Massive 350A Bypass
#21
You mentioned there will be no way the company can handle upcoming training requirements but this could be a powerful tool for the company in that regard. The training bypass is one way for the company to greatly minimize the churn. I have no idea how many training events these bypass eliminate but I am sure it’s a lot.
Could this be one of the ways the company plans on handling the massive training requirements that are forthcoming?
For that matter why not just codify this in the PWA as a win-win for both the company and the Pilots? Let’s say for instance any Pilot within three years of mandatory retirement is pay protected on anything they can hold but they are locked on their current equipment for those three years.
This could greatly minimize training for the company and boost Pilot wages for many Pilots in their final years. I am not sure if the company would go for it since they can pick and choose exactly who they bypass anyway but my guess is it will probably be pretty close to how they actually navigate this issue in any case.
Just a couple of things to think about.
Scoop
Could this be one of the ways the company plans on handling the massive training requirements that are forthcoming?
For that matter why not just codify this in the PWA as a win-win for both the company and the Pilots? Let’s say for instance any Pilot within three years of mandatory retirement is pay protected on anything they can hold but they are locked on their current equipment for those three years.
This could greatly minimize training for the company and boost Pilot wages for many Pilots in their final years. I am not sure if the company would go for it since they can pick and choose exactly who they bypass anyway but my guess is it will probably be pretty close to how they actually navigate this issue in any case.
Just a couple of things to think about.
Scoop
#22
You mentioned there will be no way the company can handle upcoming training requirements but this could be a powerful tool for the company in that regard. The training bypass is one way for the company to greatly minimize the churn. I have no idea how many training events these bypass eliminate but I am sure it’s a lot.
Could this be one of the ways the company plans on handling the massive training requirements that are forthcoming?
For that matter why not just codify this in the PWA as a win-win for both the company and the Pilots? Let’s say for instance any Pilot within three years of mandatory retirement is pay protected on anything they can hold but they are locked on their current equipment for those three years.
This could greatly minimize training for the company and boost Pilot wages for many Pilots in their final years. I am not sure if the company would go for it since they can pick and choose exactly who they bypass anyway but my guess is it will probably be pretty close to how they actually navigate this issue in any case.
Just a couple of things to think about.
Scoop
Could this be one of the ways the company plans on handling the massive training requirements that are forthcoming?
For that matter why not just codify this in the PWA as a win-win for both the company and the Pilots? Let’s say for instance any Pilot within three years of mandatory retirement is pay protected on anything they can hold but they are locked on their current equipment for those three years.
This could greatly minimize training for the company and boost Pilot wages for many Pilots in their final years. I am not sure if the company would go for it since they can pick and choose exactly who they bypass anyway but my guess is it will probably be pretty close to how they actually navigate this issue in any case.
Just a couple of things to think about.
Scoop
1. A pilot who always wanted to fly a specific type of equipment/trip finally makes it to where they can hold it but they're seat locked into something else. Of course as-is the company can still bypass said pilot so there is that.
2. The company probably doesn't want to pay lifer FOs what they can hold. Not sure how many of these exist but I would guess the # is substantial. The company costs everything, I don't think I want to make whatever give the company would want in return to pay FOs as 350a's.
Last edited by Han Solo; 11-22-2019 at 11:02 AM.
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
I'd rather see this as an option but not mandatory. I can come up with 2 examples where this suggestion is problematic.
1. A pilot who always wanted to fly a specific type of equipment/trip finally makes it to where they can hold it but they're seat locked into something else. Of course as-is the company can still bypass said pilot so there is that.
2. The company probably doesn't want to pay lifer FOs what they can hold. Not sure how many of these exist but I would guess the # is substantial. The company costs everything, I don't think I want to make whatever give the company would want in return to pay FOs as 350a's.
1. A pilot who always wanted to fly a specific type of equipment/trip finally makes it to where they can hold it but they're seat locked into something else. Of course as-is the company can still bypass said pilot so there is that.
2. The company probably doesn't want to pay lifer FOs what they can hold. Not sure how many of these exist but I would guess the # is substantial. The company costs everything, I don't think I want to make whatever give the company would want in return to pay FOs as 350a's.
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,418
So true. Plus the company wants flexibility.
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,866
(Post not directed at Denny. Just in response to a common sentiment that I read on here.)
#28
Bingo. Why are so many saying no concessions and then saying bring on the pay banding? Banding is a give even if you get a pay raise. And you’ll never capture 100% of the value that banding brings because then the company wouldn’t want it because it would be a net zero gain for them.
(Post not directed at Denny. Just in response to a common sentiment that I read on here.)
(Post not directed at Denny. Just in response to a common sentiment that I read on here.)
Please save the "pilot jobs" argument. We are a for profit company, not a jobs program. Trying to turn Delta into a jobs program makes our JV partners a more competitive alternative. Increased productivity helps us win the SCOPE battle. If we are on the clock flying revenue passengers rather than operating simulators, we are more productive and more profitable. Furthermore, we spend a week in training to get paid the equivalent of a 4 day trip. We make more money in less time by flying instead of training.
In case I wasn't clear and direct enough, conversion training is a black hole of time for pilots and a black hole of money for the company. This is one area where we can work together for mutual benefit AND become a more productive alternative to JV partners.
Rant over...
#29
#30
Bingo. Why are so many saying no concessions and then saying bring on the pay banding? Banding is a give even if you get a pay raise. And you’ll never capture 100% of the value that banding brings because then the company wouldn’t want it because it would be a net zero gain for them.
(Post not directed at Denny. Just in response to a common sentiment that I read on here.)
(Post not directed at Denny. Just in response to a common sentiment that I read on here.)
Any solution that is possibly win/win is one that should be considered. I agree with Gunfighter that we are a for profit company and not a jobs program. With that being said Delta is going to be hiring so many pilots in the next 7 to 10 years that the amount of jobs we are talking about won’t even be a blip on the radar screen.
Denny
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post