Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-17-2011, 12:34 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
OK. Then why do we still have US citizen crews there? If Delta's main concern is the safety of our employees that is. Are our US citizen crews refusing to leave?
Carl
Carl
03-17-2011, 12:48 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
T- It is the seniority based way, it is not union dependent.
03-17-2011, 12:50 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
J
P.S. T, for the record, as a junior guy I like the idea of longevity based pay, but also associated with "larger categories", instead of "individual aircraft". (i.e. Small Narrow Body, Large Narrow Body, Non-premium widebody, & Super premium widebody categories with "longevity based pay".)
P.S. T, for the record, as a junior guy I like the idea of longevity based pay, but also associated with "larger categories", instead of "individual aircraft". (i.e. Small Narrow Body, Large Narrow Body, Non-premium widebody, & Super premium widebody categories with "longevity based pay".)
03-17-2011, 12:59 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by tsquare
What are you talking about?
I was referring to juniority sucking. It is seniority dependent and has nothing to do with the name of the union.
03-17-2011, 01:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by tsquare
Damn dude.. you are the one that is coming out with how it will be so easy to furlough and all that... I'm looking at a way to better our QOL, which, you dismiss out of hand immediately. I'm guessing you are part of the inner circle which would explain why you are so full of yourself. Have a nice day, and don't hit your ego on the door frame.
This is about you presenting the opinion that a hypothetical B744 closure would be an argument for a LBP system. It took about a half an hour of thinking it through to realize you've actually uncovered a major flaw in the LBP argument. Then after a strange sort of "debate" where you've tried the virtual equivalent of yelling, pouting, walking out, and walking back in, but never once rationally discussed any theory that isn't your own.
Having had a chance to think it over a couple of hours, it's becoming very apparent that there is a significant problem in LBP, in that it sets up an airline to downsize conveniently. If there is an flaw in my logic, by all means, explain it. I've laid out what I think is a pretty rational case WRT displacements and furloughs. You haven't addressed it. You asked a question, I answered it, and now you're retrenching instead in this weak "inner-circle" b.s.
Finally, spare me the sanctimonious crap about being open-minded. I've tried to at least entertain the idea you presented, and I've tried to present a rationale for my thinking, two things you can't be bothered with. Like you, I am only trying to better our situation. I seem to remember bringing up the concept of a NSL, an idea which you poo-poohed out of hand, without presenting much of a rationale. I may not win any awards for open-mindedness, but I don't think you should create a shrine for your ward just yet.
I surely made a mistake when I congratulated you for finding a way to make the company scaleable and shrinkeable, so I apologize for it. Maybe that's what got your panties all tangled up, and fried the hemisphere that handles rational thought. I know you're not trying to make things worse.
In closing: my logic is my own. It isn't tied to any agenda, or any group. If you have any rational thoughts that refute mine, be my guest.
03-17-2011, 01:12 PM
ATL A320 B
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: No longer MEM or 9, but still a guy.
Posts: 238
Just wanted to bump this...
Originally Posted by Mem9guy
The Captain I was just flying with and I just spent several legs discussing this very idea. We came up with a 3 tier system.
First bring the DC-9 (will now be a 125 seater with the parking of the 30's and 40's,) MD-88, MD-90, 320/319, 737 700/800, all into one tier based on the current 737 rates.
Next tier would be the 757/7ER tier based on current 767 pay.
Finally a widebody tier for the 767-400, 330, 777, 787, 747 based on 747 pay rates.
Coupled with good international and redeye types of overides.
We felt that this would do several things for our pay system:
Reduce training cycles as there would be less chasing of payrates.
Provide marketing with the ability to plan routes with labor costs being less variable. Planners love "fixed costs"
Help to move us from a pay system that was set up to maximize "final average earnings" in the last 5 years for a pension based retirement to a system that gives a more steady increase over the average career to fit the current defined contribution system that favors "time value of money" for retirement.
Only three aircraft types to discuss at the negotiating table as all others would slot into one of these.
First bring the DC-9 (will now be a 125 seater with the parking of the 30's and 40's,) MD-88, MD-90, 320/319, 737 700/800, all into one tier based on the current 737 rates.
Next tier would be the 757/7ER tier based on current 767 pay.
Finally a widebody tier for the 767-400, 330, 777, 787, 747 based on 747 pay rates.
Coupled with good international and redeye types of overides.
We felt that this would do several things for our pay system:
Reduce training cycles as there would be less chasing of payrates.
Provide marketing with the ability to plan routes with labor costs being less variable. Planners love "fixed costs"
Help to move us from a pay system that was set up to maximize "final average earnings" in the last 5 years for a pension based retirement to a system that gives a more steady increase over the average career to fit the current defined contribution system that favors "time value of money" for retirement.
Only three aircraft types to discuss at the negotiating table as all others would slot into one of these.
03-17-2011, 01:24 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by Mem9guy
Just wanted to bump this post I put up last summer. It seems pertinent in the current pay system discussions.
But this all assumes a stable environment. I think the opportunities presented to the company in a downsizing scenario are right down frightening. If I'm misreading how the company furloughs and hires, I'm open to that discussion.
03-17-2011, 01:30 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by Mem9guy
Just wanted to bump this post I put up last summer. It seems pertinent in the current pay system discussions.
03-17-2011, 01:47 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by freightguy
Thats what CAL does. I think it is a smart idea.
They also have a blended rate for guys on reserve. The 757 is a Long Narrow and the 767 is a wide, so when on reserve they average the two and are paid the blended rate even if they do not fly the larger jet.
03-17-2011, 02:25 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by Sink r8
You're guessing wrong, again, and I'm tired of your attacks on the messenger when there is an idea presented that doesn't fit your plan. I have a different viewpoint on LBP than you, but that's not what this is about.
This is about you presenting the opinion that a hypothetical B744 closure would be an argument for a LBP system. It took about a half an hour of thinking it through to realize you've actually uncovered a major flaw in the LBP argument. Then after a strange sort of "debate" where you've tried the virtual equivalent of yelling, pouting, walking out, and walking back in, but never once rationally discussed any theory that isn't your own.
Having had a chance to think it over a couple of hours, it's becoming very apparent that there is a significant problem in LBP, in that it sets up an airline to downsize conveniently. If there is an flaw in my logic, by all means, explain it. I've laid out what I think is a pretty rational case WRT displacements and furloughs. You haven't addressed it. You asked a question, I answered it, and now you're retrenching instead in this weak "inner-circle" b.s.
Finally, spare me the sanctimonious crap about being open-minded. I've tried to at least entertain the idea you presented, and I've tried to present a rationale for my thinking, two things you can't be bothered with. Like you, I am only trying to better our situation. I seem to remember bringing up the concept of a NSL, an idea which you poo-poohed out of hand, without presenting much of a rationale. I may not win any awards for open-mindedness, but I don't think you should create a shrine for your ward just yet.
I surely made a mistake when I congratulated you for finding a way to make the company scaleable and shrinkeable, so I apologize for it. Maybe that's what got your panties all tangled up, and fried the hemisphere that handles rational thought. I know you're not trying to make things worse.
In closing: my logic is my own. It isn't tied to any agenda, or any group. If you have any rational thoughts that refute mine, be my guest.
This is about you presenting the opinion that a hypothetical B744 closure would be an argument for a LBP system. It took about a half an hour of thinking it through to realize you've actually uncovered a major flaw in the LBP argument. Then after a strange sort of "debate" where you've tried the virtual equivalent of yelling, pouting, walking out, and walking back in, but never once rationally discussed any theory that isn't your own.
Having had a chance to think it over a couple of hours, it's becoming very apparent that there is a significant problem in LBP, in that it sets up an airline to downsize conveniently. If there is an flaw in my logic, by all means, explain it. I've laid out what I think is a pretty rational case WRT displacements and furloughs. You haven't addressed it. You asked a question, I answered it, and now you're retrenching instead in this weak "inner-circle" b.s.
Finally, spare me the sanctimonious crap about being open-minded. I've tried to at least entertain the idea you presented, and I've tried to present a rationale for my thinking, two things you can't be bothered with. Like you, I am only trying to better our situation. I seem to remember bringing up the concept of a NSL, an idea which you poo-poohed out of hand, without presenting much of a rationale. I may not win any awards for open-mindedness, but I don't think you should create a shrine for your ward just yet.
I surely made a mistake when I congratulated you for finding a way to make the company scaleable and shrinkeable, so I apologize for it. Maybe that's what got your panties all tangled up, and fried the hemisphere that handles rational thought. I know you're not trying to make things worse.
In closing: my logic is my own. It isn't tied to any agenda, or any group. If you have any rational thoughts that refute mine, be my guest.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
