Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 796807)

Answer, No.

And if you think a 767 in LGA is tight, you should have been on the L10-11's going in there! And for a while, the 767-400's did it too.

That's what I was saying! I can't imagine the long wheelbase of the 767-400's taxiing around there.

Plus the nosewheel on the L10 was so far back behind...shorter wheelbase but kind of weird perspective.

LGA L1011
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../6/0352620.jpg

& 764
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../2/0437247.jpg

And random picture of the night which can be put under the category "been there, done that..."
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...98_964x517.jpg

And one last, circa 1973.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../1/1458167.jpg

Those jets were new.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 796814)

And one last, circa 1973.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../1/1458167.jpg

Those jets were new.

Whoa.... look at how shiny the wing was on that DC-9.

A different age of flying...

You know you can get in trouble for putting 'porn' like that on the internet, right?

Now how am I going to get to sleep?? :D

Ahh, the DC-9-30, the RJ of it's day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 796745)

It is actually the opposite. The original design for the 767-400 was a winglet but the increased span would not allow LGA operations. Delta told Boeing they would not buy the aircraft unless it would fit in LGA since it was intended at the time as a domestic L1011 replacement. The raked wingtip was a redesign to reduce the span and get the aircraft into LGA.

Hmmm. The raked wingtip takes the span out horizontally while the winglet takes it to the vertical. Both achieve essentially the same performance effect. Not sure how the same wing with a winglet would have a longer span than with a rake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 796814)

And one last, circa 1973.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../1/1458167.jpg

Those jets were new.

Now that was a sweet paintjob. unlike the newer schemes the last 20 years!

Quote:

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 796726)

------------

I personally contribute 28% to my retirement each year - in order to hit the 415C (happens around sept) Then the contribution is automatically stopped and restarts automatically in January.

In my book, that IS a 28% pay raise.

And yes, I DO want to make more in retirement than a 777A makes today. Don't you?
Scambo

How do you do that - your max contribution to your 401K is $16,500 and another $5,500 if you are over 50 for catchup contributions. If you contribute above that it's not tax deferred.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 796743)

What you're actually hitting is the 402(g) individual contribution limit of $16,500. That's the total aggregate amount you can contribute to all employer qualified plans in which you participate. For you to hit the 415(c) limit your employer would have to contribute more than $32,500 and you would have to contribute $16,500 to a single plan.

I'd like to see more DC as well, but I'd rather see more pay first. 14% is well above average for any plan, much less airlines.

Disagree 100% - would like to see the company max out the DC part. If you feel like you're getting enough from the company just don't make any 401K contributions - that gives everyone a choice. If we get more pay and we're already maxed out the 401K then we have to pay more taxes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 796743)

I'd like to see more DC as well, but I'd rather see more pay first. 14% is well above average for any plan, much less airlines.

I agree that we don't need to be too much beyond 14% before it kicks to pay. I think TWA was 18%, and that sure seemed like plenty.

I'm NOT saying, and you're not saying, that we don't want to ask for both, but, if we assume the total amount available is finite (which is more of a philosophical point than some would claim), then my priorities would be to:

1) Get workrule improvements, so that I work less, or work more comfortably, for the money I do get, and so that extra flying is definitely worth my while, and doesn't cost me in terms of health. You can't tax better workrules.

2) Add a couple % to the DC to get the rest of the way there. I'm guessing no more than 17.5% or so.

THEN

3) Let the rest roll into pay.

With those priorities, I think we all benefit. Those that want more 401(k) contributions are free to add.

There may not be a huge difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying. I presume the "more pay" you refer to would be the result of both payrates and workrule improvements. I'm only making the point that, when the workrules are favorable, and one can fly a low schedule comfortably, then the payrate of the incremental extra flying matters less, because it's just not that painful. Conversely, really high payrates combined with poor workrules makes for a highly taxeable, unenjoyable job.

So while 401(k)'s are a good option for many, the key to a better overall package doesn't start with huge DC funding. The way I see it, it starts with excellent workrules, acceptable DC contributions, then higher payrates.