Well Deez, there's probably not much I can say without looking self serving given my position at NWA. However, the previous posters are correct regarding ALPA's method of determining pay for aircraft. The 747-400 weighs about 870,000 lbs while the 777 weighs about 660,000 lbs. A weight component is in every ALPA pay scale that I know of. The fact that this new TA (apparently) is quoting a pay rate of 1 dollar per hour more for the 744 versus the 777 would have to be using a different formula. Why was this done? I have no idea. Maybe the DAL MEC couldn't buy off on the thought of the 744 paying significantly more than the 777 if there were not going to be a significant number of former DAL pilots flying it.

I can understand DALPA's concern on this issue, it would be a bitter pill for DAL guys to swallow. Bit I'm afraid we may have unwittingly made a big mistake. When Singapore Airlines received their first A380, the company offered to pay it at a rate of 1 dollar per hour more than the 744. Pilots vehemently objected and stated this had never been done in all their history. It got taken to a court in Singapore. Singaporean judge agreed with pilot group and forced management to pay it based on previous formulas that were weight based.

My concern for the future is that if the new Delta gets bigger and heavier aircraft someday, management will be able to make a similar "1 buck an hour" offer - and be totally consistent with what Delta pilots already agreed to previously.

Again, I don't want to make this sound self serving - it's just my initial thoughts on the subject.

Carl

Can we just park the JPWA until after the SLI? We have LOA 19, we know where the numbers are going to be.

If we knew how we were to be effected by SLI we would know what are priorities are. If we knew whether we were going to be displaced we would know if commuter clauses are more important. If we knew the staffing model we could better determine how important scope is.

Typical merger policy has the SLI before the JPWA.

As a junior Delta pilot, I get nothing from this JPWA. But I will eagerly support it if it contains better scope language. Have to see what Section 1 looks like.

and the DC9-30 pays what a 142 seat MD88 pays, and the A319 pays more than the MD88. There's a lot in the pay rates that don't add up on first blush. Anyone know the logic here?

Lets just stop throwing stones about the pay rates

Agreed 100%.

[quote=Carl Spackler;413785
A weight component is in every ALPA pay scale that I know of. The fact that this new TA (apparently) is quoting a pay rate of 1 dollar per hour more for the 744 versus the 777 would have to be using a different formula. Why was this done? I have no idea. Maybe the DAL MEC couldn't buy off on the thought of the 744 paying significantly more than the 777 if there were not going to be a significant number of former DAL pilots flying it.

I can understand DALPA's concern on this issue, it would be a bitter pill for Carl[/quote]

C'mon Carl: UAL-777 - Max $191/hour. 747 - Max $191/hour. ALPA carrier, 1 pilot group, 2 aircraft, same payrate. And they were one happy family when these rates were decided.

Scoop

Thats not what YOUR or MY MEC leaders thought was the best course of action and I completely agree. Thats how Usair played the game and look how well that worked out for them. :eek: This way gave us the best opportunity to get the joint contract done quickly and it worked. We all saw how well trying to do the SLI and JPWA together worked back in FEB. Both of Our MEC's seem to be learning from their mistakes which is a good thing. Lets all hope the method they have established for the SLI is whats "Fair" for all of us and we avoid arbitration. That would truly put us ahead of the ball game and hopefully bring our pilot groups together for the long haul. If this works and the groups do come together we should be able to really get a fantastic contract come 2012 when hopefully the economy is in better shape.

Some of the NWA guys have posted one very insightful item:

Prior to this TA, EVERY Delta guy was extolling the virtues of LOA 19 - without exception. I thought the cure for all human disease was in LOA 19 as well. Remember all that "raising the bar" stuff? How many times did you guys tell us that NWA pilots should not fear LOA 19 because someday we would understand how good it was for us? Now a TA has been reached which brings NWA pilots up to pay rates in LOA 19. Now some DAL pilots are saying they're disappointed with the TA. Why? Can't be the pay rates cause they are the same as LOA 19.

When some of the DAL folks complain: "What's in it for me", it infers that they wanted additional monies just for them. If that's not what you meant, then what do you mean? Why are you against a TA that brings the pilots of your merger partner up to your level, when you consistently stated that would be the ultimate result of LOA 19?

If some of you DAL guys want to vote this TA down, that's obviously your prerogative. But if you vote it down because there wasn't an additional uptick for you above LOA 19, then that's just plain hypocrisy - in my opinion.

Carl

Scoop,

I'm not saying it's never been done, I'm saying we've never done that at NWA, and I didn't think it had ever happened at Delta (but I'm not at all sure about Delta's history).

If I'm right and Delta has always had the same weight component in the pay formula, then this represents a change. And if it's a change, then what about a future larger airplane? Would the company demand the same payrate as the 777/744?

Maybe this is a good idea, who knows. UPS only has a pay difference between seats and they're pretty darn strong.

Just something to think about.

Carl

I was being hypothetical on the $230 vs $231. I think the actual rate at the end of the contract is 225+ for both. There's no difference. I was facetiously suggesting that one extra dollar for the 74 would settle some egos. You may have a point though. We'll have to fix it later I suppose. As some of the other guys pointed the 777 and the 74 aren't the only two with strange pay-rate parity issues.