Delta halts furloughee recall for indef period

[TonyC]

...sometime between 12/31/05 and 8/1/08 Delta will have the ability to furlough at will (given the lower categories remain properly staffed).. hmmm PBS kicks in (NLT) October '05 ... 90 days furlough notice required = Jan 1 '06

Ahh, yes. I almost forgot about PBS. Why do you suppose the company wanted PBS? Was it A) to improve the pilots' quality of life, or B) to improve pilot productivity?


If you chose B), you are correct. Improved pilot productivity equals fewer pilots required equals delayed recalls.


General Lee - - while you get riled up by my remarks, and accuse me of making predictions, you don't seem to mind declaring what you "know" to be the outcomes of the roads not taken. You KNOW they would have declared bankruptcy without TA 45, you KNOW they would have declared bankruptcy without TA 46, you KNOW the no furlough clause would have been thrown out immediately in a bankruptcy, etc., etc., etc. You KNOW it would have been worse - - - you KNOW more would have been furloughed . . . How? How do you know? Do you have some sort of special knowledge that makes your perspective, your speculation, your predictions more indisputable than anyone else's? I understand your passion, but you don't have to be so indignant when your opinions are challenged.

August 2008 I suppose is the current deadline to recall all furloughees - - at the rate things are going, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. The Company has plenty of advocates, plenty of people to make the case of saving the company on the backs of the pilots - - who is the advocate of the furloughee?

 

[FlyingSig]

Flying Sig,

But, they also have to bring back all of the remaining furloughs by Aug 2008, and by adding more they will have to bring more back before that time is up.

The recall schedule applies to the FMI group, not to additional furloughs (FM I would then have to wait until the "new" furloughs returned...no date set on that.

There will also be more retirements,

Scheduled Retirements at Delta Air Lines:
2004: 1 (crazy huh? Only 1 Dec b-day hung on..oh well)

2005: 47

2006: 89

Not exactly staggering numbers.... the growth by attrition bucket is pretty well tapped.

and our fleet size may actually grow if the expansion plans are met.

Number of RJ70's allowed:

2005: 82 (25 more then previous)

2006: 106

2007: 125

Number of mainline jets on order (not option):

2005: 9

2006: 22

2007: 23

So far, contraction hasn't happened.

So what do you call Dallas?...oh yeah Morpheous is going to magically make DFW spit out 14 more phantom airplanes in ATL...


OK...done ranting for the night...good night.

 

[FDJ2]

See my response to GL as far as LOA 45.

As far as undermanned categories (Negotiators Notepad 04-08):

o ​

​

Company may not furlough within 3 bid periods of the cap or ALV having been greater than 75 hours. This test is applied only to aircraft in the B-737-900 First Officer position and below.






​

That's it... get the AVL to 75...give 90 days notice. Contractual requirements met.

FlyingSig, somehow in all your analysis you missed this little gem from LOA 45

“No pilot will be placed on furlough during the employment of a post-retirement pilot.”

Whereas you are correct about the requirements in LOA 46 concerning the 737-900 and below ALVs, that does not trump the requirements specified in LOA 45, which has nothing to do with ALVs. Your "get the AVL to 75...give 90 days notice. Contractual requirements met" falls short of DAL's actual contractual requirements.

The bottomline as it stands now, is that DAL can not furlough at will.

I'm not saying this is a great TA, not by a long shot, but it does still have some protections which are not enjoyed by many pilots at AA, UAL, US, ATA, Indy etc.

 

[FDJ2]

The recall schedule applies to the FMI group, not to additional furloughs (FM I would then have to wait until the "new" furloughs returned...no date set on that.


Scheduled Retirements at Delta Air Lines:
2004: 1 (crazy huh? Only 1 Dec b-day hung on..oh well)

2005: 47

2006: 89

Not exactly staggering numbers.... the growth by attrition bucket is pretty well tapped.

FlyingSig, while you are correct that the pool of pilots in the retirement window is getting smaller, my hunch is that we will see close to 200 additional retirements in the next 3-4 months. Since August DAL has had over 400 retirements, yet the total number of pilots scheduled to retire in 2004-2006 was only 372. It's my understanding that DAL has significantly more than 400 pilots who currently are 53 and over and have over 25 years of service. As of Decmber 1st, those pilots are showing up to work to make an additional 7.5% of the income they could utherwise enjoy in retired status. None of them is padding their FAE at this point. My bet is many of them will soon find other ways to spend there time then to work for that extra 7.5%.

There is no growth by attrition. The only thing early retirements do is mitigate furloughs and create some early upward mobility, but much like the first law of economics, there is no free lunch. Eventually retirements will run dry and there will have to be growth or stagnation. Year over Year Delta block hours have grown about 9%, next year they are expected to grow an additional 6%, give or take.

 

[General Lee]

Tony C,


Again, where do you get this cocky know it all attitude? How do I know we were going to go Chap 11? Well, I would have to follow the lead of Dalpa and all of their economic advisors. Yeah, they actually knew what was going on, and they know A LOT MORE THAN YOU DO. I wasn't there in negotiations, but I do know a lot of the ATL LEC members, and I have heard first hand what was happening. I guess you also knew the story, right? Probably not.

Who is the advocate for the furloughs? Well, we remaining pilots have done a lot for our furloughs, and that is much more than pilot groups in the past. We paid Cobra, fought for them to come back after FM2, and got a recall rate started in July. Then we got pushed into a corner. Yup, it $ucked, and we were pushed into making a deal that didn't give exact recall rights, but did give a final date for recall and also gave extra rules to disallow future furloughs (manning percentages, prp rules, etc). It wasn't perfect at all, but better than losing it all in court. You can't seem to understand that fact for some reason.
PBS does make efficiencies for the company, but only allowing the cap to be raised to 82 hours max (instead of the widely believed 85 hour cap that everyone thought was on our way) and quarterly max hour caps, has limited the hurt from PBS. Sure, there will be some efficiencies created, but our growth for 2005 is nearly 6%, and the extra retirements over the past 3 or 4 months has helped create a shortage in many categories. You always seem to overlook that also. But, you really aren't a Delta pilot---so I don't expect you to know everything. Overall, we did a lot better than had we gone to court and changed everything.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[flaps30]

missing the point

If the senior guys, or DALPA really cared they would have taken bigger cuts to bring everyone back.

 

[FlyingSig]

If the senior guys, or DALPA really cared they would have taken bigger cuts to bring everyone back.

Now that's just stupid (and I'm hoping a drunken post trying to piss off some DAL guys...) The senior folks have taken up to $93000 pay cut in base pay, plus had their DB frozen, plus have to work more to make their new paycheck. Spare me the senior/junior thing.

 

[FlyingSig]

FlyingSig, somehow in all your analysis you missed this little gem from LOA 45

“No pilot will be placed on furlough during the employment of a post-retirement pilot.”

It wasn't missed and is fully understood... but the point of this debate...and the point that many are missing is that the the intent of the PRP's is to be a temporary solution. They are supposed to go away as soon as replacements are trained. While DAL will probably do their best to keep them until December '05 - ALPA meant for them to be gone much sooner then this. Many of you seem to be using them as the ace-in-the-hole no furlough clause.

While I'd like to think LOA 46 saved the airline and it's all uphill from here, one only needs to look at American to see how managment will react once they figure out what to do with their newfound gains.

Once there are no PRP's...Delta can furlough at will. I'm not saying they will, only that we can. Hopefully this time next year the airlines will be in a significantly better position. If not that Ace is nothing but a high card bluff.

 

[DaveGriffin]

Now that's just stupid (and I'm hoping a drunken post trying to piss off some DAL guys...) The senior folks have taken up to $93000 pay cut in base pay, plus had their DB frozen, plus have to work more to make their new paycheck. Spare me the senior/junior thing.

Yeah, those senior guys got me crying a river. They take a pay cut only AFTER the best three years of their careers and then, after the furloughees take a 100% pay cut from FM1 til '07 or '08, they tell the furloughees how much they are doing for them. What a two-faced, hypocritical, self-serving joke.

But they sleep well at night by paying their share of the COBRA assessment (the monthly equivalent of a cable bill).

The icing on the cake is post bail-out pilots back on property to help them offset their income shortfall caused by an unscheduled early retirement.

Its all about securing the pension money, nothing more, nothing less. Delta had the seniors by the 'nads and the greedy senior b*stards caved big time, cutting the bottom of the list loose to safeguard the retirements for the top of the list.

There are many other creative solutions that could have been employed which would have treated the bottom of the list more fairly; but the easiest route, that which expended the LEAST negotiating capital, was to stick it to the juniors.

When the going gets tough, we know who NOT to count on.

 

[Vortilon]

Dave,

Normally I'm really quick to point out your negativity but this has been the final whack for me and I'm tired to listening to the fearless, blind optimism as well. I'm done...this latest batch of bad news is the final straw. I really just don't believe anyone anymore.

And FlyingSIG, the numbers you posted are truly sobering.

Somebody stop the ride, I'd like to get off now please.

 

[DaveGriffin]

Dave,

I'm tired to listening to the fearless, blind optimism.....

It is interesting to note that the optimistic supporters of the "Scr*w the furloughees and support our Seniors" initiatives set forth by the MEC are the guys who have had a GREAT paycheck for the past 3 years. They don't find it hard at all to be resolute in the face of adversity.

MEC to furloghees: "Keep quiet, quit complaining, it will all be over soon (another 2-3 years)."

 

[Vortilon]

Yep, it is easy to be optimistic when you have a job. Once again, I will be losing mine soon. Yay.

 

[TonyC]

How do I know we were going to go Chap 11?

...


It wasn't perfect at all, but better than losing it all in court. You can't seem to understand that fact for some reason.

...



But, you really aren't a Delta pilot---so I don't expect you to know everything. Overall, we did a lot better than had we gone to court and changed everything.

Good question. How do you KNOW you were going to go Chap 11? Does your crystal ball have some advantage over any other?

You state as fact that what you took was better than losing it all in court, suggesting that said outcome was itself a fact. In your opinion, the only option other than accepting the TA was bankruptcy. You seem to be caught up in a narrow, either/or world. Unfortunately, that is NOT a fact.

Maybe that makes my perspective, even thought I'm not really a Delta pilot, just as valid as yours. Have you ever considered you might be a little too close to the issue to be objective?


Overall, you did a lot better than had you gone to court? That's conjecture, General Lee, and to purport any more is disingenuous. Nobody KNOWS what might have been. You've got your ideas, I have mine, DaveGriffin has his.

 

[Spooky 1]

Don't hold your breath for Delta to order any new airplanes other than some sample jets that fall off the low hanging tree branches. If I were a Delta pilot low on the seniority list, especially if on furlough, I would lok else where for long term employment.

How is it that some of you equate being on furlough with some sort of combat experience? Get a life and stop whining. It's all going to be over soon!

 

[TonyC]

There are many other creative solutions that could have been employed which would have treated the bottom of the list more fairly; but the easiest route, that which expended the LEAST negotiating capital, was to stick it to the juniors.

And there is the major point of disagreement that we have. Some people wanted to paint this as a choice between two, and only two alternatives. Take what we shove down your throat, or we'll declare bankruptcy.

I agree with Dave here that the PROBLEM of mass retirements could have been addressed with simple solutions that did not punish furloughees. I'm disappointed that DALPA apparently failed to pursue, even demand such solutions, and refuse further punitive measures.

 

[TonyC]

PBS does make efficiencies for the company, but only allowing the cap to be raised to 82 hours max (instead of the widely believed 85 hour cap that everyone thought was on our way) and quarterly max hour caps, has limited the hurt from PBS. Sure, there will be some efficiencies created, but our growth for 2005 is nearly 6%, and the extra retirements over the past 3 or 4 months has helped create a shortage in many categories.

I think you underestimate the impact of PBS. Time will tell.

 

[TonyC]

Tony C,


Again, where do you get this cocky know it all attitude?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

But, you really aren't a Delta pilot---so I don't expect you to know everything.


Bye Bye--General Lee

. . . . .

 

[General Lee]

Tony C,


I have experience with PBS, since we had it at Delta Express. I know it creates efficiencies, but an expanding schedule can mitigate that. If we didn't have any expansion, then yes, it could really hurt. Right now we are expanding our schedule 6% in Feb, and we have lost 339 Captains since November 1st. You aren't taking those facts into account, and you are acting emotionally without looking at the whole picture. Sure, the furloughs will be affected by PBS, but it is doubtful we could have brought them all back as soon as you and I wanted them to be back.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[MedFlyer]

I agree with Dave here that the PROBLEM of mass retirements could have been addressed with simple solutions that did not punish furloughees. I'm disappointed that DALPA apparently failed to pursue, even demand such solutions, and refuse further punitive measures.

I'd like to hear some of these simple solutions. You guys keep saying there were other ways....but you never actually elaborate on what those ways were.

Even if DALPA had these "simple solutions," there's no way to know if DL management would have agreed to them (especially if they cost DL an extra dime). DL management was in the driver's seat during the negotiations and DALPA had burned through any negotiating power they might have once had. This was the inherent danger in DALPA's strategy of waiting till the last minute to seriously negotiate.

Sure, it kept up the status quo (high pay) and it put pressure on creditors (who in the end gave very little), but it also gave DALPA little room to negotiate....time (and money) had simply run out.

Unfortunately, the junior pilots paid the highest price...although I don't know why that surprises anyone here. The junior guys ALWAYS pay the highest price...it's nothing unique to DALPA.

 

[TonyC]

I'd like to hear some of these simple solutions. You guys keep saying there were other ways....but you never actually elaborate on what those ways were.

Neigh, neigh, horsebreath. Where were you when we were discussing this in September?

Contract back retiring DAL captains?

michael707767 offered this suggestion:

another option I heard they are considering is to sign a side letter for a larger lump sum if you give 90 or 120 days notice. For example, right now a pilot can take 50% of the value of his retirement as a lump sum (how this is calculated I don't exactly know). The side letter would say those who give 90 days notice could get 55% of the value in a lump sum. FWIW

vc10 offered this suggestion:

1) Instant 120 day notice requirement imposed, thereby simply preventing those who have not retired already from retiring for at least 120 days---i.e. if you give notice today, you can't retire for 120 days from today.

I offered this suggestion:

Nobody is safe until they take the lump sum and depart the fix. You're not safe, the furloughee is not safe, the Captain a year from retirement is not safe. Why should you expend any negotiating capital to ensure the "safety" of this small minority group? If the Captain wants to jump ship and take his small (by comparison) lump sum, so be it. If he's as loyal to the Company as you're presenting to be, he'll hang around for a while, take a risk, and perhaps receive a bigger reward from the robust company that you want to emerge from this debacle. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right? What this scheme amounts to, in my opinion, is an opportunity for that Captain to eat his cake and have it, too.


Park wide bodies? What about the MD-11's that are parked? (Hmmm, wait, we may have bought them. ) Again, it seems like the delayed retirement scheme is a way to cover for management's incompetence, and drive a wedge between the pilots to boot.


Buy sim time? Chump change compared to the stakes involved. Training pipeline's full? Explain that to the folks who lost their jobs as instructors. If the pipeline's full, what good does a "huge bid" do? If they can't train more, they can't train more, right? It just seems incongruous to me.


I'm sure there must be a way to make this work in your favor - - the Company wants something, you get to decide the price they should pay. Perhaps you could include language that will require the recall AND start of training for TWO furloughees for every Captain that is allowed to retire and continue flying. Perhaps you could limit the monthly cap for the retirees flying - - say to 60% of what your cap is, so they won't be replacing a "whole" line pilot, but only a fraction of one.


I don't see anybody being "forced" to do anything, except the pilots who were FORCED to be furloughed. The elder pilots have a decision to make, and I realize it's a tough one - - extraordinarily tough, at that. But it IS a decision. I don't see the fairness of sacrificing the junior guys' chances for recall and upgrade just so you can make the most senior guys' decision to bail that much easier.

General Lee said, "It should produce some more recalls--which would be a good thing." (So far it has only delayed recalls.)

NYRANGERS made this astute observation:

If we can guarantee the 65 managments retirements, we should be able to do the same for a limited number of Delta pilots. This way they are not contract pilots. I'm just worried this may come back to bite us.

Me again:

If Delta needs to retain the Captains, Delta needs to provide the incentive for them to stay, and that incentive should NOT come out of the hide of the OTHER pilots at Delta.

FDJ2 offered this:

One scenario I would not have as much heartburn over would be allowing a Delta seniority list pilot in a critical category to cash in on his lump sum prior to his scheduled retirement date. IOW, A 767-400 Captain would state on September 30th his intention to retire NLT February 1st, giving the company a maximum of 4 months to fill his seat. The pilot would receive his lump sum as if he had retired October 1st, but he would retain his Delta seniority pending his actual retirement which would be either the date a Delta pilot can replace him or February 1st whichever is earlier. Any adjustments to his lump sum due to a change in his FAE would be made payable on February 1st. This would mean that the 767-400 is still flown by a DAL seniority list pilot, the pilot would still get his lump sum pay out in case the company attempts to terminate the pension during a BK filing (the biggest concern of most retiring DAL pilots) and the 767-400 would still be flying. Just thinking out loud, so shoot away.

xdays chimed in:

A lot of folks here are talking about "contract" pilots taking flying away from seniority list pilots. That's not now I see it. The flying will still be done by seniority list pilots, as they are still active. As you mentioned above, pilots in critical categories will commit to a retirement on a NLT date within the time frame agreed upon. His lump sum will either be protected until his retirement date or distributed using the timeline associated with the date he submitted his retirement papers. He continues to fly in his category until the agreed upon date, allowing DAL the ability to train someone to fill in the vacated position.

Dave Benjamin had a suggestion:

Would something like this work?

Allow pilots to transfer their lump sum retirements to some sort of escrow account or trust fund. This account cannot be raided by company or touched by the pilot until he/she retires. Once the pilot has transferred the lump sum any further pension contributions go to a "B" plan or 401K. Pilots that don't choose to transfer their lump sums stay in the pension plan with the hope the company stays out of Chap 11.

On a different thread (DALPA retirement TA) I said:

The whole problem could be equitably resolved by one promise from Delta management: we won't disolve the pension plan.


That wouldn't even require a membership vote.




Instead, they've said "we won't dissolve the pension plan before February, but you've got to give us a few things. First of all, we want to be able to contract pilots.

And then later:

Admit the root of that problem is lack of confidence in the future of the pension plan. Find a solution that targets the problem rather than bandaid some symptoms. THEN you'll have a solution that everyone can support.


It would seem that a great deal of the reported problems with Defined Benefit pension plans is due to artificially imposed restrictions that could easily be adjusted to make them very "healthy." I don't buy the doom and gloom hype companies are so inclined to pitch these days.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I reckon Delta 59-yr-olds have 2 choices right now. They can give 24-hour notice and walk away with 1 50% (of something) lump sum, or they hang around longer and gamble on the traditional defined benefit pension.

Don't you think you could put your noggin' to work and come up with some OTHER alternative, some incentive to keep the senior guys around flying, even if it's only long enough to train replacements?

I've got an idea. Change the notification requirement from 24 hours to 180 days. In return, the Company guarantees the lump sum will be available at the end of the 180 days, even if the Company declares bankruptcy. This way pilots aren't in a panic to exercise their lump sum option, and the Company has plenty of notice to replace retirees.


Any other ideas?

At this point, even General Lee found something to agree with me on:

Tony C,


That is a good idea, and that was brought up---with the 60 or 90 day notice, but the company did NOT require that. That is strange..... I think they want to get rid of the top half. They want cheaper pilots,

There were more, but I think I've beaten this dead horse too much already.

- To be Continued -