You have made comment about how we are not being paid in accordance with our responsibility. Yet you believe for some reason that bigger must pay more. Those two concepts are diametrically opposed unless you can show a way to devalue the life of a single human being on any given airplane. IOW, if a 777 MUST pay more than an RJ because the captain "has more responsibility", then you are saying that the kid sitting in 3A is somehow less valuable than the one in 47H of the 777. But.. the argument will go that the 777 captain has more of those bodies on board. That is irrelevant in this context. A single human life has value. A 777 captain has one chance each day to kill 300 people. A 717 captain has the opportunity to kill 300 passengers each day also, and in his environment, he is actually MORE likely to be able to do it because the majority of the flight time of a 777 is spent on autopilot, at altitude. The 717 does 4+ landings and takeoffs each day. Remind me again which is the most "dangerous" part of any flight? (I really don't spend too much time worrying about engine losses at altitude other than track diverts, but we brief V1 every... single.... time.)

Diatribe aside, bigger pays more is a stupid way to be paid, especially since we do not buy equipment. MANAGEMENT does.

Ask your reps if anyone in DALPA is studying or working on pay banding.

If the MEC votes and takes pay banding off the table for C2015 as well as further reductions in profit sharing then we need not discuss this further.

Sadly, that will not happen.

Cost neutral is management's goal for C2015. Pay banding and reduced profit sharing are the solutions for them.

They throw billions at the shareholders and want their pilots to be cost neutral (their words over and over). Time for that to stop. Time for us to share in the success we created.

Not kill the golden goose, just our fair share. Just like management gets theirs.

Does anyone thing when Doug Parker sits down with the board at American and talks about his compensation they start out by asking Doug for concessions to offset his gains?

We've given more than enough.

You raise some good points. I fight constantly to raise the pay for regional pilots using the same argument.

LBP simply does not work. The logistics are too great for an air line our size. It could work at a small carrier or a new air line.

Let's say we adapt LBP tomorrow.

We would have to rebid all 12,000 pilots one at a time.

Bullcrap. There is no logic for this stance. The AE process could take care of it.

Number 1 what position do you choose?

Moot

Number 2 ?

Moot

Then we would have to retrain everyone who choose a different position which would be most everyone.

For sake of argument, that is conjecture. I, for example, would stay right where I am.

And then, there would still be massive movement and training.

Initially, maybe, that is not for certain. After awhile, it would settle out as the group found it's equilibrium. I am in my retirement gig if it doesn't go away. Not everybody wants to fly the 747. Not everybody wants to fly the M88. Guess what. I am 4500ish seniority, and I would NOT be number 1 on the M88 in ATL. Not by a long shot. Bigger is not everybody's dream job, even with the pay.

Put in a resolution and fight for it.

I think more people are waking up to the benefits, but it is a long way from becoming reality. At this point in time (which ironically is the time we should be doing this because of the soon coming rapid movement) Carl still has everybody fooled that he is some kind of god.

IMO it will never happen.

Agreed. unfortunately.

If we ever merged with another airline, their pilot group would have a very strong case to integrate seniority lists by straight ratios. Ie. the #1 Alaska pilot would go right behind our #1 Delta pilot. Or, the #1 Jet Blue pilot would go right behind our #1 Delta pilot.

I believe, with longevity pay, as far as the arbitrators would be concerned, they would have no reason to consider that one pilot could hold 777 captain and the other could only hold 737 or A320 captain.

No thanks. :)

When are you gonna stop with this straw man argument? It is flat out wrong, you have been shown this over and over.

Sans the straw man, I agree with you to an extent.

In reference to no. 2, isn't that the job of the MEC communication committee?


Tr

Pay banding and longevity based pay could make closing bases like Cincinnati and Minneapolis very cheap. The cost of training would mostly disappear.

I'm gonna regret this.

If we had a homogenous group right now. (which we don't) We could integrate a merger with AK via DOH. Because, in a group like that, the majority of them drive to work in SEA. If they are making the same money no matter what they get paid, why would they commute all the way to DTW to fly the whale? So supposing they did. I'll betcha there are a bunch of guys that presently commute to SEA to DTW to fly the whale for the $$ that would be really happy to drive to SEATAC to fly the 737. It would be a wash. But that would only work if we had a homogenous group. That horse left the barn a long time ago. I GU-AR-AN-Tee you that the most senior airplane at DAL would be the 737. Guaranteed.

Talk amongst yourselves

Does this chart include 50 seaters with six figure Captains?

If this simply looks at Delta code, then the figures are waaaay off.