|
From a selfish perspective I would love pay banding at this point in my career. A 20% pay raise for doing nothing. Just like a bypass but guaranteed. But to be clear - pay banding is a ginormous concession due to less training. Fine by me but it will have long term consequences for everyone junior. Like less movement, less jobs, and more productivity. Great for DAL and the stockholders.
Suddenly people want to be more productive, work more and be more efficient to help the company. That’s a new one. Lol |
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
(Post 2928678)
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... "But not things that result in more high paying positions that don't immediately benefit me!" You just made the argument that to fight scope we should be concentrating on just being cheaper than JV partners. So I guess the solution would be to band the A350 to the lowest paying widebody we have and lower the pay... then everyone can make A350 pay AND we can be more competitive! I am honestly flabbergasted that you are advocating concessions as a solution for scope. I'm also amused that you so blatantly said the entire reason you are for banding isn't for the pilot group overall but because you are too lazy to go to training but want the pay anyway.
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 2928688)
Substitute “training bypass” for “paybanding.” The same argument applies to training bypass.
Denny |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 2928690)
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 It actually still affects everyone who isn't already on a widebody because a reduction in positions still means fewer positions awarded. A single AE difference or a massive yearly AE difference would be thousands of dollars. When hiring slows back down it could mean a difference of years for many pilots. Of course, who cares what happens in the future, short term gain for the few! I will add you would also be likely to see training bypasses happening a lot more often for the few pilots that might want to bid to a different fleet for quality of life reasons. Like the trips the other fleet does or want to change to that base now that you can finally hold it at the end of your career? Too bad, it doesn't cost a penny to bypass you now! |
Originally Posted by Baradium
(Post 2928709)
So since only those who will still be here in 7-10 years will be affected, who cares?
It actually still affects everyone who isn't already on a widebody because a reduction in positions still means fewer positions awarded. A single AE difference or a massive yearly AE difference would be thousands of dollars. When hiring slows back down it could mean a difference of years for many pilots. Of course, who cares what happens in the future, short term gain for the few! I will add you would also be likely to see training bypasses happening a lot more often for the few pilots that might want to bid to a different fleet for quality of life reasons. Like the trips the other fleet does or want to change to that base now that you can finally hold it at the end of your career? Too bad, it doesn't cost a penny to bypass you now! We already basically have the loss of jobs because training bypass is not any different than pay banding. TB gets rid of training churn too. Ok, quantify the number of "lost jobs" for me. I'm betting it's a lot less than you are portraying. You are only talking about reducing training churn because pilots won't change planes if they are going to be paid the same.......You do realize that pilots change planes for more reasons than just money right? Well, reading your last paragraph, it seems you do realize that. Pilots doing this will add to the training requirement and reduces your "lost jobs" argument. In answer to your last paragraph I will refer you to Section 22.E.13. Basically it says if a pilot has more than 2 years to go then any bypass has to be agreed to by BOTH the pilot and the company. Two years or less and the Company can unilaterally bypass the pilot if it wants to. Denny |
Originally Posted by Baradium
(Post 2928706)
They are very different. A pilot may change equipment multiple times in a career, training bypass only happens at most once per pilot. The affect is exponential. Additionally, a training bypass still results in the training taking place just with more pilots getting the higher rate while pay banding results in fewer training events. While the argument could be made that there would be even more training events without a bypass, the difference between that and banding doesn't even compare. Pay banding reduces the amount of secondary training events with each vacancy since pilots already banded to the top band are not nearly as likely to swap equipment.
And I say the difference is negligible. Who's correct? You're gonna have to prove it to me. Pay banding doesn't reduce the amount of pilots needed to man each category. That amount would be constant with or without pay banding. You are just talking about the amount of pilots that would be in training with or without pay banding. As we've both said before, there are pilots that will change planes within a band for QOL reasons and that takes a bite out of potential "lost jobs." Denny |
Originally Posted by Omar 111
(Post 2928351)
So here’s a question for any contract wonks out there: how do you get bypassed when you can’t even hold the bid? The most junior 350A not bypassed was 23xx; there was a 24xx and 25xx bypassed on this bid. Good for them for sure, but doesn’t make much sense to me.
It looks weird because the Company only elected to fill 13 of the 14 posted vacancies (although one pilot exited the category so a total of 14 entered the category). The youngest pilot bypassed had an 11/2021 retirement date and a seniority # of 410 putting him/her pretty high on the list (#17 from the top and well before the first vacancy was even awarded). Therefore, his/her retirement date controlled the bypasses for this AE. When the sen# 2376 pilot was awarded the the 14th of 15 vacancies (14 posted plus one contingent vacancy), there was still one more vacancy that could have been awarded. The next pilot with an AE (the 2400 sen#) was slated to retire in the conversion window so the Commodore 64 kept on plugging. The next pilot with an AE (2500 sen#) had a retirement date before 11/2021 so the exception to 22.E.13.b applied and that pilot was bypassed. The next pilot who could have filled the last vacancy had a retirement date after 11/2021 and therefore would not have been bypassed. For whatever reason though, the Company elected not to fill that last vacancy when they got to an eligible pilot. As a result, "technically" those last two pilots could have held that last vacancy but they were bypassed instead. |
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 2928668)
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.) |
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
(Post 2928678)
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...
Originally Posted by Kjazz130
(Post 2928798)
Paybanding by itself would be a concession but paybanding for 5:15 vacation and training is a compromise. There are negatives to paybanding so they must be offset by positives for us.
Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Kjazz130
(Post 2928798)
Paybanding by itself would be a concession but paybanding for 5:15 vacation and training is a compromise. There are negatives to paybanding so they must be offset by positives for us.
|
Originally Posted by Kjazz130
(Post 2928798)
Paybanding by itself would be a concession but paybanding for 5:15 vacation and training is a compromise. There are negatives to paybanding so they must be offset by positives for us.
If people want to trade value for value thats fine. But frankly I think we should get 6:00 per day for vacation and trade nothing to get it. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:14 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands