Originally Posted by CBreezy

I disagree. That's still a concession. It's just offset by a gain. It doesn't not make it a concession. A compromise would be us asking for 25% DC but only getting 18%.

Originally Posted by Kjazz130

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 Gspeed

Yes, but as I stated, you’ll never recoup 100% of the lost value. If you did, then there would be no value for the company to go to pay banding. The same goes for the company when they have an ask at the bargaining table.

But let me clarify something: I’m not against pay banding per se. We are in a Negotiation process, not a Dictation. There’s no such thing as a contract with zero concessions. Ever. No matter what kind of leverage you have. If we had that ability, then we would be dictating our terms to the company, which we aren’t even in today’s favorable bargaining environment.

I just think it’s a bit ironic how some seem to think we can come out of this process without some give and take, but they also want to put pay banding on a silver platter for the company.

Banding can also be a rabbit hole depending on what rates you band to. Are smaller equipment banded up? Or is it a weighted average based on each fleet size? Are all aircraft banded or only certain fleets? And despite whichever solution the MEC deems palatable, will the company agree to it?

Originally Posted by Gunfighter

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 ERflyer

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 Baradium

"We need more high paying positions!"

"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.




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.

Originally Posted by symbian simian

Anything great for the company IS great for you. Pretty hard to negotiate for higher profit sharing if there's no profit.

Originally Posted by FL370esq

Crazy, huh?

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

Yes, but as I stated, you’ll never recoup 100% of the lost value. If you did, then there would be no value for the company to go to pay banding. The same goes for the company when they have an ask at the bargaining table.

But let me clarify something: I’m not against pay banding per se. We are in a Negotiation process, not a Dictation. There’s no such thing as a contract with zero concessions. Ever. No matter what kind of leverage you have. If we had that ability, then we would be dictating our terms to the company, which we aren’t even in today’s favorable bargaining environment.

I just think it’s a bit ironic how some seem to think we can come out of this process without some give and take, but they also want to put pay banding on a silver platter for the company.

Banding can also be a rabbit hole depending on what rates you band to. Are smaller equipment banded up? Or is it a weighted average based on each fleet size? Are all aircraft banded or only certain fleets? And despite whichever solution the MEC deems palatable, will the company agree to it?