Ed’s Interview With Maria
 

Via Deltanet you can view Mr. Bastian’s interview with Maria Bartiromo.

Good news all the way around, especially international.

Clearly, 100%, our domestic market is mature and the future 5 to 30 years is international growth.

C2019 scope will be make or break for our future Delta pilots. We must have the best scope ever written. Crystal clear with immediate penalties. Scope with written examples and no room for the crushing defeats we have suffered in the past.

When you look around the global airline system, it is in our executive best interest and our shareholders best interest for international flying to be on DELTA METAL.
__________________
Jerry Fielding

https://deltaairlines.sharepoint.com...ith-Maria.aspx

You must sign into the DELTANET to view this.

Scoop

We're gonna need to order some widebodies for that, beyond the handful we have on order. Seems like Ed is betting on the Boeing NMA/797. I'll be very surprised if Boeing actually starts delivering them in less than 7 years.

Here's a public link to the interview video: https://www.foxbusiness.com/business...bill-this-year

He is definitely going to have to order more 330s.

Perhaps we should consider pay banding.

There should be some good deals on used wide bodies

Good intermediate step

Nah, we should stick with the old way because that's the way it's always been. :rolleyes:

I agree with you. Time for pay banding.

As long as the job loss is offset with increased vacation hours.

What about the prevailing thought that many pay rates offers protections in the event of a disparate merger? For example, say a hypothetical narrow body LCC (or a portion thereof)? Some people with their ears to the train tracks are of the opinion that more consolidation is coming and if so, that's where it will happen.

If having one rate made a large legacy airline even a little more vulnerable to a full relative fleecing from a narrow body LCC, that would obviously make it a complete nonstarter.

Longevity pay fixes that. If everybody had longevity pay, Plouffe could have his wish of DOH (at whatever airline) integration because your pay wouldn't change. Disparate companies merging would have little to no effect on QOL. I know there is at least one guy on this board that is only flying big widebody because of the money and would bid down if that money were the same. Ain't that right... sailingfun?

I would bid down to copilot. Seems weird to pay copilots more than Captains! We would also be one of the first to decouple revenue generation from pay. Your assertion it would change seniority integration would only be true if our new rates matched narrowbody rates at other airlines.
Did you watch the recent video by ED where he discussed fleet plans and the ATC system. He repeatedly said upsizing the fleet is the only way to sustain growth. That process is underway right now. Shame to give up all those free unnegotiated pay raises!

Can you guys clarify longevity pay? Is it the same as UPS - no regard to equipment, just years and seat? Does it still cap at 12 years? Just trying to think through the pros and cons...

Envoy has a type of longevity pay: your seniority determines which aircraft pay rate you receive. The most senior pilot receives EMB-175 pay even though he may choose to fly the EMB-145.

What's a copilot?:rolleyes:

It’s a Deltaism. Like “Initial,” “Rotation,” and “Cap.” :p

How?

If a narrow body LCC were to pillage our seniority list by scoring a full relative windfall because "what difference does it make the rates are all the same" that would cost our pilots seniority numbers compared to a limited/slotted/pull-n-plug/etc narrow body only relative integration.

I'm just not seeing the panacea with LBP except for the company with less training churn which means less pilots, less SLI's, etc. Throw in the possibility of even a fraction of a percent worse seniority integration and why would we even consider it? What's the big gain anyway? Everyone gets 777 pay overnight? Highly unlikely. LBP won't magically generate more money for us to spread around; odds are overwhelming that top rates will be lowered to bring lower rates up. So what's the big draw for the entire group as a whole?

Seems to me pay banding is a good compromise.

Denny

That’s not how it works. Longevity pay is based in your years of service regardless of equipment. What Envoy has is a disgrace for the RJ part of the industry.

UPS has longevity pay, Envoy has seniority pay.

Tomato tomato. Just different ways to skin the cat. Both can be concessions unless you recoup the value traded for the savings in diminished training churn.

You are seriously not this naive.

I would run a 42 year pay scale, and for sailingfun since he seems cluedo on the issue, Captains make more than FOs.

Can anyone tell us why on earth the current scales stop at 12 years?

Trying to explain this while you continue to mesh in the above highlighted sentence is impossible.

You're right. It will never work. Let's do the same old thing we have always done. It works for a few., so at least we have that.

Good question. Is this something historical? Did the company or ALPA (of old) choose this? Was it a compromise?

This seems like it is more favorable to the company in terms of projecting cost and limiting pay growth, but it also is a negotiating point for both sides for costing purposes.

I used to work at an airline that had a 15 years scale. It takes 3 years longer to get to top pay, is that better? Also, our current scale is too steep, I agree. 2nd year Captain only makes marginally less than a 12 year Captain. I'm all for reducing the 2nd, 3rd & 4th year Captain pay to increase the longevity pay going forward. Currently after year 2 the annual increases are comical, something like $2-3/hr. I doubt we'd get the current scale extended AND annual raises out to the previously mentioned 42 year mark without trading something for it. That would be a MASSIVE amount of $. Of course if someone knows a way to obtain both the current scale AND increase longevity...I'm even happier with that.

Over the course of a full career, one does better to bring earnings forward. In the absence of any retirement benefit being calculated on final average earnings, I'd even take an inversion to the pay tables if I were getting hired today.

And remember, there are big differences in vacation and sick leave between 2nd and 12th (or 19th) year captains, not to mention the earning power seniority itself can produce if you choose to exercise it.

So show us a rough, but as close to accurate as you can WAG, the pay tables you think we'd see one we become LBP based.

We're simply not going to have this discussion on a theoretical basis with no known outcome until its already committed to. Hey I have a great idea! But first let's reach V1 with it and then we'll see the details!

I hear you, but shouldn't there be a difference between a year 1 and year 25 pilot? Bottom line...at 80 hrs. a month/each, a year 1 guy will earn nearly the same as a year 25 guy. MD88 as an example would be $1,900 per month difference for 2 captains flying 80 hrs./mo year 1 pay as captain, vs. year 25. Makes no sense at all.

So you are arguing that we should make less early in our career so we can make more later in our career? The top of our pay scale is going to be the same regardless so why not get there quickly?

The more time we spend manipulating the structure of the contract, the more time it will take and the more potential for language failures. That lengthens the timeline for what gains? We repeat this every contract and try to evaluate language at the vote or after. Known quantities are valuable and defendable.

Not on a true Longevity based pay scale. Sounds like you are proposing a exception for seat status.

I did the math on all of this right after the merger. If I could find the paper I would post it.... on second though probably not. I have tired of getting shouted down by the "Everyone will get 777 pay" crowd (Or actually by the "777s will then pay RJ pay).... GARBAGE... so I gave up. Now it is more amusement that I see whining about how we only have 1/3 the Super Premium widebody flying that UAL and AAL have and there is zero attempt to rectify the difference or find a different way to skin the cat.

Let's just make sure the few that are lucky enough to be in the bigger categories get paid the most, because they generate the most money for the company. (that one always cracks me up) Awesome.

The window on all of this will start to close at some point in the not too distant future, and if we do nothing to fix it on this contract, hiring/retiring will slow, and any modification will be more difficult, and -dare I say- painful.



/rant

Seriously Clark?

I know you are smarter than this. I am not sure whether you are just being obstinate or obtuse.

No. The pay increases should be bigger in the early part of one's career. But of course I am a firm believer in time/value of money.

That would be interesting to see if you can find it.

We need to understand Decision 83 and how it allowed pilots to capture pay raises in proportion to gains in the productivity of new airliners and advances in technology. Pay based on longevity decouples that link and would be harmful to pilot pay over the long term.

I've always heard that Hawaii isn't a big money maker. If people want to tie revenue generation to pilot pay, maybe we should pay each leg based on the city pair?

(sarc)

I actually would like to see pay based on the number of actual souls on board. (Ferry flights are free)


3.....2.....1......

And now that I think of it, my NB vacation doesn't cost the company as much... shouldn't I get more of it? And can I get an extra couple IVDs since I never get crew meals?

Now you are getting it.

I disagree.

When the 777s go away, there will be paycuts.