Ok, help me understand your posts here. The first post insinuates no growth (I think), then the next post says we're growing?

Also, I take issue with your logic in the second quoted post. You want to rush to introduce what looks like a mechanism for stagnation (longevity system) while we are hiring. Essentially, you are suggesting we trick the new hires into trapping themselves into a company with ZERO growth at the top and a newly adopted longevity system that would screw them even more WRT QOL. "Welcome to Delta, you may get pay raises but expect your QOL to suck for the rest of your career".

Was this longevity idea introduced by the company, DALPA, or just you?

 

It comes down to a simple question: Do you want more money or do you want to fly a big shiny jet? Under the current and any future pay schemes, we will still only have 18 777s. Your likelihood is slim of flying them with ANY QOL unless you got hired like Timbo at 14 years old. So why do we still double down on this scheme? Again and again, and wonder why our career earnings are less than UAL or AAL. Maybe you haven't done the math yet. I urge you to do so.

So let's look at the newly minted UPS agreement. If our 76ER Captains get the rates that UPS got (+ some percentage), how much will 2x4(330) and 777 drivers be getting above that? It is somewhat rhetorical. BTW, I said way before TA15 when I saw the contract comparisons come out that the UPS 76-300 payrates were the baseline at THAT time.

When it comes to stagnation, I really don't understand why everyone has their panties in such a bunch. We are hiring 1000/year, and soon will be retiring 800/year. Stagnation is not a factor. If we made a change to the pay scheme now, instead of waiting until 10 years from now, and perception of stagnation will not be noticed.

This is a completely rhetorical discussion, because I know that the vast majority of guys want the biggest airplanes to pay a lot. hmpf. At least we have 18. This is completely my idea, but I highly doubt it if it is all that unique. Our career earnings will never match that of UAL or AAL based on metal alone because we will never have as much big metal as they do. Ask yourself this as well. Why does the payscale stop at 12 years? What is magical about that?


Change is scary.

Edit: The first post meant that we currently have growth, and in the event we didn't there would be no difference in the two schemes. iow, stagnation is stagnation.

 

What alpa could get through congress is the requirement surviving corporations with pensions shed to the pbgc must backstop the pbgc benefit levels established at plan termination.

That way when the pbgc restructures and reduces benefit levels plan beneficiaries are made whole.

 

The reason we will not approach the UAL/AA wide body count is that we have done a lousy job negotiating and enforcing scope. DALPA has even gone so far as giving away scope in the past, VAustralia LOA is a prime example. So in my mind, you are solving the company's problem for them with your idea. To answer your question, I want both - money and shiny new jets (not literally, but the flying that they would do) because they are both represented in major parts or our contract.

To your point about stagnation not being a factor, it absolutely is a factor when all the "growth" is at the bottom. Many have already pointed this out - life is great if you're a new hire. Not so much if you're mid seniority. Yes, retirements are coming in larger numbers but our future wide body growth, or lack thereof, will stifle the real progression that would happen if we had solid wide body scope.

Your question about the pay scale stopping at 12 years is a good and valid question. I think the scale should extend past 12 years within our current equipment based rates.

Change most definitely is scary when there are harmful unintended consequences waiting to bite the folks holding the bag when you are long gone.

 

I know I am going to regret this: Do you think we can put that genie back in the bottle without significant cost? We can just say no. I know. But that doesn't solve the problem. And it is OUR problem, not the company's. A banded/longevity scheme makes them pay more for smaller airplanes. (Standing by for the inevitable - but the 767 pays 757 rates - argument )

Yup. All the growth is at the bottom. I agree. And the only way we are going to see more money at the top half of the list is to change the pay scheme. Otherwise it is going to be the same ol same ol, because there is no growth at the top end. 737s/717s/321s and a smattering of 330s and 350s to trickle in. woo freakin hoo. I hear many many guys say that they don't care if they are flying a C172 if it pays enough and they get their time off. But the reality of that talk is that it is just talk. Too many want the big shiny jet and will sacrifice QOL for it.


Show ALL of us the money, not just the lucky few.

 

It's funny you bring that up because the training pay played a role, albeit a very small role in my decision to cancel my Delta interview and stay at Southwest. Sure I could have made it work if I really wanted to be there, but I told my wife we can't even afford for me to go to Delta.

Once my app had been on file for 6 months at Delta with multiple recs sent in, having only heard crickets, and then Southwest being the one to call first I just assumed Southwest was where I would stay so my wife and I started renovating our house and settling into our new life before Delta eventually called. I'm sure I could have made it work, but the thought of making that little in training and having to pay for my own hotel sure didn't make me want to come there that much more. Hope they get that figured out for you guys. They are going to have to.

 

Interesting times...could only be good for us both now and future negotiations.

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2016/07/01/us-airlines-facing-major-pilot-shortage-despite-rising-wages.html?intcmp=features

 

Good luck to you. Just curious though, what is your projected upgrade time at LUV?

 

9 years with 2% growth and 15 years with zero growth. For me it was 100% about Southwest having a base where I live and driving to work and Delta not. Moving to a Delta base was not an option and I don't want to commute for the next 33 years of my life. If there was a Delta base where I lived it would have been a no brainer and I would have left for Delta though.

 

Since F/O's make a % of CA pay, the 12 year payscale is sort of a screw job for them. (Most CA's are beyond the 12th year)

A one year pay scale would better for most of the pilot group. Get all the money up front. You are doing the same job as a one year F/O that a 12 year F/O does: just for less money.