Originally Posted by daldude (Post 1368876)

Sailing,

I think most of the Jr FO's understand what you are saying, I think this board is a just a place to vent. I think there is a fair amount of frustration, because while nobody is looking for sympathy I feel that most Capt's and senior pilots have no clue as to what our career prospects have turned into. I for example was with a Capt the other day who asked why I had not bid Capt on the 88 after being here for 13 years. I then explained that I was still in the bottom 17% of the list and had approximately 11 years to go until I would break into the top 50% of the list. He actually did not believe me until I showed him that we only have 578 retirements between now and 2017. He then proceeded to tell me he could not relate and that he did not know how he could have sent his kids to college if he had not up graded in 11 years. My daughter starts the University of Texas next fall I was actually depressed after that portion of the conversation.

In fact you pointed out in a earlier post that you had a pretty slow (non rocket ship) up grade to Capt at 13 years. With 2001 hires looking at 23 years I actually thought 13 years was pretty good where you thought it was pretty fair at best. You pointed out you were and SO for 5 years, I was furloughed for 6 years. I actually thought having a job as an SO for 5 years looked pretty good where you thought is was not so good. Different perspectives.

But I think the biggest difference in the us and the (Cattle Barron's)(just a joke) is that in the past Delta pilots were jr for a relatively short period in their careers. You for example where jr as and SO for 5 years but then you moved up to senior FO then Capt by 13 years. Where as my generation will still be in the bottom 20% of the seniority list after 17 years. So the whole "I was jr once comparisons" and "you will be senior one day" remarks don't seem to apply.

So while I don't refute that Delta added Capt positions. The way this bid is falling out the Jr. FO's like me, Roadkill and many others see mass displacements to smaller aircraft as well as crew resources stating "we do not plan to hire to replace vacancies" I know you keep saying we are going to hire. But that is not what crew resources is publishing they are saying "we do not plan to hire to replace vacancies". I did go to the road show a couple of weeks ago and they pumped everybody up by saying we are going to hire, then they decide to shut down the DC9's a year early so they can continue to delay hiring. If SD and company had just said that we are going to displace 700 pilots and shut down the DC9's early so we can fund the 717 and build up 737's, I feel other than the short term riot in the pilot lounge I could have at least respected them for telling the truth.

Keep posting though, we all need the pep talks to counter the reality of being displaced off of narrow body aircraft after 13 years.

Originally Posted by SailorJerry (Post 1369082)

The DAL Openboard. Publishes the age of all people that drop off the seniority list. I lopped off everyone that was under 55 and arrived at 62 and 7 months.

If the company can buy people out at 62.5 and make it make financial sense, then they'll continue to do so. They wouldn't be doing it if they didn't think it'd make sense.

I'm pretty sure someone in Crew Resources is smart enough to make a histogram.

Originally Posted by SailorJerry (Post 1369066)

Not even Crew Resources is expecting everyone to go to 65. The data is pretty clear on a mid 62 average retirement age.

Originally Posted by APCLurker (Post 1369085)

No. I absolutely never said the bolded part whatsoever, and again: "prove it" as you so liked to tell others.

Where did I ever say that 578 are all the retirements we are going to get during that time period? That is the number that turn 65 during that period. I never said that is all we would get. Once again, as apparently it needs to be repeated, it was referencing people's belief that we have alot more than that retiring very soon due to turning 65. I'm not talking about what -might acutally- happen in addition. That is the number turning 65 in that period. I said that there are 578 turning age 65 durinig that period. And I'm not even the one that originally said it!

Again, I never said that 578 retirements is all we are going to get. Prove that I did.

And I noticed you conveniently avoided my challenge on the age 65 accusation. Still waiting for your proof on that one as well. I never said it was happening.

I also find it interesting that the opinions I expressed are basically the same as daldudes, yet his posts are ok....

Originally Posted by APCLurker (Post 1368991)

Any predictions over 5 years out in this industry are entirely irrelevant. Far too much can change. Age 6_ anyone? Those retirements causing advancement also assumes an expanding (or even status quo) seniority list. No hiring means you are still the same % from the bottom.

Originally Posted by MD88Driver (Post 1369091)

2023 is a DECADE away, Johnso

Originally Posted by SailorJerry (Post 1369076)

But anyone who may have been 55 and reasonably invested to retire in early 2009 is gonna be ready to go here real soon.

Originally Posted by daldude (Post 1369094)

I did the same but removed all of the early outs and came up with 64 and 4 months. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. I'm pretty sure from a statistical view point you have to remove the early outs to come out with a non artificially reduce retirement age. I will have to think on it. I agree crew resources should be able to sort it out, but I can't help but think they are using historical numbers prior to retirement loss and pay cuts. Even Johnson alluded to using retirement numbers prior to 2007 when he referenced people going prior to age 60.

Also, in roadshow 2 weeks ago they specifically said no more early outs. They needed everybody to stay so they could avoid hiring. OK I added the avoid hiring part.

Originally Posted by A6danimal (Post 1369100)

To quote Dr. Seuss (from Marvin K Mooney) "Would you PLEASE GO NOW?!" :D

Originally Posted by daldude (Post 1368929)

Johnson,

That same letter also says "The DC9 will be down 21% as we begin 2013 with 16 aircraft in scheduled service". So clearly they new the 9's were going to be in service in 2013.

Then I was lead to believe by crew resources that they were going to stay through summer 2014 and this was stated in a road show 2 weeks ago.

All I'm saying is that the pilot group deserves the truth with regards to growth and hiring. Don't give me some RA RA road show when the plan is to fund from with in and displace. The truth would earn much more of my respect. Which of course they could care less about since I am simply one of the masses.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1368941)

I bet the 757s give them some capacity slop for sure. But when you total up the 7ER and displaced ATL 767, we're losing 30 seats. I know that's not a lot in that category but it's not equal or an increase.