Concessions Are Coming
06-02-2016 | 06:33 PM
#211
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
i believe the alpa-alpa integration methodology is settled science.
okay....forget the age....but realize the floated complaint was the existing template 'punishes older hires'.
so he is a 50 yr old, with 5 vears longevity, at a 5 yr old airline. same story.
it doesnt alter the reality relative position on the list impacts every single aspect of employment.
this is a whole lot of itchin, and not much scratchin....and this same conversation was goin on 20 years ago.
none of this is a good idea. but if you want to entertain decoupling pay and productivity, the far more marketable product is seniority pay. that way a pilot gets paid 'more' has less incentive to join the churn, and more to manage qol.
otoh....simply installing an incremental bump in 401 funding by management to incentivize staying in a seat post lock expiration would be enough for many to stay put.
okay....forget the age....but realize the floated complaint was the existing template 'punishes older hires'.
so he is a 50 yr old, with 5 vears longevity, at a 5 yr old airline. same story.
it doesnt alter the reality relative position on the list impacts every single aspect of employment.
this is a whole lot of itchin, and not much scratchin....and this same conversation was goin on 20 years ago.
none of this is a good idea. but if you want to entertain decoupling pay and productivity, the far more marketable product is seniority pay. that way a pilot gets paid 'more' has less incentive to join the churn, and more to manage qol.
otoh....simply installing an incremental bump in 401 funding by management to incentivize staying in a seat post lock expiration would be enough for many to stay put.
06-02-2016 | 06:39 PM
#212
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
From: UAL retired
2 companies. First company in business 40 years and all 747s. Second company all 747s but only in business 5 years. They merge. Category and class means they merge one for one.
But then you have 2 companies and one is a feeder with all A320s and another with all 747s then you add weight to longevity.
Reality is somewhere in between.
06-02-2016 | 06:44 PM
#213
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
That's not quite the way it goes. Category class/some homage to longevity... and other stuff. Each merger is different with the way the SLI plays out depending on the arguments made and the arbiters.
06-02-2016 | 07:16 PM
#214
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
Category and class otherwise known as "stove piping".
2 companies. First company in business 40 years and all 747s. Second company all 747s but only in business 5 years. They merge. Category and class means they merge one for one.
But then you have 2 companies and one is a feeder with all A320s and another with all 747s then you add weight to longevity.
Reality is somewhere in between.
2 companies. First company in business 40 years and all 747s. Second company all 747s but only in business 5 years. They merge. Category and class means they merge one for one.
But then you have 2 companies and one is a feeder with all A320s and another with all 747s then you add weight to longevity.
Reality is somewhere in between.
What is the basis that they typically use to determine categories?
What is the basis we have asked to be used before?
06-03-2016 | 06:04 AM
#215
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,629
Likes: 654
Longevity based pay works well at UPS where most airplanes are similar. The overall rate is essentially a weighted average of the entire fleet. For the same type of system to work at Delta, it would require a lower hourly rate due to the weighted average being brought down by the large percentage of NB positions.
Paying a SNB the same hourly rate as a 777 would drive the CASM up substantially on that aircraft and make the regional model look more attractive option at the low end. Banding similar size aircraft together like FedEx or UCAL does provide for some of the longevity benefits you are talking about and may be a middle ground option for consideration.
The strong bias toward longevity based pay makes me think you are a career NB pilot with no desire for long haul flying, but you want the long haul pay. Am I close? I've done a mix of both and each has it's pros and cons. For many the multiple time zones on the east/west flying or the double redeyes on the deep south flying are the reason they stick with domestic. Perhaps that is why international pays a little more. To each his/her own.
06-03-2016 | 06:17 AM
#216
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,629
Likes: 654
Not sure what you are asking. What I am doing is evaluating the industry in a different way. It is not a boom/bust industry anymore. Well DAL anyway. When was the last time any airline had balance sheets like we have now? You have an example of the advantages right in front of you. Who has this board held up as the gold standard for years and years and years? How has that group gotten to where they are? Now, since DAL is printing money everyone wants to throw their method out the window and swing for the fences yet again. Boom/bust mentality all over. Let's do the same thing and get a different result. Works every time. Couldn't possibly be a different way to achieve our desired results. Nope.
06-03-2016 | 06:26 AM
#217
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,362
Likes: 845
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
Redrawing the rules is my real problem with longevity pay. You start the career with a plan, work until X, relative seniority about Y before bidding a higher paying seat. When you find something you like, then camp out and gain relative seniority. It seems now the argument is: I'm senior so I should get what I want and I don't want to do 14 hr. legs to earn my top of scale rate.
Why should someone junior be forced to do that when the career was laid out so they made the plan to stay relatively senior in a smaller seat for schedule. Now along come a senior short timer who wants to work 1 and 2 days domestic in a SNB. We are essentially rearranging the deck chairs again for the benefit of the senior pilot. Yup, Age 65, 9/11, the great recession, outsourcing WBs... why did I choose this career again? Rant over.
Keep changing the rule book so the players have no shot at getting good at the game. My 7 year old does that quite well. Funny how he always wins and just when it becomes evident that I might win, the rules change.
Why should someone junior be forced to do that when the career was laid out so they made the plan to stay relatively senior in a smaller seat for schedule. Now along come a senior short timer who wants to work 1 and 2 days domestic in a SNB. We are essentially rearranging the deck chairs again for the benefit of the senior pilot. Yup, Age 65, 9/11, the great recession, outsourcing WBs... why did I choose this career again? Rant over.
Keep changing the rule book so the players have no shot at getting good at the game. My 7 year old does that quite well. Funny how he always wins and just when it becomes evident that I might win, the rules change.
06-03-2016 | 06:37 AM
#218
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Redrawing the rules is my real problem with longevity pay. You start the career with a plan, work until X, relative seniority about Y before bidding a higher paying seat. When you find something you like, then camp out and gain relative seniority. It seems now the argument is: I'm senior so I should get what I want and I don't want to do 14 hr. legs to earn my top of scale rate.
Why should someone junior be forced to do that when the career was laid out so they made the plan to stay relatively senior in a smaller seat for schedule. Now along come a senior short timer who wants to work 1 and 2 days domestic in a SNB. We are essentially rearranging the deck chairs again for the benefit of the senior pilot. Yup, Age 65, 9/11, the great recession, outsourcing WBs... why did I choose this career again? Rant over.
Keep changing the rule book so the players have no shot at getting good at the game. My 7 year old does that quite well. Funny how he always wins and just when it becomes evident that I might win, the rules change.
Why should someone junior be forced to do that when the career was laid out so they made the plan to stay relatively senior in a smaller seat for schedule. Now along come a senior short timer who wants to work 1 and 2 days domestic in a SNB. We are essentially rearranging the deck chairs again for the benefit of the senior pilot. Yup, Age 65, 9/11, the great recession, outsourcing WBs... why did I choose this career again? Rant over.
Keep changing the rule book so the players have no shot at getting good at the game. My 7 year old does that quite well. Funny how he always wins and just when it becomes evident that I might win, the rules change.
I believe it's ok to a limited extent (777/747, 330,765). I also think all equipment in a category ought to be banded to the higher rate. We did it with the 757/767, and the MD88/90. I'd be ok if we did it with the 737-700/800/900, and the A319/20/21. Although that's not on the top of my list.
06-03-2016 | 10:56 AM
#220
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,265
Likes: 112
From: DAL 330
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
