Concessions Are Coming
05-29-2016 | 06:56 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 1
Management is facing a training churn in the coming years that will perhaps be unmanageable.
The argument for pay banding is it mitigates the economic incentive to bidding similar seat positions for incremental bumps. Its a concession on our part, and a bad idea.
Pay protecting, for some period of time, those senior to a junior bidder.....limited by category, or base, or as training limits/capacities dictate would provide an equally effective mitigation to biding seat position for an incremental bump in pay... and limit flooding the training pipeline.
Of course that solution would not be concessionary..... for us at least.
The argument for pay banding is it mitigates the economic incentive to bidding similar seat positions for incremental bumps. Its a concession on our part, and a bad idea.
Pay protecting, for some period of time, those senior to a junior bidder.....limited by category, or base, or as training limits/capacities dictate would provide an equally effective mitigation to biding seat position for an incremental bump in pay... and limit flooding the training pipeline.
Of course that solution would not be concessionary..... for us at least.
05-29-2016 | 07:09 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 7,292
Likes: 0
From: A350 Both
Management is facing a training churn in the coming years that will perhaps be unmanageable.
The argument for pay banding is it mitigates the economic incentive to bidding similar seat positions for incremental bumps. Its a concession on our part, and a bad idea.
Pay protecting, for some period of time, those senior to a junior bidder.....limited by category, or base, or as training limits/capacities dictate would provide an equally effective mitigation to biding seat position for an incremental bump in pay... and limit flooding the training pipeline.
Of course that solution would not be concessionary..... for us at least.
The argument for pay banding is it mitigates the economic incentive to bidding similar seat positions for incremental bumps. Its a concession on our part, and a bad idea.
Pay protecting, for some period of time, those senior to a junior bidder.....limited by category, or base, or as training limits/capacities dictate would provide an equally effective mitigation to biding seat position for an incremental bump in pay... and limit flooding the training pipeline.
Of course that solution would not be concessionary..... for us at least.
05-29-2016 | 07:09 AM
#23
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Two 76 seat RJ's have roughly the same capacity, (but more frequencies and a LOT more high-yielding first class seats) as a single 717 or 319. Three 76 seat RJ's will replace 737's, MD-80's and 320's and Delta will gain 3 times the frequency plus 24 additional first class seats.
Yes the DCI model (as it currently exists) IS failed. But that doesn't mean that they can't tweak it a bit and make it work again, IF YOU LET THEM.... at the cost of mainline jobs. They'll take as much as you'll let them have.
Last edited by Slick111; 05-29-2016 at 07:38 AM.
05-29-2016 | 07:13 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 7,292
Likes: 0
From: A350 Both
I think the point you're missing is this: If you relax scope on 76 seat RJs, they'll park the 50 seaters and they can use two 76 seat crews to get the same production as three 50 seat crews. Thus fewer RJ pilots will be needed. Then they'll use those 76 seaters to replace A319's, A320's, 71's and 73's.
Two 76 seat RJ's have roughly the same capacity, (but more frequencies and a LOT more high-yielding first class seats) as a single 717 or 319. Three 76 seat RJ's will place 737's and 320's and Delta will gain 3 times the frequency plus 24 additional first class seats.
Yes the DCI model (as it currently exists) IS failed. But that doesn't mean that they can't tweek it a bit and make it work again, IF YOU LET THEM.... at the cost of mainline jobs!
Two 76 seat RJ's have roughly the same capacity, (but more frequencies and a LOT more high-yielding first class seats) as a single 717 or 319. Three 76 seat RJ's will place 737's and 320's and Delta will gain 3 times the frequency plus 24 additional first class seats.
Yes the DCI model (as it currently exists) IS failed. But that doesn't mean that they can't tweek it a bit and make it work again, IF YOU LET THEM.... at the cost of mainline jobs!
05-29-2016 | 07:22 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 7,292
Likes: 0
From: A350 Both
05-29-2016 | 07:35 AM
#27
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,364
Likes: 846
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
05-29-2016 | 07:37 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 38
05-29-2016 | 07:45 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,605
Likes: 12
From: A320 Left seat
I disagree. Their model is fixable with new large jets which bring in the revenue to increase pay for pilots. Frontier, Allegiant, SkyWest and even Endeavor are doing fine for now.
Their model is mostly broken only if we hold the line. Let us give them Delta jobs.
Not a throwaway item; more valuable to us than the company.
Their model is mostly broken only if we hold the line. Let us give them Delta jobs.
Not a throwaway item; more valuable to us than the company.
I agree with everything you said, I think 007 was referring to Jerry's bullet point about no more 76 seaters for DCI.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
