Originally Posted by alfaromeo

Just to be clear, my guess at 150 is simply a guess. I don't have access to any current data. Maybe it's more or less. My point was to show that if you want to calculate the savings, start with the number of pilots in training in any one period, figure out the savings created with pay banding (surely much less than 100% savings), and then figure out the jobs saved.

In your example, you save 500 training events at 5 weeks per event. That means that each training event costs Delta 5 out of 52 weeks of pilot productivity or 9.6% of a pilot's yearly productivity. Multiply 9.6% x 500 saved events and you come up with about 48 pilots. I would think the actual number is north of that savings.

As you said, there is surely better data out there and that would be the best starting point to have an intelligent discussion about which way the pilot group wants to go.

The other issue to discuss about pay banding is the cost savings to the company for stuff that does not affect pilot staffing. For example, they would save in simulator time, hotel costs, DGS staffing, and many other items that Delta spends money on, but doesn't end up in a Delta pilot's pocket.

That was one of the items exploited in C2012. The reason we ended up 41% ahead of our industry competitors was because much of the money to fund our contractual increases came from entities that Delta would have paid money to other than pilots. DCI contractors, engine overhaul, fuel expense, landing fees, and many other items were saved by the shift from DCI to mainline, meaning we use fewer airframes to fly the same or greater capacity. This shift in funding gave us returns that were as far ahead of industry average as I have ever seen any pilot group.