Oh that just makes me sick.

 

You're over vaccinated.

 

Speaking of sick, why does sick usage count against the block hour limit? I'm not even close to it at over 280 hours, but I did use all my sick leave before going on STD for one month, and it factors into my block hour limit. I've only flown about 350 hours this year.

 

Probably because there are a few guys who would abuse it if it weren't included. Bag out sick for trips, then double dip on off days for double or triple pay. You know (some) guys would do it and that's probably we all have that rule.

 

Since the merger I've become a much bigger proponent of the LGBP system. Prior to the merger I went from 65% on the 767 to 55% on the 88. MSP pilots saw the company move 330s and now must commute if they want to chase the money. ATL has seen 1/2 the 777 and 764 time move elsewhere. A pilot senior enough to be on the bottom 1/2 of these types must commute or move to maintain his current salary. The company is taking advantage of the merger by moving aircraft to whatever base it makes the most sense to. The problem is that many pilots have lost big money or QOL in the process. I'm all for the flexibility and profitability of the company. However, having our pay tied to a/c size means that unless you're super senior you will at some point lose by moving down in seniority on your current plane, displacing off it to something smaller or commuting.

I would argue that seniority would be truly honored in an LGBP system. If you don't like long trips on a 777 and would prefer to be home every night doing island flying you could choose to do that and not take a paycut in the process. We associate fleet types with seniority but I think its mostly because of the pay. If you love international, you could choose the airplane that gives you the trips you want. Most importantly, if the company moves airplanes around you don't lose money.

 

The reason we've all lost so much is the total reduction of flying, not the pay scheme. If not for that, the merger's reshuffling of fleets would simply be a one-time event, and we'd all have advanced enough to void any concern.

LBP isn't the cure for what ails us, airframes are. In fact, LBP is a sure-fire way to make... shrinkeage more painful.

Why do you guys not see that the companies want such a scheme, but are too timid to ask for it outright? They ask for pay banding, thinking we'd never go for something as outrageous as LBP.

 

What happens when the company grows? You fail to capture the additional revenue. Airplanes have gotten bigger, on average, for 100 years. Why not participate in the company's ability to generate more revenue by carrying more per plane? Why would you want to incentivize fewer pilots, by having a flat rate per hour?

 

Why I don't favor a LBP system, I would determine the "rate" to be a composite calculation of the fleet's individual pay rate averaged out:

100 M88's = $200.00/hr 100/250 = 40% of 200 = $80
50 7ER's = $230.00/hr 50/250 = 20% of 230 = $46
50 330's = $250.00/hr 50/250 = 20% of 250 = $50
50 777's = $285.00/hr 50/250 = 20% of 285 = $57

The "composite" 12 yr CA rate would be: $232.00

If the fleet composition changes, then a floor of 0% increase could occur, and if the fleet average increases then the number goes up. An "inflationary increase" would also occur, but would be adjusted up or down by the appropriate fleet composite increase or decrease percentage.

If the Company were to add 100 E-170's and the "rate" that the company and the union negotiate is 100/hr:

100 E70's = $100/hr. 100/350 = 28.5% = $28.5
100 M88's = $200/hr. 100/350 = 28.5% = $57
50 7ER's = $230/hr 50/350 = 14.3% = $32.89
50 330's = $250/hr 50/350 = 14.3% = $35.75
50 777's = $285/hr 50/350 = 14.3% = $40.76

The new composite rate would be $194.90. But with a floor of 0% increase, the rate would remain at $232. (-16% change)
This would be different if the hypothetical company added more WB's instead of SSNB's!
This would happen until the yearly increases caught up and surpassed the "floor" or if Section 6(Ch. 11) resulted in a higher(or lower!) numbers to use in composite calculations.

That is a way to capture revenue from larger/faster/better aircraft and still have a composite pay scale.

I don't want one because the ONLY metric to bid would be QOL, as pay would be equal across the board, making a LOT harder to increase your QOL in the first half of your career. With pay by frame, people can chase pay rates and leave lower paying by better QOL to a more junior pilot.

Essentially pilots can "buy" QOL under the present system, under LBP you lose the option to choose between money or QOL, and get stuck with lesser QOL against your will for a longer portion of your career.


(Hiding in the bunker awaiting the incoming from T!

 

While some airplanes have gotten bigger, (A380, 747-8) Delta's fleet has gotten smaller, in the wide body world. At one time Delta had 55 L10-11's, AND 15 MD 11's. That's 70 wide bodies right there, DL alone, now add in what NW had 10 years ago in their 747 fleet, freighters and -400's.

Now, post merger, we only have 18 777's and 16 747's and 21 676-400's and about 30(?) A330's. Add all those up and you get roughly 85 wide bodies, at a combined DAL/NW. That's quite a bit less wide body Capt's and F/O's than 10 years ago.

AND NO NEW WIDEBODY ORDERS on tap...but hey, you'll look sweet in that 717 or 737-900, after you get displaced off the 767/757, right?

I think we should go with a longevity based system but have an annual pay raise, forever, not just a 12 year scale. A 30 year pilot would be making more than a 20 year pilot, who would be making more than a 12 year pilot. Why do we stop at 12years?

Now...what should we base our rates on?? What is the argument at the negotiating table?

The argument for our present system is "Productivity". ie. weight/speed/seats formulas from 70 years ago. Most people understand the concept that an airplane with 300 seats should pay more than one with 200, which should pay more than one with 100 seats.

So, when we go in to negotiate new rates for a Longevity Based Pay system, on what would we base our rates?

 

Only problem with continuous raises is that even at 3-3.5% over 40 years of a career compound interest takes over. Then you end up like the US Airways rampers in 2004 taking like an 80% pay cut when their wages were "adjusted" in bankruptcy when the company leadership thinks you need an attitude adjustment.