Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-08-2013, 06:08 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by tsquare
Since bigger HAS to pay more... and if all things were equal, you have to be in the top 500 at DAL to even throw bags on a 777/747 because we have 34 of them... total... So you can look forward to holding those airplanes when you turn 63 or so... of course you will be on reserve, but our reserve system is pretty good... (I am writing this on SC) But I'll bet that on any given day UAL has 50 of 'em welded to the jetways at IAD...
My point is that basing our pay on aircraft size... something which we have zero input into.. is the ultimate definition of stupidity. Fortunately I was hired at the end of a nice wave, so it is not a worry of mine, but if I were young and junior, I would be ****ed off about this propensity to pay based on some retarded "productivity" metric. Best of luck brother. At least there will be a lot of movement in the coming years..... I guess you have to figure out where you will be when the music stops.. and it always does.
My point is that basing our pay on aircraft size... something which we have zero input into.. is the ultimate definition of stupidity. Fortunately I was hired at the end of a nice wave, so it is not a worry of mine, but if I were young and junior, I would be ****ed off about this propensity to pay based on some retarded "productivity" metric. Best of luck brother. At least there will be a lot of movement in the coming years..... I guess you have to figure out where you will be when the music stops.. and it always does.
I'll agree, we do need more 777s.
UAL has combined their pay in a banded system 747, 777, 787, 764. Not exactly a seniority based system, but probably close. However, if all you want to do is fly narrowbodies for max pay, your arch-nemesis kitty sacrificers comes to mind.
05-08-2013, 06:11 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
I'm with Tsquare on this, and look no further than the 149/160 seat MD-88/90 pay to the 320/319 and 737/738 and of course that's on the lower end of the spectrum.
Btw, there was a rumor more seats are coming to the 90s?
Btw, there was a rumor more seats are coming to the 90s?
I understand how it got that way, I don't understand why it is still that way.
05-08-2013, 06:20 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by Xray678
I don't concede that you are right, but let's assume you are and we need another kind of pay system. What kind of pay system do you envision and how do we get there?
Keep in mind with any new pay system, the overall payroll will have to stay the same. Delta is not going to pay more for it's pilots because we have seniority based pay. You can't magically increase the number of pilots who are getting 777/747 pay. For every pilot that gets more money in a new system, another pilot will be getting less.
Keep in mind with any new pay system, the overall payroll will have to stay the same. Delta is not going to pay more for it's pilots because we have seniority based pay. You can't magically increase the number of pilots who are getting 777/747 pay. For every pilot that gets more money in a new system, another pilot will be getting less.
05-08-2013, 06:25 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by scambo1
T;
I'll agree, we do need more 777s.
UAL has combined their pay in a banded system 747, 777, 787, 764. Not exactly a seniority based system, but probably close. However, if all you want to do is fly narrowbodies for max pay, your arch-nemesis kitty sacrificers comes to mind.
I'll agree, we do need more 777s.
UAL has combined their pay in a banded system 747, 777, 787, 764. Not exactly a seniority based system, but probably close. However, if all you want to do is fly narrowbodies for max pay, your arch-nemesis kitty sacrificers comes to mind.
We need more 777s if we are going to maintain the same pay methodology in order to get more people more money by the time they retire. That is what it is all about. But the inconvenient truth is that DAL management makes those decisions. All on their own. With ZERO input from us. Draw your own conclusions about where things will go, but to me, it ain't rocket surgery.
UAl is taking the first step. and IMHO, it is the right one. I would LOVE to see a new hire career earnings projection based on retirements and current fleets.... It will be eye watering.
05-08-2013, 06:45 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by tsquare
We need more 777s if we are going to maintain the same pay methodology in order to get more people more money by the time they retire. That is what it is all about. But the inconvenient truth is that DAL management makes those decisions. All on their own. With ZERO input from us. Draw your own conclusions about where things will go, but to me, it ain't rocket surgery.
UAl is taking the first step. and IMHO, it is the right one. I would LOVE to see a new hire career earnings projection based on retirements and current fleets.... It will be eye watering.
UAl is taking the first step. and IMHO, it is the right one. I would LOVE to see a new hire career earnings projection based on retirements and current fleets.... It will be eye watering.
The inflexibility of a big fleet of widebodies is either a cash cow when times are good or a money pit when they aren't. I honestly can't make a judgement on which is the best overall fleet plan. I can tell you what I want, but that is not necessarily best for corporate health.
At this point, like you, I'm married to DAL come what may. I was at the other place and progression was rapid until it wasn't. When I left, I could hold 737A or 777B. If I had stayed there, there was a point when I could have held neither.
As to the pay banding, longevity pay, or other schemes, I'm just not sold on decoupling pay for productivity. The 747 IMO should pay more than the 777. I'm not convinced the 777 should pay more than all 330's. FTB has already touched on the stupidity of our narrowbody pay discrepancies.
Retirement planning in the hands of the individual is also a mixed bag. Some folks are good with it, others don't understand how to plan for it. Its a tragedy in the classic sense.
05-08-2013, 06:45 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Well the MEC just put out a memo confirming that dividend deduction comes after our profit sharing is calculated, so that's a good thing.
Any bets on Caplinger putting out a 10 paragraph long rant in a week or so on how the dividends are going to take more from our profit sharing?
I've gotten to the point now where I'm almost giddy opening his emails.
Any bets on Caplinger putting out a 10 paragraph long rant in a week or so on how the dividends are going to take more from our profit sharing?
I've gotten to the point now where I'm almost giddy opening his emails.
05-08-2013, 06:57 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
We definitely need more "premium" widebodies, however the 330 has the pax carrying and most of the freight carrying capability of the 777 (freaking stupid it pays the same as the 767-400 and not the 777), just without the ginormous fuel tanks.
However, even if you include the megapoodle, we're still way in the negative compared to UA and the new AA in regard to that sort of lift.
However, even if you include the megapoodle, we're still way in the negative compared to UA and the new AA in regard to that sort of lift.
05-08-2013, 07:05 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by scambo1
You are right, we dont make the fleet choices. However, when I see multiple UAL 747s parked at a place we fly one 777 to because (theoretically) that is all the traffic the destination will bear, I feel like they are either losing their butts or we are under-serving...I don't know which is more true, probably both and maybe neither.
The inflexibility of a big fleet of widebodies is either a cash cow when times are good or a money pit when they aren't. I honestly can't make a judgement on which is the best overall fleet plan. I can tell you what I want, but that is not necessarily best for corporate health.
At this point, like you, I'm married to DAL come what may. I was at the other place and progression was rapid until it wasn't. When I left, I could hold 737A or 777B. If I had stayed there, there was a point when I could have held neither.
As to the pay banding, longevity pay, or other schemes, I'm just not sold on decoupling pay for productivity. The 747 IMO should pay more than the 777. I'm not convinced the 777 should pay more than all 330's. FTB has already touched on the stupidity of our narrowbody pay discrepancies.
Retirement planning in the hands of the individual is also a mixed bag. Some folks are good with it, others don't understand how to plan for it. Its a tragedy in the classic sense.
The inflexibility of a big fleet of widebodies is either a cash cow when times are good or a money pit when they aren't. I honestly can't make a judgement on which is the best overall fleet plan. I can tell you what I want, but that is not necessarily best for corporate health.
At this point, like you, I'm married to DAL come what may. I was at the other place and progression was rapid until it wasn't. When I left, I could hold 737A or 777B. If I had stayed there, there was a point when I could have held neither.
As to the pay banding, longevity pay, or other schemes, I'm just not sold on decoupling pay for productivity. The 747 IMO should pay more than the 777. I'm not convinced the 777 should pay more than all 330's. FTB has already touched on the stupidity of our narrowbody pay discrepancies.
Retirement planning in the hands of the individual is also a mixed bag. Some folks are good with it, others don't understand how to plan for it. Its a tragedy in the classic sense.
05-08-2013, 07:13 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
Well the MEC just put out a memo confirming that dividend deduction comes after our profit sharing is calculated, so that's a good thing.
Any bets on Caplinger putting out a 10 paragraph long rant in a week or so on how the dividends are going to take more from our profit sharing? I've gotten to the point now where I'm almost giddy opening his emails.
Any bets on Caplinger putting out a 10 paragraph long rant in a week or so on how the dividends are going to take more from our profit sharing?
I've gotten to the point now where I'm almost giddy opening his emails.
05-08-2013, 07:20 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by tsquare
We need more 777s if we are going to maintain the same pay methodology in order to get more people more money by the time they retire. That is what it is all about. But the inconvenient truth is that DAL management makes those decisions. All on their own. With ZERO input from us. Draw your own conclusions about where things will go, but to me, it ain't rocket surgery.
UAl is taking the first step. and IMHO, it is the right one. I would LOVE to see a new hire career earnings projection based on retirements and current fleets.... It will be eye watering.
UAl is taking the first step. and IMHO, it is the right one. I would LOVE to see a new hire career earnings projection based on retirements and current fleets.... It will be eye watering.
(FYI I agree with your statement)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
