company is willing to make concessions to get rid of these RJs. They do not value them.
Its a mistake. In the rest of the agreement, we gave and got here and there, but its still a net negative.
Net negative? Hardly. From what I can tell it saves them a few $100 million over the term of the contract, and gives us $860 million. Net positive to pilots.
I will not even discuss pay profit sharing or retirement expect to say that more DC is a great way for the company to compensate us more without paying all of the taxes they do on our wages.
Certain income is always better than at risk compensation.
I am willing to take however long it takes to get this better nailed down.
Voting for this guarantees negotiating capital will need to be used in the future to fix a bunch of it. I have looked at this agreement for the better part of the month to find a way to vote yes for it; I can't and will be casting a vote to reengage the company and fix the 20-30 items that need to be made right. If that takes three years(it will not) so be it.
So be it. Let me know how that works out for you.
06-11-2012, 04:17 PM
#105
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
I gotta admit. ACL is hanging it way out in the wind these days. He used to be pretty objective in his analysis, but most of his treatises lately have been very.. let's say... questionable in their motive. I see little of the objectivity that made him a legend.
Fair winds and following seas ACL... I wish you luck.
Fair winds and following seas ACL... I wish you luck.
06-11-2012, 04:25 PM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: C130
Posts: 303
I gotta admit. ACL is hanging it way out in the wind these days. He used to be pretty objective in his analysis, but most of his treatises lately have been very.. let's say... questionable in their motive. I see little of the objectivity that made him a legend.
Fair winds and following seas ACL... I wish you luck.
Fair winds and following seas ACL... I wish you luck.
06-11-2012, 04:37 PM
#107
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
I gotta admit. ACL is hanging it way out in the wind these days. He used to be pretty objective in his analysis, but most of his treatises lately have been very.. let's say... questionable in their motive. I see little of the objectivity that made him a legend.
Fair winds and following seas ACL... I wish you luck.
Fair winds and following seas ACL... I wish you luck.
There won't be a lot of high-fives if this passes, but there will be more sighs of relief than there will be yes votes.
You seem to be quite smitten with it, and I don't worry about your motives either.
06-11-2012, 04:40 PM
#108
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
I don't care what you think or how you vote.. I know nothing about you to begin with, but I THOUGHT I knew more about him and his capabilities to dissect things and connect dots.. I appear to be wrong about that.
And I thought the whole idea of forums was to critique and debate opinions.. especially those of defacto leaders.. and he has been one of those.. So I guess if that is out of line, then I guess an apology might be in order.. but I doubt it was.
Do YOU know where The Manager has gone?
06-11-2012, 04:46 PM
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,598
I'm not telling him how to vote. I AM questioning his opinion however because it is not consistent with his opinions of the last few years that I have been reading his posts..
I don't care what you think or how you vote.. I know nothing about you to begin with, but I THOUGHT I knew more about him and his capabilities to dissect things and connect dots.. I appear to be wrong about that.
And I thought the whole idea of forums was to critique and debate opinions.. especially those of defacto leaders.. and he has been one of those.. So I guess if that is out of line, then I guess an apology might be in order.. but I doubt it was.
Do YOU know where The Manager has gone?
I don't care what you think or how you vote.. I know nothing about you to begin with, but I THOUGHT I knew more about him and his capabilities to dissect things and connect dots.. I appear to be wrong about that.
And I thought the whole idea of forums was to critique and debate opinions.. especially those of defacto leaders.. and he has been one of those.. So I guess if that is out of line, then I guess an apology might be in order.. but I doubt it was.
Do YOU know where The Manager has gone?
Not saying either of you are wrong, but maybe you're each seeing something the other isn't.
06-11-2012, 04:52 PM
#110
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I'm not telling him how to vote. I AM questioning his opinion however because it is not consistent with his opinions of the last few years that I have been reading his posts..
I don't care what you think or how you vote.. I know nothing about you to begin with, but I THOUGHT I knew more about him and his capabilities to dissect things and connect dots.. I appear to be wrong about that.
And I thought the whole idea of forums was to critique and debate opinions.. especially those of defacto leaders.. and he has been one of those.. So I guess if that is out of line, then I guess an apology might be in order.. but I doubt it was.
Do YOU know where The Manager has gone?
I don't care what you think or how you vote.. I know nothing about you to begin with, but I THOUGHT I knew more about him and his capabilities to dissect things and connect dots.. I appear to be wrong about that.
And I thought the whole idea of forums was to critique and debate opinions.. especially those of defacto leaders.. and he has been one of those.. So I guess if that is out of line, then I guess an apology might be in order.. but I doubt it was.
Do YOU know where The Manager has gone?
Question my opinion. A vote like this is the only time a trade unionist can think freely.
I have come to my conclusions of many hrs of looking at this deal. Not many hrs of trying to contrive a way to vote no. I have freely admitted there are some decent parts to this agreement. I want better language. Its not perfect, but probably good enough for the majority to vote yes, just not me.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
