Delta vs UPS TA video

[Trip7]

Forgive my ignorance, but is 270 hours of sick time a lot for pilots? I work the ramp for SWA and have at least double that amount in my sick bank. A 270 hour or less cap is rediculous.

Delta doesn't have a sick bank hourly accrual system. Pilots have up to 270 hours per year (Depending on years of service) use it or lose it sick time. June 1st of every year your sick hours reset to 270 or however many hours your years of service can hold.

 

[ian]

At the most recent meeting, Ed absolutely refused to acknowledge any other carrier in comparison other than AA and UA.

Which is weird, when our union puts out a comparison of these two contracts "when they don't count".

 

[ian]

Forgive my ignorance, but is 270 hours of sick time a lot for pilots? I work the ramp for SWA and have at least double that amount in my sick bank. A 270 hour or less cap is rediculous.

Delta doesn't have a sick bank hourly accrual system. Pilots have up to 270 hours per year (Depending on years of service) use it or lose it sick time. June 1st of every year your sick hours reset to 270 or however many hours your years of service can hold.

What @Trip7 said is our current system. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here but you start with 75 hours your first year and gain 25 hours every year until you reach 270. The new proposal is to go to a rolling 12 month clock and changes to when we have to supply a note, who can write a note, and losing the ability to optionally provice a note to save your 100 hours of un-verified time....if that makes any sense to you.

 

[bksslc]

What @Trip7 said is our current system. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here but you start with 75 hours your first year and gain 25 hours every year until you reach 270. The new proposal is to go to a rolling 12 month clock and changes to when we have to supply a note, who can write a note, and losing the ability to optionally provice a note to save your 100 hours of un-verified time....if that makes any sense to you.

That makes sense. I was thinking you were capped at a set amount, such as 270, and had to accrue it from 0 when it was exhausted. Having it refreshed each year doesn't sound like such a bad deal.

 

[ian]

That makes sense. I was thinking you were capped at a set amount, such as 270, and had to accrue it from 0 when it was exhausted. Having it refreshed each year doesn't sound like such a bad deal.

I think it's a pretty good deal. where you get the disagreement is on when it resets and some of the small details associated to verification

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

I think it's a pretty good deal. where you get the disagreement is on when it resets and some of the small details associated to verification

It is... the consternation is over not being able to pre-verify. There is a caveat if you look at the AIP where if you're like me and have used 10 hours of sick time in the last 2 years where the unverified time increases significantly. Regardless, I'm not a fan over the increasing level of of verification as you approach the limit without the pre-verify. No one is a fan of that, but good gosh it's way better than that stupid thing last year. Didn't the AIP change it to DOH for the renewal window?

 

[ian]

It is... the consternation is over not being able to pre-verify. There is a caveat if you look at the AIP where if you're like me and have used 10 hours of sick time in the last 2 years where the unverified time increases significantly. Regardless, I'm not a fan over the increasing level of of verification as you approach the limit without the pre-verify. No one is a fan of that, but good gosh it's way better than that stupid thing last year. Didn't the AIP change it to DOH for the renewal window?

My complaint #1 is the rolling 12 month, give me DOH reset vs June 1 and I'm good to go.
Complaint #2: the loss of voluntary verification. I don't even have 100 hours of paid sick time use and I'm still against it. I'm not one to call in sick unless I'm sick. My big gripe is two-fold. 1. I don't have a primary care physician, i go to the urgent care if i need to see a dr since its less than a mile from my house. 2. If i have just a cold or something like that I don't want to have to go to the Dr (not to mention on the super off chance i go over 160, i think thats what the threshold was, my urgent care visit wouldnt even count as verification) to get a note should I go over the 100 hour time frame, I want the ability to verify when I'm seriously sick to save the sniffles ones for not going to see a Dr.

 

[Seggy]

The argument goes:

Let's say you have 9 airplane types, and each pays a different rate. Let's also say you are thinking about going to banding, and want to have 3 airplanes in each of 3 bands.

This assumes everyone is content with the staffing aspect of pay banding. The theory goes that people jump airplanes for money; and this causes training churn, which makes pilots unavailable. By eliminating the churn somewhat, you effectively increase productivity. If you are getting a raise out of the deal, it becomes a "pay for jobs" discussion.

So now we implement the banding as part of a PWA. You set up your pay bands and dollop a 10% raise on the highest rate in your new band, and each aircraft in each band "snaps up" to the highest rate in each band.

Everyone's happy, right?

Wrong.

The pilots already on the highest paying equipment in each band get a 10% raise. Good news, right?

But the pilots in the formerly lower paying aircraft in the new pay bands get a "bigger raise" because their pay snaps to the highest in each band. They get the pay bump to the highest AND get the 10% raise.

"Not fair". "Your choosing winners and losers!" are some comments, in addition to those who are opposed on the staffing issue.

Getting the 10% raise isn't the issue. The issue is that a large group of pilots in each band are getting bigger "raises". If it's one thing a pilot hates worse than a good deal, and that's someone else getting a better deal, even if that "better deal" is making the same money.

When you stop to think about advancement, the pilots at the top of the lower bands have access to the top pay in the next band sooner than they might have; that dampens that argument some. What's left is the pilots already at the very top who are left with just the 10% raise.

As always, things are more complicated than they seem.

Richman

not to mention since we only have so few 777s those guys will be wishing the 330/350 paid the 777 rate when they go away.....care to give us a history lesson @Seggy ?

Before I start, I just want to say that this is what I saw at my place bringing pay banding when two pilot groups came together (one had pay banding prior, one did not) and negotiated a joint contract. The Deltoids have to do what they want to do, but as a history lesson was asked for....

The LOUDEST and I mean LOUDEST opponents of pay banding were the top of the pay scale 747 Captains. They were using the argument @Richman described and bitching they were only getting a X% raise while everyone else was getting a Y% raise. They were also saying 'why should a 787 pay the same as a 747 when they have around 100 less seats?' Ok, sounds valid, but here is what happened at my place.

First, these folks who are arguing that they are only getting a X% raise while everyone else is getting a Y% raise is an extremely small number compared to the overall group. Secondly, and more importantly, fast forward a few years and my place announces the early retirement of the 747. Guess where the LOUDEST opponents of pay banding going? The 787...So instead of these pilots being displaced to a lower paying aircraft, they are being displaced to an airplane that pays the same as they were making. We also parked about 75 older 757s. Guess what? No paycut for those that went from the 757 to the 737 or Airbus. This also translates to less QOL stresses. For example, Denver based pilots didn't need to commute to other bases when they closed the 757 base there to follow the money. They simply transitioned to the 737 or Airbus and were able to stay in DEN. More recently, on Friday our ENTIRE ORD 747 base was displaced. Instead of having to commute to SFO to fly the equipment that pays the same, most of them will stay in ORD on the 777. So in the end the loudest opponents are now the loudest proponents of pay banding as they knew it was the right call in the long run. Thirdly, you want to bring up the band of those aircraft that will be around the longest. As an outsider looking in, it seems like an opportunity was lost at Deltoid land by not pay banding when the joint contract was signed. Now the 747 is being parked and can't use that rate in the pay band equation.

Fourthly, I wish all the Deltoids the best of luck.

 

[BobDDuck]

To add about pay banding...

It tends to depress the fleets at the high end of the band and bring up fleets at the low end of the band. This can lead to problems near the end of a contract cycle where the high end fleet is much farther behind the industry than the low end fleet. Negotiating a new CBA (cough cough PWA) from this position can be challenging because if you are tying to get back to or above industry you end up having to apply a lot of negotiating capital to either the entire band or just the high end fleet to get there.

 

[Trip7]

My complaint #1 is the rolling 12 month, give me DOH reset vs June 1 and I'm good to go.
Complaint #2: the loss of voluntary verification. I don't even have 100 hours of paid sick time use and I'm still against it. I'm not one to call in sick unless I'm sick. My big gripe is two-fold. 1. I don't have a primary care physician, i go to the urgent care if i need to see a dr since its less than a mile from my house. 2. If i have just a cold or something like that I don't want to have to go to the Dr (not to mention on the super off chance i go over 160, i think thats what the threshold was, my urgent care visit wouldnt even count as verification) to get a note should I go over the 100 hour time frame, I want the ability to verify when I'm seriously sick to save the sniffles ones for not going to see a Dr.

Is Urgent Care folks not a QCHP? Verification between 101-160 hours can be accomplished by a QCHP. From the AIP:

There are now two ways to verify a sickness –- a Qualified Health Care Professional (QHCP)
certificate and a doctor’s certificate. A QHCP can be an R.N., a certified Physician’s Assistant, a
Chiropractor, or a licensed clinical psychologist. Similar to a doctor’s certificate, a QHCP
certificate is written verification from a QHCP indicating in general terms the nature of the pilot’s
sickness. “Other proof of illness” has been eliminated.

 

[ian]

Is Urgent Care folks not a QCHP? Verification between 101-160 hours can be accomplished by a QCHP. From the AIP:

There are now two ways to verify a sickness –- a Qualified Health Care Professional (QHCP)
certificate and a doctor’s certificate. A QHCP can be an R.N., a certified Physician’s Assistant, a
Chiropractor, or a licensed clinical psychologist. Similar to a doctor’s certificate, a QHCP
certificate is written verification from a QHCP indicating in general terms the nature of the pilot’s
sickness. “Other proof of illness” has been eliminated.

Yeah it's the greater than 160 verification requirement where it talks about the requirement for a bona fide (sp?) relationship that I'm talking about

 

[jtrain609]

Yeah it's the greater than 160 verification requirement where it talks about the requirement for a bona fide (sp?) relationship that I'm talking about

I don't know what they negotiated that to intend, but my guess is that they're pointing to someone who has a spouse or a parent who is a physician who could write a note.

 

[ian]

I don't know what they negotiated that to intend, but my guess is that they're pointing to someone who has a spouse or a parent who is a physician who could write a note.

I agree but the way it's written is definitely going to lead to a "we didn't think they would do that" type of situation.

The exact wording:

a pilot who has used more than 160 hours of sick leave in the 12 completed bid periods preceding the start of a sick occurrence, other than sick leave year, or
b. a pilot that has been verified under Section 14 F. 4., will be required to verify such occurrence within 21 days of its start by providing to his Chief Pilot or the Pilot Support Center a doctor’s certificate.

2. “Doctor’s certificate” means written verification from a doctor with whom a pilot has a bona fide patient relationship, indicating in general terms the nature of the pilot’s sickness.