As someone on the outside looking in, THIS!

Tack on rates for the 700/170/175 while you're at it.....

Everything else is still conjecture on your part. You might be right, you might be wrong. I STILL.. for the third time now.. am asking for empirical data instead of your opinion. This is a golden opportunity for you. I truly have no opinion on this, and if you can convince me, you might have another ally. If not... well... It's up to you.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Great post Denny.

It would eliminate some training. Since we are already partially pay banded the overall effect would be small.

Actually, I would agree that there is a nice continuation of training that would occur. But as a line flying LCP, I can safely say that there would be a fair amount of us that have ZERO interest in working the box. I do not do this job for the money. Some do. I have no qualms with that. But that being said, you would have to pay me a heluva lot more to fly the box.

That makes sense. Since we did not lose the LCA positions the net effect was probably about 225 CA positions offset to some extent by adding a CA on the over 12 flights and the higher Delta staffing formula.

Denny, I'll use the two extreme scenarios to illustrate how these events can multiply.

Scenario 1: 9 different fleets, with 9 different, ascending pay rates, zero pay bands:

1000 of the most senior pilots retire off the highest paying equipment, requiring 1000 training events to fill their spots, all 1000 pilots bidding those slots come from the next lower paying equipment, who all bid up, requiring another 1000 pilots to fill their seats, all the way down the list, through 9 categories, eventually requiring 9000 training events, and 1000 new hires.

Scenario 2: (1 big pay band, ala UPS)

The same 1000 most senior pilots retire, but only 1000 pilots are needed to fill those spots, all new hires, because nobody else is going to "move up" and go to school for a higher paying seat, since all seats pay the same.

Net result: 8000 fewer training events. 8000 fewer pilots tied up in school for a month. 8000 fewer pilots needed to fly that month. Zero greenslips required to fly that month.


What we have today is somewhere in the middle, and the company would LOVE to drive that towards one big pay band. Net result, fewer pilots needed every time one retires. It's the ultimate concession (other than giving away our retirements!) and the company would LOVE it!

Thanks Timbo. That's an extreme situation but I see what you're getting at. I'll agree there would be fewer training slots but in the end, there are the same amount of pilots with 1000 new hires.

Yes, there might be fewer training positions but, at this point, I think it would be a question of not having to expand the training department by more rather than cutting back on current positions. No active pilot flying positions would be eliminated so, to me, it just looks like the amount of training department positions might be affected.

However, "I now see." said the blind man!:)

Denny

Edit: Okay, I re-read your post. I see what you mean with fewer pilots being in school means more flying the line and less over all needed. I can see that. Probably not to the extreme lengths being talked about here.

On the South Side, we got to see it 'for real' twice already.

Our POS 96 contract allowed the top 500 pilots (505 actually, some MEC guys slid in!) to retire early with no penalty. Almost all of them came off the top equipment. Some were 'held back' due to them being LCA's on that equipment, they were given retirement dates, but they stayed on to train up their replacements. Some were held back up to 9 mo. The guy who gave me my IOE on the MD11 in '96 was held back 9mo, and he was on an 11 day, 65hr. greenslip when I flew with him. That was about $30K, one 11 day trip. He did buy my beer.

BUT... their departure created a huge volume of training, and hiring, as everyone left behind basically took a bid upward to fill their shoes. I heard something like 3,500 training events were triggered. And Delta had to recall the furloughed pilots, and hire a bunch more.

Then, once more, in 2002-04, as Delta started losing millions, the senior guys could see the writing on the wall, and they started bailing out early, to protect their earned retirements. Again, the company was hard pressed to train up their replacements.

So they came up with a program called PRP. Post Retirement Pilots. We called them Perps. As in Perpetrators.

These guys were mostly LCA's on senior equipment who were needed to check out all the upgrades. BUT, they were unofficially 'retired' while also flying Greenslips to do all the IOE's! Some of these guys were flying 120/mo, most of it on GS pay! :eek:

I was checking out as an ER Capt. at the time (2004), and my LCA was a Perp, pushing me to "HURRY UP" to get back to ATL (all-nighter from Sao Paulo) EARLY, so he could catch an earlier flight up to JFK, get a nap, and do another IOE on another GS, to Europe, later that same day!! :rolleyes:

Point is, the more pay bands we have, the more movement and thus training events are created every time one senior guy leaves.

But the company will be able to cover it just fine, that's what Greenslips are for, and there is no shortage of PERPS if it comes to that, but if we give them pay banding, well, it will no doubt reduce the number of pilots required in each category to fly the schedule every time one guy retires.

If all the categories paid the same, why would you "bid up"?

You wouldn't.

That's what the company wants.

With guys like you and Carl on the equipment, there is no room for any of the rest of us. No insult intended Timbo, but you are young and at the top of the hill. As long as DAL has only a few of the biggest equipment, and there are 12,000 of us, there is a huge number that will never be able to hold that equipment for any length of time. Damn right I wouldn't bid up. I might even "down"bid to the fluff so that I could have an even better QOL. Why should my QOL have to suffer in order to fly to SYD rather than doing ATL turns? Quality... of... Life. I still wonder why it's importance got put on a backburner... The advantage of being able to enjoy seniority and wait to fly a single sucky year went away with our DB retirement plans. Now... when the vast majority of us will be able to hold that equipment, it will be too late to do anything meaningful towards your retirement. Bad QOL and no money to show for it in retirement. At least I can hope for age 67. Yup.. Great idea.