Yes...2 TOE's.

In one of their best updates the ATL and SLC reps correctly pointed out pay banding REDUCES STAFFING.

The survey did a great job of addressing this as well.

I dont favor pay banding, but if the majority in the survey want it, then let's do it.

We just need to ensure ZERO staffing reduction. We can easily accomplish this with increased value of a vacation day.

UAL and Alaska both have in the neighborhood of 40 more vacation hours than we do.

What is not acceptable is ignoring the overwhelming will of the Delta pilots not to reduce profit sharing.

Renaming it "at-risk" or "variable" is fooling no one.

Sailing I hope you can see that I support the way DALPA is supposed to work. I oppose pay banding, yet if it is the will of the body I will vote yes for it.

There is no doubt in my mind Buzz, Randy, Tim O., RH, Hanson, etc. Are working full time to reduce profit sharing and once again ignore the pilots they pretend to represent. They use excuses like, "the line pilots don't have the information we have."

We have had enough of that to last a lifetime. Let's honor the ALPA structure as our founders intended.

Honest and honorable bottom up representation.

One last thing, you were correct that I should have taken more time to verify the APA JCBA summary.

Do we have Copenhagen layovers?

Keep the kids away!




Carl

Honest question here...

Forgive me here, but why would any of our pilots specifically want pay banding? This appears to me as a major concession to management.

I ask this with all sincerity as Ive never really heard the pros of pay banding.

First guy that hits one of those beav can look forward to 50 years in the electric chair...

My house in North Ogden is on the Market. 45 min to SLC, 30 min from Snowbasin, on the bench at the base of Ben Lomand ***Above the Inversion***. May be interested in renting it out.

[URL="http://http://tour.circlepix.com/tour/blaze/?tourId=2504735&version=&mobileRedirect=true#.VLvv L0Y77CR"]

I can't figure out how to post the url correctly, anyone?

If you go to www.tour.circlepix.com the tour ID for my house is 2504735.

Thanks! Great house for a Newhire with kids just transferring into SLC who can't afford Park City.

There are two Pro's that I can think of, off the top of my head:

1. You won't have to go keep moving up (and going to school) to get a pay raise on the next higher paying airplane.

2. We have so few of our top paying seats today (only 12 747's and 18 777's...for now...and the 747's are going to be gone in a couple years) that if we could get the A330/350's (growing category) moved up to the 777 pay band, more guys would make top pay.

I don't want to give the profit sharing away but I'd consider the right trade and here's why:

We are expecting 15-16% this year and some estimates are in the 20% area for 2015, but I don't expect that to hold up year after year indefinitely. Although our industry has changed for the better, in terms of its cyclical nature, it is still cyclical. Oil prices are at their lowest in many years, this fact will also encourage every investor with more dollars than sense to start up some new airline that promises to revolutionize the air travel experience, which will put some pressure on our pricing power. Oil prices will also not stay this low forever either so while we find ourselves in a very advantageous environment now, in a few years this might not be the case.

If we could negotiate substantial raises first, 20-25% over 3-4 years, and then trade our profit sharing for an additional 15% minimum, on top of everything else at date of signing, I'd be good with that.

Of course, that probably won't happen. DALPA will trade our profit sharing for the first 20% over three years and call it a win.