A350-1000 and other Fleet News
10-23-2023, 02:36 AM
#1321
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
the 764/330 guys got 4-6% more than everyone else, not more than double like the ER guys would have. If you have sour grapes over 330 pilots getting a 23-25% raise vs your 18%, I imagine you would be furious if another group got a 41% raise.
it’s not just the fact it two rates, it’s the fact they would have to pay WB rates to all the ER pilots sitting reserve flying the 757, all ER pilots when they attend CQ, IQ, ect.
im not new, do you think the 30 year old 767s we have will be here longer than the 330NEOs we are buying today?
Stop with the tHeY gOt ThRoWn UnDEr ThE bUs line. It’s old, tired and untrue. The fact is we were paying the 330, 764, and 320 less than our peers were and we fixed that. That’s it. The 717, 221, 737, 321, NEO, ER and 350 all got an 18% raise, we adjusted a few other aircraft up slightly more to bring them in line with how other airlines paid them.
it’s not just the fact it two rates, it’s the fact they would have to pay WB rates to all the ER pilots sitting reserve flying the 757, all ER pilots when they attend CQ, IQ, ect.
im not new, do you think the 30 year old 767s we have will be here longer than the 330NEOs we are buying today?
Stop with the tHeY gOt ThRoWn UnDEr ThE bUs line. It’s old, tired and untrue. The fact is we were paying the 330, 764, and 320 less than our peers were and we fixed that. That’s it. The 717, 221, 737, 321, NEO, ER and 350 all got an 18% raise, we adjusted a few other aircraft up slightly more to bring them in line with how other airlines paid them.
And judging by your second paragraph, it is you that would have had the sour grapes Chief. God forbid they would have gotten a good deal. Nah. Let's screw them and keep it a new hire airplane
Some if y'all are a trip
10-23-2023, 02:43 AM
#1322
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: UNA
Posts: 4,629
I don't have any sour grapes about the 330/400 rates. You're justifying mediocrity regarding the 7ER.
And judging by your second paragraph, it is you that would have had the sour grapes Chief. God forbid they would have gotten a good deal. Nah. Let's screw them and keep it a new hire airplane
Some if y'all are a trip
And judging by your second paragraph, it is you that would have had the sour grapes Chief. God forbid they would have gotten a good deal. Nah. Let's screw them and keep it a new hire airplane
Some if y'all are a trip
it would have benefited me tremendously given about 70% of my flight time In 2023 so far is in 763s. And I do bid reserve every now and then so that would have also been a huge win too.
I just recognize that banding the ER up to the 350 would have been a much more substantial undertaking than the other banding we did, and it’s not even close. It also would have been far less useful long term as its most likely the next fleet parked.
you asked for reasons why the ER paid less, I’ve laid out several valid reasons why the ER was treated differently. At this point It sounds like you just want to be mad.
10-23-2023, 03:52 AM
#1323
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
“they” is me…I’m on the ER.
it would have benefited me tremendously given about 70% of my flight time In 2023 so far is in 763s. And I do bid reserve every now and then so that would have also been a huge win too.
I just recognize that banding the ER up to the 350 would have been a much more substantial undertaking than the other banding we did, and it’s not even close. It also would have been far less useful long term as its most likely the next fleet parked.
you asked for reasons why the ER paid less, I’ve laid out several valid reasons why the ER was treated differently. At this point It sounds like you just want to be mad.
it would have benefited me tremendously given about 70% of my flight time In 2023 so far is in 763s. And I do bid reserve every now and then so that would have also been a huge win too.
I just recognize that banding the ER up to the 350 would have been a much more substantial undertaking than the other banding we did, and it’s not even close. It also would have been far less useful long term as its most likely the next fleet parked.
you asked for reasons why the ER paid less, I’ve laid out several valid reasons why the ER was treated differently. At this point It sounds like you just want to be mad.
10-23-2023, 05:00 AM
#1324
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
10-23-2023, 05:10 AM
#1325
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: UNA
Posts: 4,629
If this is such a big issue for you, there have been at plenty of other contracts since you have been hired you could have pushed to fix it on. it sounds like you have been settling as long as you have been here
10-23-2023, 07:08 AM
#1326
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Position: On the hotel shuttle
Posts: 5,905
< Widebody
< Large Narrowbody
< Small Narrowbody
This has been the trend in the industry for the last 20 years. From what I've been told, however, the Company expressed no interest in this type of pay banding.
< Large Narrowbody
< Small Narrowbody
This has been the trend in the industry for the last 20 years. From what I've been told, however, the Company expressed no interest in this type of pay banding.
10-23-2023, 07:46 AM
#1327
Moderator
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,802
I’m sure the company would have loved to band the NEO, and eventually -Max, down to a “Large Narrowbody” rate instead of up tothe 7ER (which is a very under appreciated gain, BTW). Though the real genesis of that position may have actually been to avoid paying the 763 at WB rates. (Not to trigger JB again).
10-23-2023, 07:48 AM
#1328
Has a furrowed brow
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,200
He’s not wrong re: 763. It should be paid more.
Where I disagree, is the rate. Probably shouldn’t pay the same as a 350, mainly because a lot of negotiating capital would’ve been required and the significantly smaller size.
But why shouldn’t it pay more? No one has given a compelling reason other than “that’s the way it’s always been” (since C2K).
If we have separate pay rates on the 737-800 vs the -900, the 220-100 from the -300, why can’t we separate the 757-200 from the 767-300?
BL, it’s all yelling at clouds at this point. Nothing can be done in the near term. I was told by my reps that it’s a dying airframe and they didn’t want to waste the negotiating capital (even though I see them sticking around until the early 2030s). I don’t like the answer, but not much I can do at this point. If someone is really that upset, I suggest bidding to one of the new pay banded WBs.
Where I disagree, is the rate. Probably shouldn’t pay the same as a 350, mainly because a lot of negotiating capital would’ve been required and the significantly smaller size.
But why shouldn’t it pay more? No one has given a compelling reason other than “that’s the way it’s always been” (since C2K).
If we have separate pay rates on the 737-800 vs the -900, the 220-100 from the -300, why can’t we separate the 757-200 from the 767-300?
BL, it’s all yelling at clouds at this point. Nothing can be done in the near term. I was told by my reps that it’s a dying airframe and they didn’t want to waste the negotiating capital (even though I see them sticking around until the early 2030s). I don’t like the answer, but not much I can do at this point. If someone is really that upset, I suggest bidding to one of the new pay banded WBs.
10-23-2023, 08:14 AM
#1329
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,454
He’s not wrong re: 763. It should be paid more.
Where I disagree, is the rate. Probably shouldn’t pay the same as a 350, mainly because a lot of negotiating capital would’ve been required and the significantly smaller size.
But why shouldn’t it pay more? No one has given a compelling reason other than “that’s the way it’s always been” (since C2K).
If we have separate pay rates on the 737-800 vs the -900, the 220-100 from the -300, why can’t we separate the 757-200 from the 767-300?
BL, it’s all yelling at clouds at this point. Nothing can be done in the near term. I was told by my reps that it’s a dying airframe and they didn’t want to waste the negotiating capital (even though I see them sticking around until the early 2030s). I don’t like the answer, but not much I can do at this point. If someone is really that upset, I suggest bidding to one of the new pay banded WBs.
Where I disagree, is the rate. Probably shouldn’t pay the same as a 350, mainly because a lot of negotiating capital would’ve been required and the significantly smaller size.
But why shouldn’t it pay more? No one has given a compelling reason other than “that’s the way it’s always been” (since C2K).
If we have separate pay rates on the 737-800 vs the -900, the 220-100 from the -300, why can’t we separate the 757-200 from the 767-300?
BL, it’s all yelling at clouds at this point. Nothing can be done in the near term. I was told by my reps that it’s a dying airframe and they didn’t want to waste the negotiating capital (even though I see them sticking around until the early 2030s). I don’t like the answer, but not much I can do at this point. If someone is really that upset, I suggest bidding to one of the new pay banded WBs.
