Originally Posted by Columbia (Post 965845)

Who's APA? American? If so, every junior pilot (read:12 year+ seniority/longevity) is on the -80 on reserve. Same with UAL and US. The only thing a 12+ year junior pilots can hold at each of these companies is reserve on the smallest/lowest paying plane they have. The current system certainly didn't stop them from furloughing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't junior pilots at each of those Co's be paid more as their pay were based on longevity? They are now and have been effectively stuck at narrowbody pay scales for years. Thx-just trying to truly understand both arguments.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 965807)

Ahh, now that, that is over, lets talk about who is going to win the NCAA tourney. :D

Originally Posted by RyanSD (Post 965642)

Seen a very cool commercial on TV about flying Delta. First one I've seen like this in years. Much, much better than Southwest's "Bags Fly Free" commercials. (still funny though) Off topic but thought I'd bring it up.

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 965885)

My thoughts and prayers go out to our crews in Japan -- I hope they remain safe and protected.

Originally Posted by Columbia (Post 965903)

Yes- Slow exaggerated by saying operating nothing but B1900s which turned my random thought into a nutball thought worthy of dismissal. However, WB JV pressure will, IMO, increase potentially leading to a loss of WB flying done by dalpa pilots. It stands to reason that longevity pay would be a protection against the loss of WB pay scales.
I'm not necessarily an advocate for the change, but I am for the discussion by using "what if's" and not using only historical arguments or saying "Look at the regionals who use it and see how it is working for them."

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 965892)

They are VERY expensive to operate. The 777-300 has around 25% better numbers.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 965910)

Y'all be goin' on vacation?

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 965901)

OK, so you're debating this? I'm not sure if you're trying to make my point, or yours.

It's a lot more economical to furlough when the bottom of each category contains the junior pilot, than in an airline that's perfectly stovepiped. If you need to cut overall flying 20% (i.e. after 9/11), and you look at the 20% junior pilots, you find that (oops), that's 100% of you maddog F/O's, and 50% of your A320 F/O's. Now what? Well, you have to displace. The 88 F/O's "displace" to the street. The A320 guys to the 88, etc. Until enough displacements have occured, you can't operate the 80% of the 88 flying you still wish to perform, and you don't have enough for the A320 either. So you weigh this carefully. You look at the entire list, and ou calculate the cost of displacing 20% of the entire system, from the top fleet on down, and you have a powerful dissincentive to pull the trigger if you won't have enough time on furlough to recoup your costs.

This is why we didn't furlough in 2008: it wasn't worth it.

If you have a system that isn't stovepiped at all, all F/O's distributed somewhat evenly, depending on where they live, the flying they like, etc. The junior 20% of all pilots makes up about 40% of all F/O categories (I'm assuming we have the same number of A's and B's). Now, you don't need to wait until you have to retrain 80% of your 88 F/O's (the total flying you were performing, minus the 20% you don't want). You only need to train 20% of your 88 B's (40% of the guys getting furloughed, minus 20% cut in flying). The great news? You're displacing 20% of the Captains, too. And, better yet, 20% of your 88 Captains are already trained. Since you're in a LBP situation, chances are they're flying the 88 because they like it, so the geography and the flying already floats their boat. And since they won't make more money by displacing to a senior WB category (LBP for all, remember?), then they might as well stay as 88 B's. What's the downside?

So, under our existing rules, it takes months to get everyone on the street, and the replacements trained. Under a LBP sytem, the entire airline is potentially set up properly to chop off the bottom X % of any and all categories, no questions asked. Send the certified letters, and it's done!

So to answer you hypothetical about the 737 guy and the A320 guy, the answer is that the 737 under a LBP sytem wouldn't be senior or junior to the A320 guy, and since it's easy to chop off 20% of either category, he'd stay put. One less training event. One less cost to be factored in against a furlough.

This is the stuff that would have made Kolshack cream his pants. And Burns too, whatever she has in her pants.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 965904)

I am more worried about the rest of my career than what I can hold today. If we were totally stovepiped I would be on the 73N as a line holder.

Also, bid my current seat as a line holder, held nice four leg four day trips and then started moving backwards a few years ago. Not complaining but just pointing that out. My reason for where I am not is, I do not want to commit to a two year seat lock that may limit my options when more seats move. It has nothing to do with QOL. I made the decision to take a QOL hit to avoid another seat lock. Currently I do not get anything I bid for due to where I sit on the jet. Once the music stops, I will then bid off.

Yes, I am junior but have well over 10% of the total list below me. :eek: