Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1675144)

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.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1675140)

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.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1675149)

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.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1675113)

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.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1675140)

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.

Originally Posted by RonRicco (Post 1675111)

Management would love number 1, but every line holder out there would not.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1675149)

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.

Originally Posted by Fly4hire (Post 1675163)

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.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1675148)

Thank you for popping up on frequency for this topic. My concerns are more along the lines of:

• 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?

IMHO now may be the time to get the maximum benefit from this kind of change because we know management is having a training problem. During a down turn pay banding delivers nothing.

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.