TA 2012 Contract Highlights
06-15-2012, 10:09 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Talk about spin....
George, why don't you draw the bar with the actual pay raises in it rather than what 1% of pay is? Or the other actual cost increases, like sick pay, vacation pay, training pay, reserve guarantee...you know, those things that cost the company over $400 million per year additional? Then you could compare it to the one time investments you've got listed.
That would look pretty different now, wouldn't it?
Instead you chose to be disingenuous. Why?
George, why don't you draw the bar with the actual pay raises in it rather than what 1% of pay is? Or the other actual cost increases, like sick pay, vacation pay, training pay, reserve guarantee...you know, those things that cost the company over $400 million per year additional? Then you could compare it to the one time investments you've got listed.
That would look pretty different now, wouldn't it?
Instead you chose to be disingenuous. Why?
06-15-2012, 10:13 AM
#13
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
slowplay,
Care to address reasons 5-10? This is much different then what DALPA has been telling us.
Care to address reasons 5-10? This is much different then what DALPA has been telling us.
06-15-2012, 10:21 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
It is pretty, though.
06-15-2012, 10:24 AM
#15
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
George doesn't take into account any hiring and training with regard to staffing or minimum 50 hours per month. Just think about how much training, sims, waiting for IOE, etc with 88 717s, more MD90s, and 3 737-900s coming per month. I have a feeling 60 hours will be broken, and the reserve manning will have to be increased per the TA. Then throw in retirements in a few years, for a decade. If you are a reserve then, when 700 guys retire per year, then that will be by your own choice.
06-15-2012, 10:37 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
Talk about spin....
George, why don't you draw the bar with the actual pay raises in it rather than what 1% of pay is? Or the other actual cost increases, like sick pay, vacation pay, training pay, reserve guarantee...you know, those things that cost the company over $400 million per year additional? Then you could compare it to the one time investments you've got listed.
That would look pretty different now, wouldn't it?
Instead you chose to be disingenuous. Why?
George, why don't you draw the bar with the actual pay raises in it rather than what 1% of pay is? Or the other actual cost increases, like sick pay, vacation pay, training pay, reserve guarantee...you know, those things that cost the company over $400 million per year additional? Then you could compare it to the one time investments you've got listed.
That would look pretty different now, wouldn't it?
Instead you chose to be disingenuous. Why?
Slowplay, sorry to hear about the funeral, my condolences.
As for Reason#2, I am not attempting to be disingenuous. It's just an illustration of where we are.
The baseline on the bottom is the "cost neutral" to the company contract.
Yes, the proposed raises in the TA are "money in our pockets, no question."
And in the final year—2015—the additional pilot contract cost of the pilot contract to the company is above $400M. That's all part of the baseline of "cost neutral" to the company.
I'm showing the balance sheet comparisons for headroom in the budget.
The items are all above and beyond "normal annual budget expenses" So is the 20M/1%. I really don't think that is a mischaracterization, is it?
Cheers
George
06-15-2012, 10:37 AM
#17
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Sorry you're headed to a funeral. If the deceased was close, I'm sorry for your loss.
06-15-2012, 10:43 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
George doesn't take into account any hiring and training with regard to staffing or minimum 50 hours per month. Just think about how much training, sims, waiting for IOE, etc with 88 717s, more MD90s, and 3 737-900s coming per month. I have a feeling 60 hours will be broken, and the reserve manning will have to be increased per the TA. Then throw in retirements in a few years, for a decade. If you are a reserve then, when 700 guys retire per year, then that will be by your own choice.
If you are talking about the Reason #9 Slide, you have misread it.
The sole purpose of that slide is to show how the staffing formula of 60/hrs reserve doesn't provide nearly the "protection" it is rumored to have.
The 60/hrs/reserve average for all reserves is a catastrophic protection in our PWA. I'm glad we have it. But if breaking the 60hrs annual average for all reserves is what it takes to get Delta to start hiring, then God-bless-us-all!
Cheers
George
06-15-2012, 11:12 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Reason #2: Delta's investment in the pilots is $1 billion in this deal and yet he shows $20 million. Sure that is not intentionally misleading.
Reason #5: It is clear he hasn't read the TA. There is no provision for a domestic Joint Venture, it is international only. So why is he talking about sharing revenue with Alaska, Republic, and whomever? That is not allowed. Currently we 0 protections. So maybe he can redraw the graphs and show how much flying Delta pilots have to do under the current contract. Oh yeah, ZERO. Why didn't George show that. Deception?
Reason #6 and 7: His math is completely wrong. Imagine you have to share 150 units of something. If you start at a share of 90 to 60 the ratio is 1.5 to 1. If you change the share to 100 to 50 the ratio is 2 to 1. The amount of decrease from 60 to 50 was 17% and the ratio changed by 33%. Notice he tries to do all his math on ratios to mislead you into thinking that he is calculating block hours.
Secondly, he argues for a grossly shrinking airline. I think the Touch and Go that was released showed quite clearly that Delta could shrink. Under our current contract, Delta could shrink mainline in half and still grow DCI. Now under gross shrinkage, Delta has to spread the pain out. Which scenario is better for mainline pilots? The Touch and Go showed how even at a 6% system shrinkage, the mainline fleet has a small amount of growth. That is because DCI capacity is being cut so much.
Those two slides show that he is purposely trying to deceive you, or he is incompetent as an analyst. You decide, either way his analysis is false.
Reason #9: The change in block hours now from winter to summer is going to be 13%. Yet his reserve analysis shows an 80% increase in reserve flying from winter to summer. How is that possible? In 2011 the average for Jun-Aug was 72,276 reserve hours flown while the Jan-Mar average was 71,376. The difference is 1.25% Somehow, the average is now going to jump 80% between winter and summer. Just because you put numbers on a pretty graph doesn't mean there is anything behind them other than a spreadsheet. A fourth grader can make an Excel graph, there has to be logic and analysis beyond a fourth grade level to make them valid as a decision tool.
Reason #10: First, he admits that this TA will produce more mainline jobs. Second, he shows that losing 21 DC-9's will produce more job loss than adding 30 MD-90's. That is deception pure and simple. Then he maintains that the loss of 21 DC-9's cause 275 jobs to be lost but only shows 572 job gains from 88 717's. How is that? Deception pure and simple. Never on his graph does he show pilots leaving from the early out. Why?
Reason #11: Much of the loss in DCI in the previous few years was Saabs and Comair. Well Comair is down to almost nothing and the Saabs are all gone. The majority of the rest of the fleet is contracted out through 2015 and beyond. You must understand the reason behind the trend line to then try to project that into the future.
Reason #14: He talks about the new SWA deal, but he doesn't mention that the follow on deal was WORSE than the first one. Yes he has a happy talk quote from the SWAPA president but it fails to mention the other aspects of the TA that got much worse. FEDEX did a deal that was a smart move at the time, but they got two 3% raises and basically nothing else for a two year extension. Is that what George wants? Because, Delta management would oblige him on that one.
06-15-2012, 11:18 AM
#20
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Talk about massive misdirection and outright fabrication as well as sloppy analysis.
Reason #2: Delta's investment in the pilots is $1 billion in this deal and yet he shows $20 million. Sure that is not intentionally misleading.
Reason #5: It is clear he hasn't read the TA. There is no provision for a domestic Joint Venture, it is international only. So why is he talking about sharing revenue with Alaska, Republic, and whomever? That is not allowed. Currently we 0 protections. So maybe he can redraw the graphs and show how much flying Delta pilots have to do under the current contract. Oh yeah, ZERO. Why didn't George show that. Deception?
Reason #6 and 7: His math is completely wrong. Imagine you have to share 150 units of something. If you start at a share of 90 to 60 the ratio is 1.5 to 1. If you change the share to 100 to 50 the ratio is 2 to 1. The amount of decrease from 60 to 50 was 17% and the ratio changed by 33%. Notice he tries to do all his math on ratios to mislead you into thinking that he is calculating block hours.
Secondly, he argues for a grossly shrinking airline. I think the Touch and Go that was released showed quite clearly that Delta could shrink. Under our current contract, Delta could shrink mainline in half and still grow DCI. Now under gross shrinkage, Delta has to spread the pain out. Which scenario is better for mainline pilots? The Touch and Go showed how even at a 6% system shrinkage, the mainline fleet has a small amount of growth. That is because DCI capacity is being cut so much.
Those two slides show that he is purposely trying to deceive you, or he is incompetent as an analyst. You decide, either way his analysis is false.
Reason #9: The change in block hours now from winter to summer is going to be 13%. Yet his reserve analysis shows an 80% increase in reserve flying from winter to summer. How is that possible? In 2011 the average for Jun-Aug was 72,276 reserve hours flown while the Jan-Mar average was 71,376. The difference is 1.25% Somehow, the average is now going to jump 80% between winter and summer. Just because you put numbers on a pretty graph doesn't mean there is anything behind them other than a spreadsheet. A fourth grader can make an Excel graph, there has to be logic and analysis beyond a fourth grade level to make them valid as a decision tool.
Reason #10: First, he admits that this TA will produce more mainline jobs. Second, he shows that losing 21 DC-9's will produce more job loss than adding 30 MD-90's. That is deception pure and simple. Then he maintains that the loss of 21 DC-9's cause 275 jobs to be lost but only shows 572 job gains from 88 717's. How is that? Deception pure and simple. Never on his graph does he show pilots leaving from the early out. Why?
Reason #11: Much of the loss in DCI in the previous few years was Saabs and Comair. Well Comair is down to almost nothing and the Saabs are all gone. The majority of the rest of the fleet is contracted out through 2015 and beyond. You must understand the reason behind the trend line to then try to project that into the future.
Reason #14: He talks about the new SWA deal, but he doesn't mention that the follow on deal was WORSE than the first one. Yes he has a happy talk quote from the SWAPA president but it fails to mention the other aspects of the TA that got much worse. FEDEX did a deal that was a smart move at the time, but they got two 3% raises and basically nothing else for a two year extension. Is that what George wants? Because, Delta management would oblige him on that one.
Reason #2: Delta's investment in the pilots is $1 billion in this deal and yet he shows $20 million. Sure that is not intentionally misleading.
Reason #5: It is clear he hasn't read the TA. There is no provision for a domestic Joint Venture, it is international only. So why is he talking about sharing revenue with Alaska, Republic, and whomever? That is not allowed. Currently we 0 protections. So maybe he can redraw the graphs and show how much flying Delta pilots have to do under the current contract. Oh yeah, ZERO. Why didn't George show that. Deception?
Reason #6 and 7: His math is completely wrong. Imagine you have to share 150 units of something. If you start at a share of 90 to 60 the ratio is 1.5 to 1. If you change the share to 100 to 50 the ratio is 2 to 1. The amount of decrease from 60 to 50 was 17% and the ratio changed by 33%. Notice he tries to do all his math on ratios to mislead you into thinking that he is calculating block hours.
Secondly, he argues for a grossly shrinking airline. I think the Touch and Go that was released showed quite clearly that Delta could shrink. Under our current contract, Delta could shrink mainline in half and still grow DCI. Now under gross shrinkage, Delta has to spread the pain out. Which scenario is better for mainline pilots? The Touch and Go showed how even at a 6% system shrinkage, the mainline fleet has a small amount of growth. That is because DCI capacity is being cut so much.
Those two slides show that he is purposely trying to deceive you, or he is incompetent as an analyst. You decide, either way his analysis is false.
Reason #9: The change in block hours now from winter to summer is going to be 13%. Yet his reserve analysis shows an 80% increase in reserve flying from winter to summer. How is that possible? In 2011 the average for Jun-Aug was 72,276 reserve hours flown while the Jan-Mar average was 71,376. The difference is 1.25% Somehow, the average is now going to jump 80% between winter and summer. Just because you put numbers on a pretty graph doesn't mean there is anything behind them other than a spreadsheet. A fourth grader can make an Excel graph, there has to be logic and analysis beyond a fourth grade level to make them valid as a decision tool.
Reason #10: First, he admits that this TA will produce more mainline jobs. Second, he shows that losing 21 DC-9's will produce more job loss than adding 30 MD-90's. That is deception pure and simple. Then he maintains that the loss of 21 DC-9's cause 275 jobs to be lost but only shows 572 job gains from 88 717's. How is that? Deception pure and simple. Never on his graph does he show pilots leaving from the early out. Why?
Reason #11: Much of the loss in DCI in the previous few years was Saabs and Comair. Well Comair is down to almost nothing and the Saabs are all gone. The majority of the rest of the fleet is contracted out through 2015 and beyond. You must understand the reason behind the trend line to then try to project that into the future.
Reason #14: He talks about the new SWA deal, but he doesn't mention that the follow on deal was WORSE than the first one. Yes he has a happy talk quote from the SWAPA president but it fails to mention the other aspects of the TA that got much worse. FEDEX did a deal that was a smart move at the time, but they got two 3% raises and basically nothing else for a two year extension. Is that what George wants? Because, Delta management would oblige him on that one.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
