Buck Rogers

It will be short lived until ICAO catches up.

But again, it shouldn't be the pilots concern just like GS aren't or PB days which allow pilots to credit 999 hours in a single month.

They manage, pilots fly. Not my problem

Buck Rogers

So, when we pay band up...all is good even though some got more than others. Now that a few others might get more than you, your collective heads explode?

CBreezy

The company wanted pay banding to reduce training churn. And there is a big difference in pay between 350 and 737.

PilotBases

I’m just waiting for someone to then say it’s a concession even though it’s netted me thousands.

CBreezy

There are some that legitimately claim every company want is a concession

Gone Flying

if we get one pay band that would mean all pilots are paid the same. The issue I (and I assume others) have is JB is proposing he get paid significantly more to fly a 737 than all the other 737 pilots because he previously flew the 350.

if the company agrees to his proposal without a quid the that’s all good and well, but we all know they won’t do that without getting their pound of flesh from the pilots. And we as a pilot group should not give anything up for that proposal.

Buck Rogers

Funny, I didn't see/hear about pay banding in the company wants.

Is your claim a fact or opinion?

myrkridia

Maybe this is a controversial view but if 67 happens and ICAO is slow or unwilling to following suit, I wouldn't be against pay protecting the pilots at the top at their pay, at least in principle. Even if this was only available to the pilots currently occupying those seats and not in the future, a good deal for some pilots doesn't necessarily constitute a loss on my part. On the other hand, if the company's unmoving stance is they want some large concession in return, then I'm wholly against such a deal. As always the key would be in the language and the details.

Why even bother arguing over it at this point though? We don't know how 67 is going to play out in Congress, let alone the company's or ICAO's reaction.

Edit: I do wonder though if this could be an opportunity to bring everyone to our WB rate (like UPS), with only longevity and CA/FO scales.

Buck Rogers

But is that not the same principle as training bypass in reverse? Paying pilots for work they aren't performing? Both circumstances, not the pilots fault.

Your pound of flesh "quid" is your assumption.... pilots shouldn't pee in their boots until something gets passed.

I advocated for a PWA work around or LOA when age 67 reared it's head. If the MEC has not formulated a battle plan previously, shame on them.

Buck Rogers

Would it be more beneficial to the pilot group for Delta to pay up or DPMA to pay out until some sort of LOA gets crafted. If ICAO never adopts 67 then this will potentially affect all pilots. Glass 1/2 empty or glass 1/2 full sort of thing.