Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1683967)

I doubt they will be much of a issue. It's much ado about nothing... The company has not asked for it because it's value is very slight.

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1684018)

I can't wait to.be wrong. Maybe ur buddies in the leadership can pull it off the table or commit to opposing pay banding.

Tell us how many additional pilots it will take to do 3000 initial training events in 2018?

500 retirements. 6 initials due to waterfall from 9 or 10 fleets and 8 pilot bases.

The concessions from C2012 are used up. The rubberband is stretched tight.

Again i hope you are right and there is no pay banding.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1684038)

How many training events would pay banding reduce. The answer is very few. Just look at the current rates we are already banded.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1684038)

How many training events would pay banding reduce. The answer is very few. Just look at the current rates we are already banded.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1684034)

Purple,

Stop flame baiting.

I do not know why anyone would be in favor of banding. I am against due to the increased stagnation that will be a likely result. Someone like Alpha might be able to provide some data to help us evaluate what the effect has been at other carriers who have tried it.

It appears to be a relatively minor issue economically I... so, I am asking, are there other reasons that should be considerations? Are there other pro / con?

.

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1684009)

UAL

Their management claims a 50% reduction in training costs.

I will love to be wrong, but i see this as a done deal along with reduced profit sharing.

I also see a deal early. Way too many feelers and lowering of expectaions early.

Why touch profit sharing? Is Delta losing money?

Jerry

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1684052)

Jerry- I appreciate your passion, but your analysis is way off here. I'll explain why:

Their savings in training does not result from pay banding but from reduced categories and wider banding in said categories. They have the 320 and 737 for narrow bodies. We have the 717, m88, 320, and 737 for narrowbodies. That's twice the categories. They have the 767 (they allow their 767 guys to fly the 764 in this category too), 777, and 744 for widebodies. We have the 767, 764, 330, 777, and 744. That's also almost twice the categories.

I agree that further banding is coming, but your diagnosis from the symptoms is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1684028)

Management perceives scope violations to be a transaction. They routinely order scope violating airplanes and ignore our JV scope only to gain relief at the last possible moment as we pilots cry "PAY ME PAY ME PAY ME." Our ALPA representatives represent us as we provide guidance in our surveys and comments.

If forecasts for a downturn from 2017 to 2020 turn out to be true, then the orders for scope busters are right on time, aren't they?

Can we change hearts and minds to see scope violations as sacrosanct than negotiating leverage? I don't know. We need to talk to our fellow pilots and ensure they have thoughtfully considered their priorities for C2015.

Frankly, I do not care a lot what these airplanes pay (we will never fly them). But it is very important that they be flown by Delta pilots. The larger strategic concern being that we continue to be THE source of pilot labor for Delta Air Lines and not some irrelevant minority. Maintaining our position of power is key to our negotiating legitimacy and our ability to deliver the PAY and BENEFITS our pilots deserve.