I dont, not at all.

Gotta admit....its a strategy that has worked pretty well for the management at this airline. 'create' problems, that then get dropped in front of as group with a vested interest in keeping the operation running to 'solve'.

BRILLIANT!

Management runs into the crowded theater and screams FIRE!!.....and a couple thousand pilots head for the retirement door.......oh no....we cant move the metal, help us alpa!....

Hey, I know....lets let these pilots 'retire'.....take the lump and deplete the trust to entirely unsustainable levels, and then....LET THEM KEEP WORKING.....GS and all! Yeah, thats the ticket.

seems we would have learned that lesson by now. I am not in favor of longevity pay or any other 'solution' that would decouple pay and productivity. Management has been aware of, created, and as correctly pointed out....AGGREVATED the demographic reality we are facing.

That said...I am NOT opposed to constructive solutions that DO NOT permanently alter our baseline PWA. Relief? sure. Sunset/snapback on that relief? ABSOLUTELY.

upcharges IRT compensation for that relief? Ya, youbetcha.

 

P.S......if the understanding is a longevity/seniority based pay model would not allow a pilot to earn above the YOS calculation by simply bidding a larger aircraft.....it is highly unlikely there would be increased training churn.

such a compensation model would in large measure....turn us into SWA.

There would be some churn resulting from the reordering of standing in category and domicile for non-compensation priorities.....but management would have complete control over the pace of this via the AE process.

 

The B717CS100 are not solely MD88 replacements. The 717 has taken some 88 flying but much of their flying is covering 76 RJs. The CS100 will initially establish new routes out of SEA to take on Alaska.

 

Almost a year since the TA was rejected and what is happening?

The 717 in NYC and ATL can not cover the flight schedule. Almost every trip is covered with a GS or GSWC. 737s starting to pick up 717 flying.

Could this be the beginning of the very rapidly increasing training churn? Will it spread to the 88s other NB B positions shortly? What about when heavy guys start retiring in very large numbers from the A side of the house?

The company thought we would be almost 1 year into C2015 by now - hard to say how much more efficient the company would have been under C2015 but either way I bet the company did not plan on being where we are now.

It will not be easy but we do have leverage.


Scoop

 

I'm against pay banding. It's concessionary, the company doesn't want it, and I don't want negotiating capital spent to get it.

 

I can't buy the first line. Why would establishing banding precipitate training churn? I'm thinking longevity pay would precipitate many more moves. I dunno, I'd like to see the rates simplified and I don't see how small, medium, large decouples pay/productivity... ok, a little bit. It seems the entire industry is going to this model. I for one think it would be a reasonable change. I also don't think the training problem is temporary. OFG

 

fundamentally, and permanently altering the compensation template is going to reorder and probably alter the seat bidding strategy for a large number of pilots.

understand pay banding is simply the first step in managements ultimate move to decouple pay and productivity. If I remember nothing else from reading Flying the Line....its that.....and what a mortal error it would be as pilots to allow this to happen.

management does in fact want banding, because it is the likely portal leading ultimately to some form of a 'simplified' A/B pay rate with a longevity increment that completely uncouples the pay rate from productivity.

once that is accomplished.....its a matter of then negotiating down the step of each increment, and at what point the peak increment is achieved.

its a lot less challenging for management to negotiate a SUBJECTIVELY VALUED single pay template for the entire group....than relative pay rates based on technical formulas for half a dozen or more aircraft types.

inevitably, and at a minimum.....this single pay template and subjective value model will sacrifice equity at the margins to satisfy some agreeable median.

You are in effect then a salary employee. And measurable productivity is no longer a factor in your compensation.

There are plenty of solutions to the impending generational turnover.

It would be our supreme failure to entertain one that is permanent AND concessionary to what is now in place. If we are going to do anything at all, it should be to engage in temporary solutions for the problem at hand, that may cost MORE....but LESS than what it will cost if we were to do nothing.

 

I'm with you. As far as I understand it all.

 

Did we explain it to management in a way they could sell it to the board?

No to scope, PS, or QOL. (working more, abrogation of seniority, sick leave changes, etc.)

The pilot group doesn't want it, and I don't want negotiating capital spent to get it. (we already have it)

I think pay banding is the wrong answer. Is there still is a technical formula for aircraft performance and capacity? It needs to be public because I don't think there is. If so, then fuel efficiency and range should be a significant part of that formula. That means the arbi, and C-100 are far more useful, and should pay a greater rate than the 717s and the MDs.

I challenge everyone who thinks there is still a technical formula for pay based on performance to post it. I will buy a round for the entire group in attendance at their bases picketing event if it can be applied to our current fleet across the spectrum of aircraft and yield an accurate result within +/- $2 of the current pay table. Good luck.

 

That's management's problem to solve, but even then I don't think they want it either. Changing the pay differential between categories changes the desirability of various categories and therefore pilot behavior on bidding those categories. I think the end result would be more training churn, not less as pilots, in many instances, seek better relative seniority over better pay. This doesn't help us and it doesn't help them, it's a lose lose.

I agree.