Originally Posted by
tsquare
We need more 777s if we are going to maintain the same pay methodology in order to get more people more money by the time they retire. That is what it is all about. But the inconvenient truth is that DAL management makes those decisions. All on their own. With ZERO input from us. Draw your own conclusions about where things will go, but to me, it ain't rocket surgery.
UAl is taking the first step. and IMHO, it is the right one. I would LOVE to see a new hire career earnings projection based on retirements and current fleets.... It will be eye watering.
You are right, we dont make the fleet choices. However, when I see multiple UAL 747s parked at a place we fly one 777 to because (theoretically) that is all the traffic the destination will bear, I feel like they are either losing their butts or we are under-serving...I don't know which is more true, probably both and maybe neither.
The inflexibility of a big fleet of widebodies is either a cash cow when times are good or a money pit when they aren't. I honestly can't make a judgement on which is the best overall fleet plan. I can tell you what I want, but that is not necessarily best for corporate health.
At this point, like you, I'm married to DAL come what may. I was at the other place and progression was rapid until it wasn't. When I left, I could hold 737A or 777B. If I had stayed there, there was a point when I could have held neither.
As to the pay banding, longevity pay, or other schemes, I'm just not sold on decoupling pay for productivity. The 747 IMO should pay more than the 777. I'm not convinced the 777 should pay more than all 330's. FTB has already touched on the stupidity of our narrowbody pay discrepancies.
Retirement planning in the hands of the individual is also a mixed bag. Some folks are good with it, others don't understand how to plan for it. Its a tragedy in the classic sense.