Thread: Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
View Single Post
Old 09-05-2013 | 02:54 PM
  #139050  
SawF16
Mother’s finest
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 311
Likes: 8
From: 220A
Default
Originally Posted by newKnow
I began writing a response to your entire post and it was getting way too long.

Before I go off the deep end here, maybe I can get you to consider something. Ok, two things:

#1: Arbitrators and their type (lawyers and judges) look at most things by who got, or who will get financially harmed. You can argue that you deserve Christmas off and your pick of the trips with all the great layovers all you want, but if it isn't costing you any money, they don't care.

#2: With #1 in mind, and you wanting a pay system where all captains get paid captain pay (with longevity) and all first officers get paid first office pay (with longevity), are you not putting in a system where both pilot groups have the same career expectations? (Career expectations to arbitrators means, how much money did you expect to make over your career.)

Are you not putting in a system where both pilot groups are all in the same category and class? (Captain & First Officer pay without aircraft consideration means you have just those two categories, right?)

Are you not putting in a system where longevity is already accounted for? (If a 20 year captain will make more money in his 21st year, and then even more in his 22nd year, no matter what, then as an arbitrator, I don't have to account for him stagnating later on because I put him under someone on the list who has less longevity, right?)

With these things in mind, if we were going to a captain pay and first officer pay system, if we merged with Alaska, Jet Blue, Spirit, or Hawaiian, why wouldn't an arbitrator just put in a straight ratio list from top to bottom? (Actually, for reasons I won't get into, we might even get less than a straight ratio list.)

Geeze. It turned long, anyway. Sorry.
Good discussion. First though, I'm not advocating LGB, I see it as some pros/some cons personally. The essence of what Johnso brought up is "will Delta pilots be harmed during a potential merger if 737-9 and A321s pay the same as the 75/76." I also have a big response to your above regarding who on our list benefits and who REALLY loses if we have a merger with Alaska and ONLY merge them into the 737 fleet IAW the type of integration I think you are referencing in lieu of a ratio, but it may be too long.

Instead, I'll play devil's advocate and assume yes, it is harmful to our pilot group to have the 737-9 and A321 pay the same as a 75/76 in the event of a merger with Alaska (or Jetblue/Spirit etc if you prefer). In that case, since we are just about the only carrier out there with MD-88s and one of the few with 717s, shouldn't we immediately begin petitioning the company to make any potential common types in a merger, such as the 73 and the 320 placed at the absolute bottom of our pay scale? If we as a union/company put pay rates on the M88 and 717 $20 per hour above any other narrowbody, wont we be able to prove financial damage IAW your logic above? That way we get to ratio anyone we would even theoretically merge with (except HAL with their 717s) way down at the bottom portions of our stovepiped list vs the upper portions of our stovepiped narrowbody list.

For that matter, shouldn't we also start demanding that the M-88 and 717 pay MORE than the 777/747 so that even if we have another merger with a widebody carrier they won't have access to the top regions of our seniority list?

Also went a bit long, thanks for the discussion!