Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 965783)

Just keep in kind that a pay scale based purely on longevity puts you at risk for being bumped of the Boeing WB to possibly a............Airbus. :eek:

I'm just screwing with ya t. :D

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 965792)

Not really. If we had a pure longevity-based system, you could look at the captains in any given category (assuming the flying was not particularly ugly or great), and cross out the junior 10, 15, or 20% (whatver the company wished to reduce). If T isn't in the bottom of his category, there would be no reason he would need to displace at all, because the distribution of Captains would be close to even across all fleets. Tha's the problem: T wouldn't have to be displaced, and neither would most people.

Originally Posted by satchip (Post 965782)

I am sooooo glad I missed watching that game...:mad:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 965796)

No, I probably would be displaced... and I stand an even better chance of being displaced if the whales get parked.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 965785)

The protections exist already, and they are the best kinds of protections of all, because they involve greenbacks rather than contractual terms: the company can't reduce flying across all fleets, or eliminate a senior fleet right now, at least not in a cost-effective way. That's not because the contract prevents it (they know how to get around that), but because of where the senior pilots are concentrated.

I'm sure you'd be the frst to argue NFC's are not worth the paper they're printed on, so the better protections are always financial or physical limitiations placed on the company. If they have to train everyone in huge cascade events because people are displacing to a different airplane, they have a serious incentive not to reduce/furlough without a long-term payback. I don't know what contractual protections you would wish to add, but these cannot trump the limitations that would be recognized by the company's own bean-counters.

So I think you're tired of arguing this because you've just found the perfect argument against longevity pay, and you're stuck. I hadn't even thought of it beforehand: longevity pay is the perfect way to ensure easy, smooth, economical reductions in flying.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 965798)

Why would Delta want to park the 747s right now anyways?

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 965799)

NOW you do, under the current system. Not so if we had been operating under a longevity-based system for a while.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 965798)

Why would Delta want to park the 747s right now anyways?

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 965803)

Damn.. what a stupid idea it would be then.... fewer junior pilots getting displaced in the event of an entire fleet getting parked... wow, I hope I remember to breathe. But even if I did get displaced under current system, I take a paycut. Under LBP, I wouldn't.... yeah.. stupid idea.