And longevity pay wouldnt?

your claim of 'punishment' is ridiculous...and assumes the younger and older hire enter delta employment from similar economic circumstances.

a retired O-6 with a retirement check and Tricare in hand, with perhaps as much as 20 years of Delta employment ahead, is likely to end up far better off financially than a 34 year old who has been slogging it out at the regionals.

Its that old theory of relativity thingy.

Nevermind the older guys are likely to have far less demands (or desires :)) to hang around the house and therefore can fly the crap out of their schedules.....

ummm....or are we supposed to somehow adopt a compensation template that will rectify what did or didn't happen, economically speaking, in a pilots life before delta?

No it wouldn't. You would be able to choose QOL over having to prostitute yourself simply for the money. You wouldn't have to suck hind tit and be junior on the most senior piece of equipment just to make extra money. Now you MUST choose one or the other. ESPECIALLY since we only have a fraction of the highest paying equipment, and half of that is going away. Compare and contrast to UAL and AAL. We will ALWAYS lose the battle of career earnings versus them as long as corporate philosophy remains the way it is regarding big iron. Especially now with consolidation being in the mature phase.

All that being said I know it isn't going to change because there is something sexy about the way it is now.:rolleyes:

A complete misinterpretation of my opinion. ^^^^ Those assumptions are yours and not mine at all.

Not seeing it. We have longevity pay now thru 12 years. How does the older newhire gain his quality of life when he still is junior under straight longevity pay?

What airplane will he fly?

What will his seniority be 1 month or 8 years in compared to a 30 year guy?

From where does his newfound quality of life sprout?

Agreed. Pure longevity pay works at UPS because the smallest airplane they have is a 757 which makes up less than a third of the fleet. Two thirds of the UPS fleet are widebody airplanes. At FedEx the widebodies are banded together and the narrowbody (757) which slightly more that a fifth of the fleet is broken out separately. We could effectively cover the Delta fleet in 3 bands.

• 7ER-747 as a widebody

• 757, 737-8, 737-9 and 321 as large NB

• 737-7, 320, 319, M88, 717, C Series

Items that reduce training churn do save the company money and are therefore viewed by many as a concession. Spending less time on Virginia Avenue is a QOL improvement in my book. You can move from the bottom pay rate to the top rate in only one training upgrade. Notice how the middle band doesn't require any training, it is a subset of top and bottom tier airplanes. I know some are against anything that creates efficiency, but we are employed by a for profit organization, not a public works jobs program. Although pilots flying the line vs sitting in training does "cost jobs" do you really want to spend your career in the training center for 8 small raises vs once or twice for large raises?

If you start talking about efficiency that hurts QOL like pay no credit for vacation, fuggedaboutit.

They payscales should go theoretically 42 years. Not 12. that has never made any sense. Actually it should be a percentage raise for every year you are on the property. The newhire gains his QOL by continuing to convert O2 to CO2. With every year he gets more money, and he gets to choose whatever airplane suits his lifestyle the best. His "seniority" will be relative to the hiring rate of the company. Right now, they guys being hired today are going to have careers you and I only dreamed about. We have a window to fix the retardation we have now where the downside will not even be noticed. If this was industry standard, mergers would be a snap. This is the only thing (aside from jumpseat) we do that is NOT seniority driven. Why?


So let me ask you this: Would you still fly the 777 if you could get paid the same $$ for flying something that would allow you to be home every night or go to better destinations? If not, then the only conclusion is that you have big shiny jet syndrome (or a girlfriend in NRT :D). I have heard countless guys say they would fly a C172 if it paid enough. Well, I would like to see them prove that.

Hey JB....life is about choices. You allege the 'older' hire is punished in relation to a younger hire under our current compensation model....that is a pretty unambiguous claim.

ALL pilots live under the same employment contract. Old, young, tall, short, skinny, rotund, and yes....even boys and girls. To articulate the claim of elder abuse in this reality, would require some level or sense of age relevant entitlement.

Each pilot has the equal opportunity to blend the mix of QOL and direct compensation as they best determine under that employment contract.

Sounds like you want your cake, and eat it too. Most of us had ideal employment scenarios, but hey...you go to the dance with the one that said "yes".....and life at delta is what it is. and while I would agree a lot of it has sucked as a direct result of the incompetent representation responsible for adverse conditions in our PWA's.......elder abuse is not one of the standouts in that history.

Its just a wild guess on my part, but I suppose even those damn younger pilots would like to have QOL and money too.

Come back into the light. You have completely mischaracterized my argument. Perhaps 'tis you that has an agenda?

Okay....if as you claim our present compensation methodology punishes 'older' hires....than can we assume you also maintain it 'rewards' younger hires?

Or is everyone getting screwed?

And given your 42 year longevity model were in place, could not a 50 year old new hire, with only 15 years of incremental adjustments before retirement make the same argument you are now articulating?

That it is a compensation model that 'punishes' older hires?