Notices

Massive 350A Bypass

Old 11-22-2019, 09:49 AM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
notEnuf's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 9,988
Default

Originally Posted by Scoop View Post
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
I think this is about the same as where the bypasses will be but would take a lot of the guess work out. My only thought is the folks not bypassed would then have to bid a higher category. Say you want 7ERA for whatever reason but because someone by passed is occupying that slot, it might not be eligible and you would have to go to 330A. Not sure how this would all play out with the training cascade, but it would definitely get more pilots paid the top rate. As long as seniority is honored it would be fine. On second thought maybe we should all pay a relatively junior but old (close to retirement) pilot to bid A350A and then no one else above him bid A350A. If they want to bypass him they would pay us all.
notEnuf is offline  
Old 11-22-2019, 10:36 AM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Han Solo's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Fastest Hunk of Junk in the Galaxy
Posts: 1,657
Default

Originally Posted by Scoop View Post
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
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.

Last edited by Han Solo; 11-22-2019 at 11:02 AM.
Han Solo is offline  
Old 11-22-2019, 12:55 PM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Default

Originally Posted by Han Solo View Post
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.
There is no upside to the company to making bypass a hard number. The rely on people afraid of not getting bypassed who don't want to go through training to stay at the lower paid equipment without having to grant a bypass to them.
Baradium is offline  
Old 11-22-2019, 03:08 PM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,418
Default

Originally Posted by Baradium View Post
There is no upside to the company to making bypass a hard number. The rely on people afraid of not getting bypassed who don't want to go through training to stay at the lower paid equipment without having to grant a bypass to them.
So true. Plus the company wants flexibility.
ERflyer is offline  
Old 11-22-2019, 04:12 PM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Denny Crane's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Default

Doesn’t pay banding the widebodies essentially accomplish the same thing?

Denny
Denny Crane is offline  
Old 11-22-2019, 04:53 PM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Default

Originally Posted by Denny Crane View Post
Doesn’t pay banding the widebodies essentially accomplish the same thing?

Denny
Paybanding the widebodies reduces the number of widebody positions needed since it reduces training churn.
Baradium is offline  
Old 11-22-2019, 05:04 PM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,866
Default

Originally Posted by Baradium View Post
Paybanding the widebodies reduces the number of widebody positions needed since it reduces training churn.
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.)
Gspeed is offline  
Old 11-22-2019, 05:37 PM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Gunfighter's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,449
Default

Originally Posted by Gspeed View Post
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.)
Other than a few OE trip buys, how is training churn a good thing? Staying on the 330 for 350 pay at the expense of a few OE trip buys sounds much better than attending 350 training to get the raise. My profession is flying airplanes, not taking exams and operating simulators. Let me use my professional skills in a capacity that generates revenue for the company and not misery for me.

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...
Gunfighter is offline  
Old 11-22-2019, 06:02 PM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Denny Crane's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Default

Originally Posted by Baradium View Post
Paybanding the widebodies reduces the number of widebody positions needed since it reduces training churn.
Substitute “training bypass” for “paybanding.” The same argument applies to training bypass.

Denny
Denny Crane is offline  
Old 11-22-2019, 06:10 PM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Denny Crane's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Default

Originally Posted by Gspeed View Post
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.)
I’m a big boy. I can take it!

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
Denny Crane is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
GoCats67
United
7
01-15-2019 09:08 PM
clearandcold
Part 135
1
02-09-2009 11:45 PM
allflight57
Technical
18
02-15-2008 10:09 AM
ScaryKite
Regional
11
04-06-2007 11:07 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices