Airline Pilot Central Forums

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)

Carl Spackler 03-02-2012 06:48 AM


Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1144388)
I'll give you the bullet points.
-Biggest pays most under current system. Fine. That would be great if we had 50 of each of them.. we don't. we have 16 and 18.
-Management chooses which airplanes we fly, we negotiate how much we will be paid to fly whatever they buy.
-All we have done, and all we are going to be doing for the foreseeable future is buying smaller gauge airframes than those CURRENTLY on the property.
-net result is less pay for the entire pilot group over the course of a career.
-the net result of THAT is that we have less $ in our retirement and investment plans, because the DB plan no longer exists and we have to fund our own retirement...
-That seems like we are continuing to shoot the group as a whole in the foot just to keep guys like Carl paid the most...

-The net result is less pay AND as a bonus, a crappier QOL over the course of a career to keep this same system because if you want to maximize your retirement, you have to either a)fly more, or b) bid an airplane where you have no seniority.. Hobson's choice. they both suck, and it is so unnecessary.

What I've bolded above is the falsehood upon which you've based your argument on pay banding. Truth is, none of us knows this to be true. In fact (as acl65pilot posted earlier), the new 747-8i could likely provide irresistible levels of CASM to Delta.

While you're entitled to your opinion, your bolded statement above is simply not factual.

Carl

LIOG41 03-02-2012 06:55 AM

Sorry for thread drift gents but I need to check loads again for tomorrow, if it's tight I'll have to buy a ticket instead of jumpseating.

It's for Saturday march 3, ATL-MBJ, 8:30am and 9:49am flights, can you also list if any non revs are listed? Thanks much!

Carl Spackler 03-02-2012 06:58 AM


Originally Posted by Columbia (Post 1144401)
Golf clap..........what if they give up all 777s and 747s and add moooore NBs? Can't happen?

That option is available to them right now. Why don't they do that? Because it would VASTLY increase their costs. It's cheaper for us to fly one 747-400 than the 3 or more narrow bodies it would take to fly the same passengers and cargo. Passengers would love it though, because all the surveys show that they prefer more frequency. The airline cannot give that to them though because of the large increase in costs.


Originally Posted by Columbia (Post 1144401)
What if the total seniority list is 8,000 in 10 years?

Pay banding could well exacerbate this point. With pay banding, you actually reduce the CASM of wide body aircraft relative to their narrow body counterparts. If you reduce the relative CASM of wide bodies, you incentivize management to buy more of them. More wide bodies mean less need for pilots. That's one of the main reasons ALPA fought hard for this productivity pay when the 707 was introduced decades ago.

Carl

tsquare 03-02-2012 07:01 AM


Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1144435)
Not necessarily. It's just the way ALPA contracts have been written since prior to the jet age.



The theory goes back to the introduction of jets. Jets not only vastly increased capacity, but vastly increased speed. Both were huge increases in productivity per hour of piloting. ALPA fought hard for pay increases based on this productivity. Management fought it extremely hard. Management wanted pilots to be paid the same.

So because we have always done it that way, that's the way we should continue to do it.. I have always HATED that kind of argument. Tradition, is one of the biggest four letter words in the English language. ALPA fought hard for this because back in the day, it made sense. Now however, there is no airliner that is coming off of any production line anywhere in the world that will be designed to go anywhere in excess of .80M. So let's throw that old argument out straight away. Management wanted it that way back then because it made sense for them too. They could garner all that "productivity" increase and keep costs down. Of course that is why they wanted it. They were upgrading the fleets in a technological leap that is unequalled today.




Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1144435)
It was what ALPA fought hard for. It had nothing to do with ol Carl. Unions get insulted constantly for being afraid of more productivity. It's a slur. ALPA fought hard back in the day, and won the right to be paid via productivity. To me, it has always made economic sense to pay per productivity. For me personally, I would prefer to fly day trips on the 757. That would be my idea of the ideal gig. I don't do that because it's not the best financial decision for me. If we move away from pay based on productivity, we play into the hands of those who wish to taint us with the brush of being afraid to be productive.

It has NOTHING to do with my job being any harder than anyone elses.

DO you not see the oxymoron in this statement when arguing for "productivity"? The sentence that you make after the bold red one is what I don't get. How do we play into the hands of those who wish to (p)aint us with the brush of being afraid to be productive? The productivity aspect is a management decision.. based on how they schedule, and to an extend, which airframe they buy.. NEITHER of which we have any input to. There is an illusion that we have some control over scheduling, but if that were true, why are there still 3 hour sit arounds in ATL and DTW? I don't know about you, but I hate those sits.... And on top of that, you readily admit that you make your decision based on financial considerations. As a proponent of unionism like you claim to be, I would think you would be great guns for a banded pay rate.. Push throttles.. get pay... simple.





Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1144435)
It could be argued that way, and could be argued another way. Truth is, both jobs have significant risks and skill requirements. That's a given. The only question is whether you pay pilots based on the amount of revenue they produce based on the aircraft they fly.



I can only give you my opinions and the historical background of how we got here.

Carl

Since being domesticated in my category, I can attest to the above statement as being true. Domestic/International theatre flying each have their own particular difficulties. The funny thing is though that the manipulation of the aircraft is easier the bigger it gets.. sorry, but that's true. You have to admit that 88driver hangs it out far more than you or I do in a given 8 hour period. I do not consider getting a clearance from Gander all that difficult, but I am betting that 88driver is way more physically worn out at the end of a 5 leg day hubbin and spokin in +TRW weather than either you or I upon arriving at NRT or FRA... But I agree that each has it's own risks and skill requirements.. I just cannot justify in my little mind that yours is sufficiently more difficult as to warrant as much more money as you are currently getting.. But I guess because it has always been done that way...

tsquare 03-02-2012 07:04 AM


Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1144437)
What I've bolded above is the falsehood upon which you've based your argument on pay banding. Truth is, none of us knows this to be true. In fact (as acl65pilot posted earlier), the new 747-8i could likely provide irresistible levels of CASM to Delta.

While you're entitled to your opinion, your bolded statement above is simply not factual.

Carl

Um.. .OK.. did I miss the announcement of the 747-8 purchase and did I just make up the 737-900 purchase in my mind? Nope.. my statement is 100% factual. Yours is pie in the sky.

Carl Spackler 03-02-2012 07:05 AM


Originally Posted by TenYearsGone (Post 1144428)
Come on Carl:eek:. I almost PUKED. That is one "RATHER" style photo. I, second, Jesse or Super to inject some medicine to offset this NASTY picture. PUKE

TEN


Sorry. Mea Culpa.


http://justpictures2.files.wordpress...ailyceleb3.jpg




Carl

FrankCobretti 03-02-2012 07:07 AM

Hey, has anyone received his profit sharing check yet?

Carl Spackler 03-02-2012 07:12 AM


Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1144432)
No.. we really don't have pay banding.

Yes we do. And you're already weakening as show by what you've written below:


Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1144432)
Not in any appreciable amount anyway.

And continuing the weakening theme:


Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1144432)
Yeah I guess you could make the argument that because the 757-767 pays the same that the biggest fleet is "banded" but that doesn't really hold water.

What do you mean it "doesn't hold water?" It's a fact. Our 757's and 767's pay the same. One is quite a bit larger than the other. That is pay banding...period.


Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1144432)
Other than that, we have 34 airplanes banded.. :rolleyes:

So to recap, we have pay banding on the 757/767, and on the 744/777...but other than that, we have no pay banding! Come on t, don't be so stubborn.

Carl

Elvis90 03-02-2012 07:15 AM


Originally Posted by FrankCobretti (Post 1144448)
Hey, has anyone received his profit sharing check yet?

Mine was sent via direct deposit right on Feb 14th.

TenYearsGone 03-02-2012 07:19 AM


Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1144447)

Carl,

I like them a little thicker. Do you have any with curves. This one is too skinny for my taste:D

TEN


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:48 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands