Neil Peart, not Geddy.

Yep. Neil writes it; Geddy just sings it.

You're correct, the upcoming training bubble is unmanageable. Every time a 777A or 747A retires, it drives 7-9 initial training (IQ) events, often referred to as the waterfall effect. The average DL IQ footprint is about 27 days. when 600+ folks retire in a given year, it's clearly unsustainable.

I would respectfully disagree about your position on pay banding. It's not a concession if the rate is right. Pay banding is but one method to discourage training churn. I personally like the UPS model, as long as the rate is set high enough. At DL, I think it would have to be somewhere around the 765/330 rate. If that were put to a vote of the membership, i suspect it would pass by a wide margin.

As you said, seat locks are another method to reduce the churn.

Why not incentivize the seat lock (similar to the training bypass model) The company could offer, or a pilot could proffer to extend (or enact) a seat lock in a given seat that he/she is current and qualified in, in exchange said pilot would be pay protected for what ever seat he/she could hold on the most recent AE, for the duration of the agreement.

This method is effectively pay banding... (as the junior (B) guy on the 765 is a 2015 hire...)

Said seat lock agreements should/could be extended by mutual consent in 1-2 year increments... it pay protects a pilot for what he/she can hold and keeps him/her out of the training center, unless he/she wants to actually change fleets for lifestyle, not $. It puts the pilot in control of his/her destiny, and it gives the company some additional predictability about training, at a cost.

Pay banding could reduce the # of pilots required, and that's not necessarily good, I think we agree on that. Green slips reduce the # of pilots required also... Ask any 717B right now...

I'll stand by to be corrected.

I have yet to vote yes for a TA yet. I really am a permanent no vote. It's not because I want to be. It's because we actually suck at negotiating. Sometimes not doing anything is the right move.

This is a negotiation, not the ending of WWII on the deck of the Missouri. I expect that to agree to a TA, management will need something in their favor. I don't like it, and I hope that I'm wrong, but my guess is unless we give on something we won't have a TA for 3-4 years. Who knows, based on the hard line the company is publicly taking that might be our best option. I strongly believe that as long as the stock price remains good and we keep racking up favorable JD Power statistics management won't care if they have to do a lot of training or pay 2nd junior FOs premium pay -- it's cheap compared to what a good TA will cost. Until we can legally pursue action which will damage the bottom line, management can afford to wait.

Outside of an astronomical figure that the company would never agree to, for me scope is untouchable. I will vote against anything that gives breathing room on the JV side, or adds a single 76 seat jet to DCI.

The JV is a no-brainer for just about everybody on the property: wide body flying with DAL pilots and planes good; Air France, Virgin Atlantic, etc, etc, bad!!! The flip side isn't as easy to see but it's just as significant. Although we're busy, the right seat of the 717 is an incredible place to be right now. The last guy on the seniority list has significant earning opportunities as well as chances to have pretty good control over their schedule. Management can blather about how they're fixing the problem, but my guess is this will continue for a LONG time (perhaps at some reduced level of chaos). By the time they get the bottom under control the top will start retiring which will keep the bottom in a state of perpetual churn. The way they can fix this problem is more 76 seat jets at DCI. Giving up 76 seat scope would be a very short sighted move and history has proven that in negotiations the company plays chess while ALPA plays tiddly-winks. I'd rather wait and negotiate for the long game.

I hope our NC proves me wrong and the company capitulates and signs our original counter.

I'm with sabredriver. Let's get out of the pay by plane and if your fortunate or not enough to live in Atlanta to have all the airplanes on the property. Think out side the alpha box and pay by longevity. Never worry about if you can't move up or if you fall down you still get payed the same, and as you accrue years of service you get raises.

3 rates like UAL. Small, medium and large.

Establishing pay banding in and of itself is going to precipitate tremendous training churn at a time when the capacity is least able to handle it.

Decoupling pay from productivity is a bad idea. But if that is the way this group decides to go there is a much more beneficial strategy for management and the pilot group.

Longevity based pay. The aircraft pay formula is simply tossed. And a pilot is compensated on years of service alone.

Sucks for the 2015 765B.......but hey, its great for me! :D

There are a lot of ways to skin this cat. Pay banding is a fundamental and permanent change, to a temporary problem. And solving temporary problems with permanent solutions is how more often than not we have screwed ourselves.

^^^^^What he said!^^^^^^

I'm not sure switching to longevity pay (which I believe I would support) would result in any less training churn than pay banding, and it might even generate more. I'm sure it would cost jobs too.

What would solve all training and manning problems (without costing jobs) is boosting hiring and buying more simulators. Those costs would be significant, but they'd be pennies on the dollar compared to stock buy-backs.

By adding yet another fleet to our mix, management has shown they don't mind increasing training inefficiencies - I'm not sure why we now feel any obligation to fix a problem they have exacerbated.