Originally Posted by
finis72
I'm not a big proponent of pay banding but I'm curious to know where you got your figures for job loss and stagnation, me thinks it was your A$$. Maybe I'm wrong but I would think pay banding would (if done right) provide a much bigger pay raise to junior folks than senior folks.i agree there would be less training in the long run resulting in a more efficient airline. Due to massive retirements in the coming years the Delta training command is going to be 100% with or without pay banding.
People would be more interested in your posts if you would attack the message rather than the messenger.
I'm sure you are much smarter than I am.
I got the same numbers from my fellow 1985 hires at United and American. As you know, they both already have pay banding. 4 bands.
They both stated the productivity gain for management is around 15%.
Imagine 9 fleets/8 bases and over 800 retirements in 12 months.
From my years of doing ALPA work, I estimate each retirement to result in 8 to 10 initial training cycles. But let's use 6.
800 X 6 = 4800. 4800 initial training cycles in 12 months. Never mind the cost, who will fly the planes?
And in the years when over 800 pilot retire at age 65, how many will really retire? 1100? 1200?
Right now retirements are running at 2 for every 1 scheduled to retire at age 65.
Pay banding is a massive concession that will further stagnate our careers. And if you are already at the top? Who cares? It won't harm you.
Pull up the ladder.