Originally Posted by TED74 (Post 2191283)

What percentage of DAL pilots do you think are interested in 777 rates for a contract that will be renegotiated in 3 years? Honest question, because they honestly are irrelevant to me and all of my buddies.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 2191409)

Soooooooooo are you suggesting throwing the 777 guys under the bus "because they honestly are irrelevant to you and all your buddies?" That's a poor, poor attitude. Maybe they shouldn't give a darn about scope. I mean, it's honestly irrelevant to them.......:rolleyes:

Denny

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 2191420)

I don't think anyone is advocating that in the slightest. There's zero chance any TA will contain disproportionately low 777 rates or anything like that. I think all he's saying is that we collectively can't be blinded by top scale rates since we lag the industry (by a WIDE margin) in the number of pilot positions that will actually pay those rates. The Whale will be gone by the end of C2015 (maybe before we even get C2015) so that'll leave the vast majority of the pilots here flying something smaller for most if not all of their careers, and many who do fly it will only get to touch it for a fraction the time as UA/AA. That's all. No one's throwing anyone under the bus.

Originally Posted by iFlyer (Post 2191356)

James/T has long championed banded pay-rates, but what you propose makes a lot of sense: career earnings vs. time-at-job earning that money is where the real comparison lies. It is a useful metric, and indeed, the real measure of how "well" we get paid relative to other companies.

Southwest pays nearly 130 equivalent hours per month using their "trip" flight pay system, we see nothing close to that on a regular basis, yet our NB guys spend more days on the road earning their paycheck?

Let's compare total W-2 pay, contributions to retirement, and Time Away From Base, and see where we fall.

After all, don't we all want "more money, more time off?" That's the way to measure it and get it.

Originally Posted by Tanker1497 (Post 2191452)

This right here. Just had a jump seater. Former Air Tran living in Atlanta, commutes to HOU. He flies four 3 days a month. The 3 day he was about to work was worth 19:30. For his 12 days working, he averages 95 TFP's; that works out to about 109 hours of pay. Not bad for 12 days. I'd have to work 21 days on the 717 to earn that. The usual suspects are making this TA out to be not that big a deal. When you put more money on top of arguably some of the best work rules in the industry, it's a big deal. The company funded B plan is nice as well. Meanwhile, back here, we're trying to figure out how far backwards we need to take our work rules to get industry standard pay...sigh.

Originally Posted by FLY6584 (Post 2191467)

19.5 for a 3 day is really low too. That's our bare minimum. I fly a lot of 3-days that are worth 22-23. We work for it though. Sometimes it's 2-3 really long legs a day or 4-5 shorter legs a day on that 3-day trip.

Originally Posted by TED74 (Post 2191347)

Then you have accepted the notion that equipment should be as predominant a factor in earnings as it has become. And as 737s replace 757s and CS100s replace MD88s, you'll similarly accept a regression in earnings for Delta pilots.

I think what we all care about is time given to one's employer, and what one receives in exchange. I don't mind comparing very similar forests (e.g., annual W2 or annual TAFB) comprised of very different trees (hourly rates, trip rigs, reserve days/month) - it's the big picture that matters in the long run. Unfortunately, we often debate the trees and completely miss deforrestation right in front of our eyes.

Originally Posted by Tanker1497 (Post 2191452)

This right here. Just had a jump seater. Former Air Tran living in Atlanta, commutes to HOU. He flies four 3 days a month. The 3 day he was about to work was worth 19:30. For his 12 days working, he averages 95 TFP's; that works out to about 109 hours of pay. Not bad for 12 days. I'd have to work 21 days on the 717 to earn that. The usual suspects are making this TA out to be not that big a deal. When you put more money on top of arguably some of the best work rules in the industry, it's a big deal. The company funded B plan is nice as well. Meanwhile, back here, we're trying to figure out how far backwards we need to take our work rules to get industry standard pay...sigh.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 2191420)

I don't think anyone is advocating that in the slightest. There's zero chance any TA will contain disproportionately low 777 rates or anything like that. I think all he's saying is that we collectively can't be blinded by top scale rates since we lag the industry (by a WIDE margin) in the number of pilot positions that will actually pay those rates. The Whale will be gone by the end of C2015 (maybe before we even get C2015) so that'll leave the vast majority of the pilots here flying something smaller for most if not all of their careers, and many who do fly it will only get to touch it for a fraction the time as UA/AA. That's all. No one's throwing anyone under the bus.