When you calculate P&L there are a lot of variables. Look at some of the expense from our 10-K. There are very nebulous categories of expense. We have a lot of cash now and that can be spent on any number of things. We have a retirement short fall that needs funding. There is a lot of expense variance depending on how you want the year to look. Paying expenses now frees money later that can be used to dress up the balance sheet. Decisions will be made on timing as well as spending. This is the point, with a lot of cash and a lot of debt, you have a lot of levers to pull whenever you want them pulled.

You were the one who got the spelling correct though. Being in the real estate business I should at least know how to spell principal correctly on a meme generator.

This is probably true. At some point you have to ask yourself why you are doing this job though. If flying widebody international is your ultimate goal, then you probably did make a mistake in coming to Delta. And I don't know this for a fact, but I think that your opportunity to make captain is significantly better here at DAL. The end result of that is probably more money in your retirement account down the road. We all like to say it is not about the money, but honestly, it is. You are lying to yourself if you say otherwise. If it isn't, why would any of us care about retirement? When you are young, flying international is glamorous and frankly a lot of fun. As you get older, those time zones take their toll. I never thought I'd say this, but you can have Europe. (I still like Asia though) Delta's management shows zero likelihood to ever become a large widebody airline. we will never have the number of 350s that UAL/AAL has in 777s. Why should we if we allow them to JV all that kind of flying out? You hit the issue right on the nose. UAL has a bunch of RJs but they also have a bunch of widebodies. Personally I'd trade that bottom end scope in a HEARTBEAT for top end scope. I don't frequent this site as much as I used to, but I will resurrect al oldie but goodie. Longevity pay.

Fire away

Longevity pay per position, not true longevity pay you mean, right? ;)

Is that what UPS has?

You bring very good points. End of the day it is in fact all about the money. The quicker I can make switch to the A side of the plane I’ll be set. It’s the WB pay rates that make a difference as well.

It’s all perspective too man. When I was at the regionals making $26,000 a year, life sucked. Second year made $40k. Life was good. Thought well if I can upgrade I’ll be set. 3 years of making about $100k and I was thinking “man if I could get on at Delta or FDX their fo rates are 1.5-5x what I am making right now. I could live on year 3 717 pay forever. Now sitting here over halfway up our 12 year scale, I look at the Captain pay and think to myself “well if I can continue working Friday-Monday 3 weeks a month I’d be set on that Captain pay. Funny how our minds work for sure.

Back to trying to figure out this AE now....

It's like the more money we come across
The more problems we see

CA and FO, yes. The seat still matters, just not the airplane. Let DAL buy whatever they wan, just pay us for our talent/experience. Once that was completely absorbed in the system, it makes mergers go smoother as well.

Longevity pay makes that moot.

we moo around here folks!

Unless, as you previously advocated for, As and Bs still have a different scale. It wouldn’t moo completely unless pay was based solely on longevity. You’re only mooing the WB vs NB part of the equation.

Hey, we agree on this!

No... I am mooting the A220/717/737/A320/A330/767757/A350 etc etc etc differences. Let Delta buy whatever airliners they want. It will cost them the same hourly rate to have me fly an A220 or an A350. Now all I have to do is bid QOL.

Can you imagine the churn that would create once implemented?!

We have had a great opportunity during the past few years to implement it, but that window has closed. They could run monthly bids, keep the training pipeline churning and get 'er done. But they don't want to change the old ways. I love the discussion and the idea, but I really am beyond caring at this point.

It's much better to have bigger paying more and then when we get fewer 'bigger' watch the show how we are all pizzed off about it, right? ANd then you have to decide which is more important... money or QOL. Stupid really.

Couldn't agree more. What % of the pilot group is ever at the highest pay rate at any given time...maybe 5%? Not sure why some still cling to that bigger pays more.

Probably not as much a MOAD then VEOP then rebid. 😁

I understand that. The post you quoted talked about the raise moving to the left seat for the pay and you said you could moo it with longevity pay. You’re still talking two pay-scales though, so that wouldn’t moo all of that poster’s issues.

How do you figure I am talking two pay scales? I guess if you consider Capt and FO pay different, but they are two different jobs. Sorry, but the left seat has more responsibility and should be paid accordingly.

Cue the argument that the 747 made more money for the company therefore.....

Cue the argument that going forward our average aircraft size is going up. 717 replaced with A220’s, MD88/90 with A321’s and 767’s with A330’s. Given gate and ATC constraints in the US and many other parts of the world average fleet size is going to continue going up. It’s a free raise for the pilot group that never has to be negotiated.
When I attended in command a long time ago we were in 777 negotiations. The CEO addressed the talks and said the 777 could support a 500 an hour rate with its revenue generation. He followed that statement saying “However if I agree to that ALPA will demand 350 an hour on the 737 and the airframe can’t support that.”

Because you are... A captain scale and an FO scale. Two scales. You have said that yourself multiple times. I’m not arguing they should be the same in this theoretical scenario. What I pointed out is: another poster said they were waiting for the WB and the upgrade for the pay. You said it would be moo with longevity pay. I said you couldn’t say it would be moo because your longevity pay plan pays differently left seat and right seat. So the original poster would still be waiting for that pay raise that comes with the upgrade. Therefore, the point was not moo.

It is an interesting exercise. I ran the numbers a few years back and the seniority based pay rate would be just about 757 pay. So, everyone that is “junior” to the 757 would get a raise and everyone senior would get a cut. (Obviously those pilots would have to be grandfathered in)

Of course you also get into expectations. Since a blended rate would be lower than our current top rate, are the pilots that aren’t flying that equipment, but can hold it in the very near future now stuck at the blended rate?

It also seems like people misjudge what it will do to them. It seems like there is a lot of “this will be great, I can fly the A220 and never leave.” Can you? You might be bumped right out of that seat and now flying Lagos because the pilot who was chasing the money would prefer to stay within a couple of time zones of home.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying there isn’t workable, but there is always an opposite reaction and that result may not be what the advocate expected.

I remember seeing a lot of young 747 capt's and a lot of old 737 guys at Lufthansa.

Um I guess... I don't get your point really. I think you are trying to make something that isn't there. If, in your example the pilot wanted to make more money, the ONLY thing he has to do is upgrade to the left seat and keep breathing. It's far better than what we have had for decades.

Principal payments are a use of cash but reduces payables on the balance sheet. As an example we had $8.2B in restructuring expenses in 2020 that helped create a $12.4B loss which created a tax credit. There is probably more restructuring and other expenses or other revenue reductions (Virgin) that are discretionary enough to make 2021 GAAP compliant AND have the P&L they want.

The 737/320 would go unbelievably senior.

Your premise of the average/median pay is correct if the payscale is lineal. The issue is the transition to it. Once it is implemented you could do that, but I would actually have the yearly increases higher for the first 15 years since the FO pay would still be based off of it, but after that they could taper down somewhat. So far the only downside I have seen is when we slide backwards and furloughs become necessary. There is no lowest paying category to displace to and I believe the junior pilots would be relatively evenly spread throughout the fleet. We'd have to come up with a mechanism to get around that. Heck we pay guys for doing nothing anymore, so there's that. Maybe furloughs are a thing of the past.

The point was, your fix-all suggestion didn’t fix the issue presented by the other poster.

Yes it does. It is silly to think there should be one scale for both captains and FOs.

You can think whatever is silly that you want. In this case though, you are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. A pilot would still be waiting for the raise that comes with the left seat. Longevity pay that is split at all does not make the original point moo no matter how hard you try to talk around the point.

I’m not advocating for left seat and right seat to pay the same. You can continue to try to argue with me about that in an effort to make yourself right, but that’s a different point than what I made.

I think we should get rid of the longevity scale. Why should a Delta 737 fo make less money than a Delta 737 fo? They do the exact same job.

So you think a newhire should make as much as a guy that has been here 25 years if they are in the same seat?

They do the same job. If all the airlines were that way it would be easier to decide you want to move to SFO and not commute, just start at another airline without starting at first year pay. No more marriage to the management you hate so much.

This is the way real unions work. A 20 year pilot is a 20 year pilot at any union shop.

That's so ridiculous it isn't even worth comment.

I'm all for it. Starting with the next guy hired, give him a national seniority number and he can go wherever that seniority will give him the best job. It will be really interesting to see how that works out.

So don’t comment..

If we did a national # that would only help us all as it would no doubt increase pay and total compensation. Just look at the private sector in high demand jobs. See technology jobs pay/compensation packages over the last 10 years. You can take your experience and leverage it into higher paying positions at company's that need bodies in the job.

except that experience doesn’t actually make the company money in this job, while it might in, say, engineering management. You’d have zero negotiating leverage when changing jobs

So your saying operational experience and general piloting experience are not leverage? If not why not have one pay rate for CA and FO? Or even better just payrates based off of years with the company? Why should CA or FO matter neither seat makes the company money other than operating the flight? If you really want to get down to it as far as productivity goes the FO does more work (starting engines running checklist) per leg than the CA (taxi the ac and call for things) does. Entry level pilot can taxi an air craft with minimal instruction, as far as decision making goes anyone with a private pliot license and above has proven to the FAA or a representative that they are able to make make sound ADM. Then add on Commercial and then an ATP cert it's just more justification and qualifications showing sound skill and ADM... The only difference between CA and FO is when the person was hired at said airline.