E195 pay rate
10-09-2015, 12:20 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,027
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
The question about the E190 pay rate should focus on if it's an MD-88 replacement.
Standby for sailing to explode in 3... 2...
Standby for sailing to explode in 3... 2...
10-09-2015, 12:22 PM
#22
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by cocknbull
Are you suggesting that the E190/E195 rates are a B scale? To my knowledge we do not operate those aircraft with two separate rates. I think the TA had the same rate regardless of what Delta pilot flew them.
10-09-2015, 12:25 PM
#23
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,868
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
I don't think they're B scale but the proper way to look at it is think yourself a 717A or B in LAX. The plan was to take the 717s out of Lax and send them east and use the 190s out there. See it from their perspective, what's the hourly cut for the same flying?
As a future 717A in LAX I am glad you pointed this out.
Scoop
10-09-2015, 12:28 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: A320 Left seat
Posts: 2,580
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Not possible, we were assured on the forum the E190's were bought and coming no matter what!
What you are thinking of is guys said " We don't buy aircraft. We fly them. It's not our job to make fleet decisions or vote on crappy TA's to help management buy E190's.
10-09-2015, 12:42 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,027
Originally Posted by Scoop
As a future 717A in LAX I am glad you pointed this out.
Scoop
Scoop
Embraer E195-E2 vs Boeing 717-200 - Airplanes Comparison
E195 should pay between the 320 and the 717. Lets call that reference point 88. The E195 should pay about the midpoint based on range and speed, whatever that number (reference point 88) might be. If you want to add a common fleet type like the E190 then it should pay the same.
Remember the E195 is not an MD88 replacement, however the pay should be at reference point 88. The aircraft common to that fleet should pay the same.
So if this argument isn't valid then why would an argument for a rate less than the 717 be valid? We can negotiate all day for airplanes we don't operate, which one next? A321?
10-09-2015, 01:08 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
Posts: 1,898
The days of the 50-70 seat RJ are drawing to a close. The industry is trying to hang on to the cost savings they realized when they replaced our mainline 737 classics, DC-9's, BAE 146's and F-100's with entry level outsourced pilots and cheap lease deals from the manufacturers.
It's inevitable that we will see mainline aircraft from Bombardier and or Embraer. We can get them sooner, for less pay, or we can hold out for more pay--which we will get. The question isn't if, it's when. They only have a couple more cards to play but eventually the shell game with used aircraft and hanging on to old airframes for a bit longer will play itself out. Eventually you've got to buy aircraft that fit the mission and can be put to profitable service.
In the meantime, sit back, relax, and enjoy the show. The solution to the 'problem' is going to cost someone. I'm not willing to write that check. Is anyone else?
It's inevitable that we will see mainline aircraft from Bombardier and or Embraer. We can get them sooner, for less pay, or we can hold out for more pay--which we will get. The question isn't if, it's when. They only have a couple more cards to play but eventually the shell game with used aircraft and hanging on to old airframes for a bit longer will play itself out. Eventually you've got to buy aircraft that fit the mission and can be put to profitable service.
In the meantime, sit back, relax, and enjoy the show. The solution to the 'problem' is going to cost someone. I'm not willing to write that check. Is anyone else?
10-09-2015, 01:45 PM
#28
Otto
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Position: Turkish Pile Driver
Posts: 1,806
I would bid the 195 if it paid what the 717 paid. Much less and I wouldn't be interested. Those NYC 717 captains are all basically LCAs without LCA pay with the constant string of new hires that don't know WteeF they're doing showing up on a daily basis. Since most are on probation throw in the evaluation they have to write after every trip for an additional kick in the balls. Lots of legs, lots of busy and nonstandard airports, lots of opportunities to meet the chief pilot. The 195 wouldn't be any different, it should pay like every other DAL captain's job, not 5% better than our closest competitor's bankruptcy contract rate.
10-09-2015, 01:50 PM
#29
On Reserve
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by notEnuf
We don't pay band here at DALPA so the rate should be the same as an equivalent size airframe. Unless it has greater range and speed, think 88 vs 320. The 320 pays more and by that logic the E195 should pay more than the 717 so...
Embraer E195-E2 vs Boeing 717-200 - Airplanes Comparison
E195 should pay between the 320 and the 717. Lets call that reference point 88. The E195 should pay about the midpoint based on range and speed, whatever that number (reference point 88) might be. If you want to add a common fleet type like the E190 then it should pay the same.
Remember the E195 is not an MD88 replacement, however the pay should be at reference point 88. The aircraft common to that fleet should pay the same.
So if this argument isn't valid then why would an argument for a rate less than the 717 be valid? We can negotiate all day for airplanes we don't operate, which one next? A321?
Embraer E195-E2 vs Boeing 717-200 - Airplanes Comparison
E195 should pay between the 320 and the 717. Lets call that reference point 88. The E195 should pay about the midpoint based on range and speed, whatever that number (reference point 88) might be. If you want to add a common fleet type like the E190 then it should pay the same.
Remember the E195 is not an MD88 replacement, however the pay should be at reference point 88. The aircraft common to that fleet should pay the same.
So if this argument isn't valid then why would an argument for a rate less than the 717 be valid? We can negotiate all day for airplanes we don't operate, which one next? A321?
I think it is pretty myopic of people to call it a B scale and a concession. It is even more myopic to forget the past. Last time this happened we ended up giving the planes to sub contractors and subsequently we were whip-sawed against those very pilots.
I'm not saying it is a reason to vote for a TA but it most certainly is not a reason to vote against it.
10-09-2015, 02:30 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,027
Originally Posted by cocknbull
I'm not saying I don't agree with you but I'm not sure it is all about range, seats, and speed. I think mission and hourly pilot costs at the competition are a factor as well.
I think it is pretty myopic of people to call it a B scale and a concession. It is even more myopic to forget the past. Last time this happened we ended up giving the planes to sub contractors and subsequently we were whip-sawed against those very pilots.
I'm not saying it is a reason to vote for a TA but it most certainly is not a reason to vote against it.
I think it is pretty myopic of people to call it a B scale and a concession. It is even more myopic to forget the past. Last time this happened we ended up giving the planes to sub contractors and subsequently we were whip-sawed against those very pilots.
I'm not saying it is a reason to vote for a TA but it most certainly is not a reason to vote against it.
As for the formula, we don't have a formula and haven't for a long time. The JCBA, our baseline for type specific pay, was a huge WAG. To link it to completion is to start the race to the bottom. The aircraft does what it does and it does more than a 717 by a long shot.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
