Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-02-2012, 07:07 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Top
Posts: 472
Hey, has anyone received his profit sharing check yet?
03-02-2012, 07:12 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by tsquare
No.. we really don't have pay banding.
Originally Posted by tsquare
Not in any appreciable amount anyway.
Originally Posted by tsquare
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.
Originally Posted by tsquare
Other than that, we have 34 airplanes banded.. 
Carl
03-02-2012, 07:15 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Hey, has anyone received his profit sharing check yet?
03-02-2012, 07:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 7ERB
Posts: 2,039
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Sorry. Mea Culpa.
Carl
Carl
I like them a little thicker. Do you have any with curves. This one is too skinny for my taste
TEN
03-02-2012, 07:21 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by tsquare
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.
Originally Posted by tsquare
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.
Carl
03-02-2012, 07:22 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 7ERB
Posts: 2,039
PAY BANDING:
I remember reading a statement regarding staffing and pay banding. Does pay banding reduce manning needs?
I am ok with pay banding as long as it does not effect our manning in a negative way. If it reduces our head count, forget about it.(I would rather fly domestic when I am 70)
TEN
I remember reading a statement regarding staffing and pay banding. Does pay banding reduce manning needs?
I am ok with pay banding as long as it does not effect our manning in a negative way. If it reduces our head count, forget about it.(I would rather fly domestic when I am 70
) TEN
03-02-2012, 07:25 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 432
Just wanted to vent somewhere, so here it is... &*#^$* scheduling called me twice in the middle of the night! Is that against our contract at all? They called me at 2:15 am from a restricted number and left a voicemail, and again at 6 am from the normal number and left a voicemail for a trip that starts at 3:15. That is so inappropriate to wake me up twice in the middle of the night for something I wasn't contractually required to acknowledge until noon! Argh....
03-02-2012, 07:27 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 7ERB
Posts: 2,039
Originally Posted by Brocc15
Just wanted to vent somewhere, so here it is... &*#^$* scheduling called me twice in the middle of the night! Is that against our contract at all? They called me at 2:15 am from a restricted number and left a voicemail, and again at 6 am from the normal number and left a voicemail for a trip that starts at 3:15. That is so inappropriate to wake me up twice in the middle of the night for something I wasn't contractually required to acknowledge until noon! Argh....
Inverse assignment, maybe?
Ten
03-02-2012, 07:30 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
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.
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
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
Second paragraph. If management buys more widebodies simply because of our payrates, then we have no argument that our pay does little to affect the bottom line of the business more than we or management will acknowledge. (I am basing this on the fact that I have read many many many times that "we could work for free and it wouldn't save the company", blah blah blah) And if they buy more widebodies because our payrates are lower, then that's a good thing, because they will STILL be paid at the top of the food chain... I say, bring 'em on. But you are still holding onto the old way of thinking... The 707 was a replacement for DC-6s and other prop driven airplanes.. Hardly a germane argument to this discussion.
03-02-2012, 07:31 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
you cannot defend a position whereby you want pay that is NOT based upon your productivity to the company. Ultimately, that argument is always a loser.
Carl
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
