Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1144444)

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.

I've always hated that type of argument as well, and it's not my argument now. It is just a recitation of history and how we got here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1144444)

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.

OK, I'm glad you don't disagree with that portion of our history. But while it made sense for management to want it back then, it made much more sense for ALPA to fight for productivity based pay...and we ultimately won that argument. We won it (in my view) because 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

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 :D)

TEN

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....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brocc15 (Post 1144461)

Where u on long-call, short-call, line holder? If Im not on call, my phone is off. Delta only has one number for me too. What is the scenario?

Inverse assignment, maybe?

Ten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1144443)

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

Again, you are assuming that they would replace something like a bunch of -88s with a 747. And you even contradict yourself by saying that management could do that, but passengers want more frequency. They will book away if we only have one flight/day and another carrier has 5 or 6.. so that productivity is lost.. doesn't make business sense to upgauge for that reason.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1144457)

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

PLEASE.. explain this to me.. I still do not get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LIOG41 (Post 1144441)

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!

8:30am flight has 10 open in first & 15 open in the back for 25 open seats. There are 15 total non revs to include 2 buddy pass riders.

9:49am flight has 6 open in first & 15 open in the back for 21 open seats. 2 non revs listed to include 1 buddy pass rider.

Looks like you should make both flights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1144451)

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

And continuing the weakening theme:

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.

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

757/767 is a common cockpit, therefore I don't see that as "banded" JMHO. that leaves the 747/777.. a whopping 3% of the fleet...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1144444)

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?

Because management isn't the one blamed for THEIR decisions on how to schedule and what airframes to buy. Unions are the ones who get blamed for being afraid of productivity. It's a patently unfair characterization, but it's the truth of how unions are portrayed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1144444)

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.

Absolutely correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1144444)

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?

But we do have control over our scheduling. Our cave in on scheduling rules (both fNW and fDL) is the "control" we gave away. I remember being in a meeting in NRT when a pilot asked some management puke why we do these 3 and 4 hour sit arounds. The management puke responded: "Because your contract allows me to."

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1144444)

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.

I AM a proponent of it for my own personal situation. That would be best for me from a QOL basis. The argument is whether we really want to go down this road where WE will again be tarnished with the stain of being "afraid to be productive". Add to that my concern that it may incentivize management to buy bigger and bigger airplanes...which would require fewer and fewer pilots, and that really makes me concerned.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brocc15 (Post 1144461)

I'm fairly certain they can only call you once, after that it's an interruption of rest.