Massive 350A Bypass
11-23-2019, 09:38 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Originally Posted by symbian simian
What you conveniently forget in your argument is that you don't operate in a vacuum. If DL is spending more per pilot due to training you will outsource even more WB flying than you already do. How about being more productive? I'm about as left wing as pilots come, but I could not disagree with you more.
Senior Leadership: Outsourcing is Cheaper
Senior Leadership: Outsourcing is Cheaper
I am honestly appalled that in this environment your entire argument is that our only hope is to be the cheapest.
11-23-2019, 09:53 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by ERflyer
The only way to actually know what pay banding is worth would be to have ALPA Economic and Financial Analysis (E&FA) crunch the numbers and look at the data to come up with a value. I think it would be a very big number. Way more than 5:15 vacation but I’d be curious to know.
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.
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.
This!!!...
11-23-2019, 09:57 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,117
Originally Posted by Omar 111
Great explanation! Thanks for taking the time to enlighten us.
Fly safely....
11-23-2019, 12:49 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Supreme Allied Commander
Posts: 1,056
So upping pay rates on some similar sized jets is a concession? Sounds like that'd cost many millions anually. That aspect is definitely not a concession, but is it less than the perceived cost savings from "reduction in training" and the manning formula? Nobody can say, but I'd wager the net loss in pilots who'd be relatively microscopic with a net gain in higher wages.
Here's an oft forgotten issue we already live with: throughout a career, to achieve the financial metrics that ALPA uses for earnings/retirement, one is required to attend multiple training events simply for pay rates. Each time we go to training, its a QOL hit. We have zero say in when we start class, and can miss all sorts of important dates with up to 12 month conversions. We then spend a lot of time away from home with pay not commensurate with a normal month. We spend hours studying and subject ourselves to additional evaluation. We get to spend a month living in a meh hotel eating out for every meal in an area that's risky after dark. We get rushed after LOE right into OE.
Anything that reduces the need for me to go to Virginia Ave is a big QOL boost. Opposite of a concession.
I know personally, and from flying with a lot of folks, moving equipment soley for 10-20/hr isn't compelling (seniority and base being equal). Our low training QOL is such a deterrent in itself, it's has probably equal or greater effects on pilot movement than a payband.
But yeah, making rates 320 = 737 or 330 = 777 is a huge concession. Think of all the 320 guys that won't bid over to the 737 for those rates!
Here's an oft forgotten issue we already live with: throughout a career, to achieve the financial metrics that ALPA uses for earnings/retirement, one is required to attend multiple training events simply for pay rates. Each time we go to training, its a QOL hit. We have zero say in when we start class, and can miss all sorts of important dates with up to 12 month conversions. We then spend a lot of time away from home with pay not commensurate with a normal month. We spend hours studying and subject ourselves to additional evaluation. We get to spend a month living in a meh hotel eating out for every meal in an area that's risky after dark. We get rushed after LOE right into OE.
Anything that reduces the need for me to go to Virginia Ave is a big QOL boost. Opposite of a concession.
I know personally, and from flying with a lot of folks, moving equipment soley for 10-20/hr isn't compelling (seniority and base being equal). Our low training QOL is such a deterrent in itself, it's has probably equal or greater effects on pilot movement than a payband.
But yeah, making rates 320 = 737 or 330 = 777 is a huge concession. Think of all the 320 guys that won't bid over to the 737 for those rates!
11-23-2019, 01:03 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Originally Posted by saturn
So upping pay rates on some similar sized jets is a concession? Sounds like that'd cost many millions anually. That aspect is definitely not a concession, but is it less than the perceived cost savings from "reduction in training" and the manning formula? Nobody can say, but I'd wager the net loss in pilots who'd be relatively microscopic with a net gain in higher wages.
Here's an oft forgotten issue we already live with: throughout a career, to achieve the financial metrics that ALPA uses for earnings/retirement, one is required to attend multiple training events simply for pay rates. Each time we go to training, its a QOL hit. We have zero say in when we start class, and can miss all sorts of important dates with up to 12 month conversions. We then spend a lot of time away from home with pay not commensurate with a normal month. We spend hours studying and subject ourselves to additional evaluation. We get to spend a month living in a meh hotel eating out for every meal in an area that's risky after dark. We get rushed after LOE right into OE.
Anything that reduces the need for me to go to Virginia Ave is a big QOL boost. Opposite of a concession.
I know personally, and from flying with a lot of folks, moving equipment soley for 10-20/hr isn't compelling (seniority and base being equal). Our low training QOL is such a deterrent in itself, it's has probably equal or greater effects on pilot movement than a payband.
But yeah, making rates 320 = 737 or 330 = 777 is a huge concession. Think of all the 320 guys that won't bid over to the 737 for those rates!
Here's an oft forgotten issue we already live with: throughout a career, to achieve the financial metrics that ALPA uses for earnings/retirement, one is required to attend multiple training events simply for pay rates. Each time we go to training, its a QOL hit. We have zero say in when we start class, and can miss all sorts of important dates with up to 12 month conversions. We then spend a lot of time away from home with pay not commensurate with a normal month. We spend hours studying and subject ourselves to additional evaluation. We get to spend a month living in a meh hotel eating out for every meal in an area that's risky after dark. We get rushed after LOE right into OE.
Anything that reduces the need for me to go to Virginia Ave is a big QOL boost. Opposite of a concession.
I know personally, and from flying with a lot of folks, moving equipment soley for 10-20/hr isn't compelling (seniority and base being equal). Our low training QOL is such a deterrent in itself, it's has probably equal or greater effects on pilot movement than a payband.
But yeah, making rates 320 = 737 or 330 = 777 is a huge concession. Think of all the 320 guys that won't bid over to the 737 for those rates!
Your post seems more like an argument that we should focus on improving our sections in the PWA on training than anything else. All of things you complain about for training are things that we should be working on improving, but rather you just don't want to deal with them. We should be able to have a method of bidding for when we go to training. We should have stricter requirements on where we stay and overall QOL in training. But instead of making training more pleasant, let's just try to not go as often.
11-23-2019, 01:16 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Supreme Allied Commander
Posts: 1,056
Originally Posted by Baradium
Your post seems more like an argument that we should focus on improving our sections in the PWA on training than anything else. All of things you complain about for training are things that we should be working on improving, but rather you just don't want to deal with them. We should be able to have a method of bidding for when we go to training. We should have stricter requirements on where we stay and overall QOL in training. But instead of making training more pleasant, let's just try to not go as often.
I'm responding to the notion the pay-banding would be a concession. I agree slightly on required staffing, but I think it's being exaggerated. I think it's a net gain for the pilot group financially and from a QOL perspective.
11-23-2019, 01:29 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
My understanding is that UA and AA have not seen appreciable decreases in training despite banding.
That being said, our freezes are way more onerous than theirs.
That being said, our freezes are way more onerous than theirs.
11-23-2019, 04:47 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 1,306
Originally Posted by Baradium
Your post seems more like an argument that we should focus on improving our sections in the PWA on training than anything else. All of things you complain about for training are things that we should be working on improving, but rather you just don't want to deal with them. We should be able to have a method of bidding for when we go to training. We should have stricter requirements on where we stay and overall QOL in training. But instead of making training more pleasant, let's just try to not go as often.
Seems like for an airline like ours, with fewer large airplanes, banding could be a great solution to get a higher percentage of the group paid more. Maybe even a win win for us and the company.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
