Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1230849)

Delta again proves that if you're only willing to pay the bare minimum--whether rampers, MX, vendors, etc--that's exactly what you'll get.


Passenger on Delta flight to Twin Cities hurt by needle in sandwich - TwinCities.com

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1230849)

Delta again proves that if you're only willing to pay the bare minimum--whether rampers, MX, vendors, etc--that's exactly what you'll get.


Passenger on Delta flight to Twin Cities hurt by needle in sandwich - TwinCities.com

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1230849)

Delta again proves that if you're only willing to pay the bare minimum--whether rampers, MX, vendors, etc--that's exactly what you'll get.


Passenger on Delta flight to Twin Cities hurt by needle in sandwich - TwinCities.com

Originally Posted by groundstop

Wouldn't this be the caterers paying their employes the bare minimum?

Originally Posted by DAL4EVER (Post 1230724)

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.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1230733)

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.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1230739)

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?

Originally Posted by buzzpat (Post 1230858)

What's your deal? Too much PurpleDrank? How would you know what Delta does/pays? Your grandmother is calling....she wants her basement back.