Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
06-30-2014, 01:48 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
Without any comment on the wisdom of pay banding, at least the discussion should center around the facts rather than wild speculation.
If you want to figure out the productivity gains from pay banding you would start with the average number of non-new hire pilots that are in the upgrade training pipeline (from initial academics through IOE completion) on any given day. Continuing qualification training would not count as that would stay unchanged with pay banding.
You would use a daily average because we have training starting and ending each day of the month and a variable amount of crews are in training in any one day. You would exclude new hires because no matter what the pay structure is, you will have to give them training when they get hired.
My guess is the daily average is in the 100-150 pilot range. It was lower before but training has been going up lately. Maybe someone with training center connections has a better number.
For the sake of discussion, let's use 150. If you go to pay banding, you will not be able to eliminate all training, because pilots will still jump between bands and from first officer to Captain. Let's estimate that we would save 1/3 of training by going to pay banding. That means you would save on average 50 pilots per year from pay banding.
If you try to say it's 1800 pilots, that means you would estimate that there are 5400 pilots in training at any one time, again assuming you save 1/3 of the training events. Even if you predict you will save 100% of training events (an impossibility unless you lock every new hire into one seat, including Captain seats, and keep them there until retirement) you would need to average 1800 pilots a day in training to save 1800 jobs. In other words, every Delta pilot would change jobs in 12 months or less. That does not seem plausible.
Attack away, but at least attack with facts not wild hyperbole.
If you want to figure out the productivity gains from pay banding you would start with the average number of non-new hire pilots that are in the upgrade training pipeline (from initial academics through IOE completion) on any given day. Continuing qualification training would not count as that would stay unchanged with pay banding.
You would use a daily average because we have training starting and ending each day of the month and a variable amount of crews are in training in any one day. You would exclude new hires because no matter what the pay structure is, you will have to give them training when they get hired.
My guess is the daily average is in the 100-150 pilot range. It was lower before but training has been going up lately. Maybe someone with training center connections has a better number.
For the sake of discussion, let's use 150. If you go to pay banding, you will not be able to eliminate all training, because pilots will still jump between bands and from first officer to Captain. Let's estimate that we would save 1/3 of training by going to pay banding. That means you would save on average 50 pilots per year from pay banding.
If you try to say it's 1800 pilots, that means you would estimate that there are 5400 pilots in training at any one time, again assuming you save 1/3 of the training events. Even if you predict you will save 100% of training events (an impossibility unless you lock every new hire into one seat, including Captain seats, and keep them there until retirement) you would need to average 1800 pilots a day in training to save 1800 jobs. In other words, every Delta pilot would change jobs in 12 months or less. That does not seem plausible.
Attack away, but at least attack with facts not wild hyperbole.
- How would pay banding effect us in a category and status merger?
- What are the effects on top line scope of pay banding (JV negotiations)?
- What are the effects on small jet (permitted flying arrangements) as a result of pay banding?
- What is our competitive environment? What are other airlines doing?
What are your preliminary thoughts on pay banding's effects on mergers and scope negotiations? If we combined pay banding with scope recapture, I could be sold on the idea.
Back of the napkin math; I figure 2% or 3% could be recaptured from pilot pay, DGS and Delta resources for this change. That's less than my cable TV bill in after-tax money. If there is an extrinsic virtue here, it needs to be considered.
06-30-2014, 01:49 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by gzsg
Nice try to get the focus off you selling us out for the management tool you are.
None of my posts have anything to do with DPA.
Let's focus on you and sailing not selling concessions during record profits.
None of my posts have anything to do with DPA.
Let's focus on you and sailing not selling concessions during record profits.
Is a run of the mill line check airman a management tool? If so, then yes tsquare and sailing are management tools.
You cheapen your message when you throw the management tool thing around so flippantly.
06-30-2014, 01:56 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
Without any comment on the wisdom of pay banding, at least the discussion should center around the facts rather than wild speculation.
If you want to figure out the productivity gains from pay banding you would start with the average number of non-new hire pilots that are in the upgrade training pipeline (from initial academics through IOE completion) on any given day. Continuing qualification training would not count as that would stay unchanged with pay banding.
You would use a daily average because we have training starting and ending each day of the month and a variable amount of crews are in training in any one day. You would exclude new hires because no matter what the pay structure is, you will have to give them training when they get hired.
My guess is the daily average is in the 100-150 pilot range. It was lower before but training has been going up lately. Maybe someone with training center connections has a better number.
For the sake of discussion, let's use 150. If you go to pay banding, you will not be able to eliminate all training, because pilots will still jump between bands and from first officer to Captain. Let's estimate that we would save 1/3 of training by going to pay banding. That means you would save on average 50 pilots per year from pay banding.
If you try to say it's 1800 pilots, that means you would estimate that there are 5400 pilots in training at any one time, again assuming you save 1/3 of the training events. Even if you predict you will save 100% of training events (an impossibility unless you lock every new hire into one seat, including Captain seats, and keep them there until retirement) you would need to average 1800 pilots a day in training to save 1800 jobs. In other words, every Delta pilot would change jobs in 12 months or less. That does not seem plausible.
Attack away, but at least attack with facts not wild hyperbole.
If you want to figure out the productivity gains from pay banding you would start with the average number of non-new hire pilots that are in the upgrade training pipeline (from initial academics through IOE completion) on any given day. Continuing qualification training would not count as that would stay unchanged with pay banding.
You would use a daily average because we have training starting and ending each day of the month and a variable amount of crews are in training in any one day. You would exclude new hires because no matter what the pay structure is, you will have to give them training when they get hired.
My guess is the daily average is in the 100-150 pilot range. It was lower before but training has been going up lately. Maybe someone with training center connections has a better number.
For the sake of discussion, let's use 150. If you go to pay banding, you will not be able to eliminate all training, because pilots will still jump between bands and from first officer to Captain. Let's estimate that we would save 1/3 of training by going to pay banding. That means you would save on average 50 pilots per year from pay banding.
If you try to say it's 1800 pilots, that means you would estimate that there are 5400 pilots in training at any one time, again assuming you save 1/3 of the training events. Even if you predict you will save 100% of training events (an impossibility unless you lock every new hire into one seat, including Captain seats, and keep them there until retirement) you would need to average 1800 pilots a day in training to save 1800 jobs. In other words, every Delta pilot would change jobs in 12 months or less. That does not seem plausible.
Attack away, but at least attack with facts not wild hyperbole.
Let's say we have 900 retirements in 12 months. Each retirement results in 6 initial training events. 5400 initial training events. Pay banding will mitigate this in a huge way. Again I estimate 8 to 10 initials per retirement.
The major point is why make concessions during record profits?
Jerry
Last edited by 80ktsClamp; 06-30-2014 at 06:35 PM.
06-30-2014, 01:57 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
Jerry,
Is a run of the mill line check airman a management tool? If so, then yes tsquare and sailing are management tools.
You cheapen your message when you throw the management tool thing around so flippantly.
Is a run of the mill line check airman a management tool? If so, then yes tsquare and sailing are management tools.
You cheapen your message when you throw the management tool thing around so flippantly.
I think I'm on his side, for the most part. But, then I read that, and I'm against him.
We should be aiming high for the next contract (max pay, work rules, benefits, vacation, etc.). We shouldn't be aiming at each other.
06-30-2014, 02:00 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by tsquare
OK wiseguy. Same bet to you that I offered Carl. 50 thousand dollars says that I will not sell one damned thing until there is a vote. When we have a TA, I will sell nothing. Put your money where your mouth is Jerry.. Heck if I can get all the DPA clowns to take the bet I'll retire after the contract is signed.
You talk really big, but you don't back it up. Accuse me of selling concessions... let's get it on.
Or are you scared?
We can even have jury selection to see if I break the rules. I figure we can come up with 5 people on here to judge whether or not I was selling anything. You are so confident, you have nothing to lose.
You talk really big, but you don't back it up. Accuse me of selling concessions... let's get it on.
Or are you scared?
We can even have jury selection to see if I break the rules. I figure we can come up with 5 people on here to judge whether or not I was selling anything. You are so confident, you have nothing to lose.
Happy to hear you won't be advocating concessions. Hope it's contagous.
06-30-2014, 02:03 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left, left, left right left....
Posts: 911
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
Without any comment on the wisdom of pay banding, at least the discussion should center around the facts rather than wild speculation.
If you want to figure out the productivity gains from pay banding you would start with the average number of non-new hire pilots that are in the upgrade training pipeline (from initial academics through IOE completion) on any given day. Continuing qualification training would not count as that would stay unchanged with pay banding.
You would use a daily average because we have training starting and ending each day of the month and a variable amount of crews are in training in any one day. You would exclude new hires because no matter what the pay structure is, you will have to give them training when they get hired.
My guess is the daily average is in the 100-150 pilot range. It was lower before but training has been going up lately. Maybe someone with training center connections has a better number.
For the sake of discussion, let's use 150. If you go to pay banding, you will not be able to eliminate all training, because pilots will still jump between bands and from first officer to Captain. Let's estimate that we would save 1/3 of training by going to pay banding. That means you would save on average 50 pilots per year from pay banding.
If you try to say it's 1800 pilots, that means you would estimate that there are 5400 pilots in training at any one time, again assuming you save 1/3 of the training events. Even if you predict you will save 100% of training events (an impossibility unless you lock every new hire into one seat, including Captain seats, and keep them there until retirement) you would need to average 1800 pilots a day in training to save 1800 jobs. In other words, every Delta pilot would change jobs in 12 months or less. That does not seem plausible.
Attack away, but at least attack with facts not wild hyperbole.
If you want to figure out the productivity gains from pay banding you would start with the average number of non-new hire pilots that are in the upgrade training pipeline (from initial academics through IOE completion) on any given day. Continuing qualification training would not count as that would stay unchanged with pay banding.
You would use a daily average because we have training starting and ending each day of the month and a variable amount of crews are in training in any one day. You would exclude new hires because no matter what the pay structure is, you will have to give them training when they get hired.
My guess is the daily average is in the 100-150 pilot range. It was lower before but training has been going up lately. Maybe someone with training center connections has a better number.
For the sake of discussion, let's use 150. If you go to pay banding, you will not be able to eliminate all training, because pilots will still jump between bands and from first officer to Captain. Let's estimate that we would save 1/3 of training by going to pay banding. That means you would save on average 50 pilots per year from pay banding.
If you try to say it's 1800 pilots, that means you would estimate that there are 5400 pilots in training at any one time, again assuming you save 1/3 of the training events. Even if you predict you will save 100% of training events (an impossibility unless you lock every new hire into one seat, including Captain seats, and keep them there until retirement) you would need to average 1800 pilots a day in training to save 1800 jobs. In other words, every Delta pilot would change jobs in 12 months or less. That does not seem plausible.
Attack away, but at least attack with facts not wild hyperbole.
Doesn't John Bell do a move in/out of category matrix with every AE? Take a years worth and that will give you the total number of initial training events for a year. I'm sure the MEC office has the numbers in any case. Of course that doesn't account for forward looking increases in training.
If you use your average of 150 pilots in other than new hire and CQ on any given day and that a initial course is an avg of 5 weeks, back of the napkin would be 150/5 week training events into 52 weeks, or 1500 other than new hire/CQ training events per year. With a 1/3 reduction with pay banding that would be a 500 pilot training event reduction per year.
Not sure would that would equate to in a reduced pilot list, but I don't think it's either 500 or 50.
06-30-2014, 02:07 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Originally Posted by RonRicco
Management would love number 1, but every line holder out there would not.
06-30-2014, 02:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
Jerry,
Is a run of the mill line check airman a management tool? If so, then yes tsquare and sailing are management tools.
You cheapen your message when you throw the management tool thing around so flippantly.
Is a run of the mill line check airman a management tool? If so, then yes tsquare and sailing are management tools.
You cheapen your message when you throw the management tool thing around so flippantly.
Staving off management's attack on our profit sharing and pursuing pay banding are game changers. Not to be disregarded as doughnut talk.
Jerry
Originally Posted by tsquare
blah blah blah..... dounghnut talking points all around.
When's the vote Jerry?
06-30-2014, 02:55 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Originally Posted by Fly4hire
Alpha,
Doesn't John Bell do a move in/out of category matrix with every AE? Take a years worth and that will give you the total number of initial training events for a year. I'm sure the MEC office has the numbers in any case. Of course that doesn't account for forward looking increases in training.
If you use your average of 150 pilots in other than new hire and CQ on any given day and that a initial course is an avg of 5 weeks, back of the napkin would be 150/5 week training events into 52 weeks, or 1500 other than new hire/CQ training events per year. With a 1/3 reduction with pay banding that would be a 500 pilot training event reduction per year.
Not sure would that would equate to in a reduced pilot list, but I don't think it's either 500 or 50.
Doesn't John Bell do a move in/out of category matrix with every AE? Take a years worth and that will give you the total number of initial training events for a year. I'm sure the MEC office has the numbers in any case. Of course that doesn't account for forward looking increases in training.
If you use your average of 150 pilots in other than new hire and CQ on any given day and that a initial course is an avg of 5 weeks, back of the napkin would be 150/5 week training events into 52 weeks, or 1500 other than new hire/CQ training events per year. With a 1/3 reduction with pay banding that would be a 500 pilot training event reduction per year.
Not sure would that would equate to in a reduced pilot list, but I don't think it's either 500 or 50.
In your example, you save 500 training events at 5 weeks per event. That means that each training event costs Delta 5 out of 52 weeks of pilot productivity or 9.6% of a pilot's yearly productivity. Multiply 9.6% x 500 saved events and you come up with about 48 pilots. I would think the actual number is north of that savings.
As you said, there is surely better data out there and that would be the best starting point to have an intelligent discussion about which way the pilot group wants to go.
The other issue to discuss about pay banding is the cost savings to the company for stuff that does not affect pilot staffing. For example, they would save in simulator time, hotel costs, DGS staffing, and many other items that Delta spends money on, but doesn't end up in a Delta pilot's pocket.
That was one of the items exploited in C2012. The reason we ended up 41% ahead of our industry competitors was because much of the money to fund our contractual increases came from entities that Delta would have paid money to other than pilots. DCI contractors, engine overhaul, fuel expense, landing fees, and many other items were saved by the shift from DCI to mainline, meaning we use fewer airframes to fly the same or greater capacity. This shift in funding gave us returns that were as far ahead of industry average as I have ever seen any pilot group.
06-30-2014, 03:08 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Thank you for popping up on frequency for this topic. My concerns are more along the lines of:
What are your preliminary thoughts on pay banding's effects on mergers and scope negotiations? If we combined pay banding with scope recapture, I could be sold on the idea.
Back of the napkin math; I figure 2% or 3% could be recaptured from pilot pay, DGS and Delta resources for this change. That's less than my cable TV bill in after-tax money. If there is an extrinsic virtue here, it needs to be considered.
- How would pay banding effect us in a category and status merger?
- What are the effects on top line scope of pay banding (JV negotiations)?
- What are the effects on small jet (permitted flying arrangements) as a result of pay banding?
- What is our competitive environment? What are other airlines doing?
What are your preliminary thoughts on pay banding's effects on mergers and scope negotiations? If we combined pay banding with scope recapture, I could be sold on the idea.
Back of the napkin math; I figure 2% or 3% could be recaptured from pilot pay, DGS and Delta resources for this change. That's less than my cable TV bill in after-tax money. If there is an extrinsic virtue here, it needs to be considered.
I don't see how scope issues would be directly affected by pay banding. Adding small jets to our contract at current industry standard rates creates a whole set of pay/training issues. Using pay banding to restructure the first ?? years of pilot pay might solve some of those problems. (Don't know what ?? is)
Both United and American have pay banding. Southwest of course only has one pay rate. Right now, our pay system is probably more of an outlier in the industry rather than the norm.
For sure, if you want to get the most value out of pay banding, you would do it sooner rather than later.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
