|
|
Originally Posted by Dorfman
(Post 1642024)
Wilber I have become a bigger fan of pay banding. I am sure there are positives and negatives to it and depending on what model you use those could be managed. However if Delta is anything like UPS the wide bodies would go really jr. So you would be safe going to Rome.
|
delet----ed
|
Originally Posted by Wilbur Wright
(Post 1642008)
I agree, but there were also fewer fleet types. There was a lot less cascading when an L10ll captain retired so I wonder how that plays into the equation? I think Timbo's idea of paying everyone 747/777 rates would fix the problem. A more realistic aid would be pay banding.
My biggest concern about pay banding is the transition. The guys currently on the aircraft at the top of the band lose out. If Timbo and Carl get 10% rate increases and they band the 765/330 with the big Boeings, they'll justifiably feel cheated. But what really worries me is that if the WBs are banded, Timbo will downbid to the A330 to take my Barcelona and Rome trips. |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1641989)
You simply say to the company,
"There is a very easy way to eliminate most of your training issues, forever; pay everyone based on longevity, left seat/right seat." That will eliminate the need to keep bidding up to higher paying aircraft to enhance your earnings. Everyone could bid what base/aircraft they like the most and stay there forever. The company is always coming to us expecting us to solve the problems they created. I say, "Fine, but pay us FIRST, then we'll talk about fixing your problems." Or tell them to call Pauli... Goodfellas: **** You, Pay Me - YouTube fixed your post |
Originally Posted by Wilbur Wright
(Post 1642050)
If the 747/777/330/765 were banded together I don't think int'l would go junior. If we went to longevity based pay I agree the WBs would go more junior.
|
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1642013)
Richard has over 2.7 millions shares and counting. Ken Rogers can give you the exact number. |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1642033)
Anything that enhances our productivity (ie. reduces training) is a huge WIN for the company on two fronts;
1. it costs them less money, with less guys locked in the school house, less sim time to buy, less motels, etc. 2. it saves them total pilot body count, since not as many pilots are required to fly the schedule, which is fine if you are a line holder on something you want to be on, in a base you want to be in. But if you are a bottom reserve, or a commuter, hoping to move up to a line, or another base...good luck. All of their Training headaches are self inflicted, by buying all those different fleet types. This entire airline could be run with 3 fleets out of 3 bases, but Richard likes to buy cheap, used airplanes, so now he's got training problems...? Call Pauli. :rolleyes: I am opposed to pay banding but see it as unstoppable because without it management will come to us and say they cannot grow. Both UAL and American have 4 bands. We are lucky because they both have experience and if we choose to make this concession, we can go to school on what they like and hate about pay banding. If we agree to this it must be tied to historic pay increases and as Timbo pointed out it will require less pilots. This must be offset with increases in vacation days, the value of a vacation day 4:30 plus and training pay. If we choose to do this I favor 2 bands. Widebody (2 asiles) and Narrowbody (1 asile). All 767s would pay 777 pay. All narrowbodys ER pay. Maybe management has it all figured out and they don't need pay banding. That would be perfect in my world. But if they need it, we will have all the leverage we need to have a historic agreement. A full and complete tightening of scope. 2004 hourly pay rates plus. Per diem $2.95/$3.95, 17% DC. 44 days of vacation. 4:30 or more of vacation and training days, etc. There are many downsides to pay banding. Take the time to study it and give feedback to your reps. I see it as inevitable. |
Originally Posted by Free Bird
(Post 1642069)
I don't think that International flying at Delta will ever go as junior as UPS. Domestic flying has changed drastically since our BK days, and not for the better.
|
Originally Posted by Wilbur Wright
(Post 1642050)
If the 747/777/330/765 were banded together I don't think int'l would go junior. If we went to longevity based pay I agree the WBs would go more junior.
|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1642080)
BS.. Prove that. this is classic DPA propaganda, but coming from you, it is exactly what one would expect to hear.
I emailed our Delta pilot BOD member Ken Rogers asking how many shares Mr. Anderson had at the time. His response it below. Now that you have the facts, do you now favor DALPA taking the position to snap up our pay today and reduce the $2 billion dollar stock buy back? "Mr. Anderson has 3,706,238 shares and options of Delta stock as of the end of April 2013. If he makes any change to that number would it be described subsequent in SEC filings. A link to those filings is available on Delta.com on the Investor Relations site under "SEC filings". Also the cash components for the CEO and other management personnel can be found beginning on page 23 of the latest proxy statement - which can also be downloaded from the same site." Ken Rogers Remember these numbers are over a year old. Tsquare I think you owe me an apology. We do disagree on how to restore our concessions, but we all agree it is time to make it happen. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:51 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands