With the caveat that I do not support the straight longevity pay system, I'll add this to what Army suggests:

A longevity pay system would need a significant narrowing of the pay gap between CA and FO. Our current pay structure entices some senior guys to camp out on the FO seat allowing out of seniority CA bids - that's a sizeable pay increase. With the longevity system, that opportunity would disappear. A lot of guys would be stuck in the FO seat for much longer, base dependent of course.

 

Many years ago someone fairly smart wrote a long letter on the effects overall of a longevity based pay system. Essentially it eliminated choice. Imagine how long new hires would be stuck in NY!

 

Lol, have you tried to get to salt lake? Seattle? Look at how many spots have opened up on the last 5 AEs in those bases. Longevity just sounds like it would take forever to get off Nyc md88. I would vote no on this m'kay

 

Ok.... I'm imagining it.

Yeah, probably wouldn't be stuck there longer than they are now.

For the record, I'm not for LGBTQP like t is, but I am for expanding the bands, particularly in ensuring that the big buses get banded in with the whales and 777s.

 

Salt Lake has had new hires on the last few bids.

 

I don't get the no pay banding arguments, assuming pay only goes up and not down. All WB (including 767-300s) get 777 rates, all NB get 7er rates (at current rates +22/7/7 minimum). How is this bad?

People will still move planes based on seniority, trips, and bases. All the consternation over just 17 777s is gone when we've got over 100 airplanes at the top pay rate. If management happens to save a few bucks for training that's fine. A win/win is still a win.

 

The problem with pay banding is that it gives the company training efficiencies which equates to lower manning. Under the current "tier scale" and by way of an example, if a B777 or B747 Capt retires, then (llkely) an A330/B765 bids for that vacancy and a B7ER guy bids for the A330/B765 slot and so on...with each cascading event pulling a pilot out of his current category to train for the next higher payscale. Granted this isn't a "pure" example or an immutable rule but it nonetheless is a reasonable example of the current vacancy system.

If we were all paid the same rate based solely on seat position and longevity, as UPS does, the B777 and the B747 would likely be more junior than the B7ER or maybe even the B737 Caribbean Club. Why cross 10 time zones to go to Shanghai or Jo'burg when you can stay in the same time zone and make the same $$?

As a result, the B777 Capt who retires might have his seat filled by a senior B7ER or B73N F/O when the Capt pay rate is all the same. The cascade (and training churn) dampens and therefore not as many guys are in the training pipeline and thus the company doesn't need as many pilots.

I seem to recall that the B727 at UPS had a lot of really senior pilots because they would fly trips from their home to the sort and back and be home every day but still get paid the same as a Whale pilot who was sitting in Koln for 96 hours on a layover.

 

Thanks for the reply, very well explained.

With the wave of hiring and retirements incoming, perhaps I'm short-sighted not worrying too much about the reduced manning requirements that would accompany fewer training events, but (with the limited information I have) I'm not worried about the manning hit that would likely accompany the pay banding . Obviously another major event that contracts the industry might make me reconsider.

I wonder if DAL has the ability to handle the training wreck (pun intended) that's going to hit when retirements begin in earnest. I came here because I thought Delta was the best run airline and I want the company to succeed. Training is a legitimate company need that I'm willing to negotiate. Yes they created the problem, it's their problem and not mine (yet), but I consider myself a pragmatist and this is an area where we can both get a win. Having just worked through the 717b manning issues, I can say 1st hand the money was great but the lifestyle sucked. I don't want to be in a perennially undermanned airline for the rest of my career.

I believe your 727 example may be another reason the pilots should like pay banding. Instead of chasing a rate, we can chase a lifestyle. My guess is the seniority would be more evenly distributed around the fleet with pay banding which equates to more opportunity for all pilots here.

Right now this is just a hypothetical conversation, I doubt anybody who posts here knows if this is on the table in the 1st place. I'm sure the company has some data on just how many jobs they could save with this idea, I wonder if ALPA has similar data they could present to us. I would definitely want more information before coming to a final decision if pay banding is part of the new TA.

 

That is because guys move to higher paying seats, not because of straight openings. Please look at the AE postings, not results. So yes, thank you for supporting my point that the current system allows new hires to get senior bases

 

Retirements don't "begin in earnest" before the next amendable date. They are accelerating slightly, but don't really take off until after 2018. If we "sell" a fix to their training needs now, we do so on the cheap. I think we should hold that ace until the next round of negotiations and let them accelerate hiring and improve training efficiencies through their own internal means. We know that even in 2015 they were still dragging their hiring feet.

If you want to see a company scramble to negotiate early next time, you shouldn't solve all their problems now. Our currency at the moment is high profitability (which could change), and pattern bargaining off of our peers (whose results could also change). What WON'T change is the age of our top end.

Jmho.