Originally Posted by Sink r8

and



Yes, really: incentivize. On the pilot cost side of the equation, (and I'm sure they look at this in purchasing decisions... remember the 3B6 777 tug-of-war?), LBP incentivizes getting big airplanes, since there is no penalty in terms of added pilot costs. LBP obviously ties pilot pay to airframes, so the bigger the airframe, the lower the pilot cost per seat. On the flip-side of this, the smaller the airplane, the greater the pilot cost per seat. The incentive is for bigger airplanes.

Hell, the incentive is always towards bigger airplanes, as even the productivity system doesn't capture the value of every incremental seat (a 747 doens't pay twice as much as a 757). But LBP ties pilot costs to airframes, and the producticity system ties it more to seats. That's not value judgment on my part, I think it's a simple statement of facts.

As we add seats, we want more pilot money. We have an incentive to ask for this, the company has an incentive to ask for the opposite. The two major beneficiaries to LBP are the company, and senior pilots that don't like what their seniority is buying them right now, and want to downgrade equipment for better in category seniority, without taking a paycut.

The current sytem isn't flawed T, the problem is that it's incompatible with your wishes. The guy one junior to you that's flying the M88 made a sacrfice in pay, and some other areas, but he's senior. He doesn't want your flying, or he'd bid for it, and he doesn't deserve to have you show up in his category under a LBP sytsem. He's already done what you don't want to do, and made compromises on how to leverage his seniority.

So you're approaching the problem backwards, and asking how we might make the system conform to your wishes. The problem you're running into is that the productivity system is better, and provides more money to the group as a whole. There is no logical argument for LBP that works for the average pilot, only certain senior pilots that might benefit. You simply took a wrong turn when you decided, somewhere, that there is no reason you couldn't fly a 737 in a simpler base, for the same money, since you're senior.

But there is a reason, and it's an obstacle in your way: the productivity system is better. You just can't see it, partly because I think you're a good guy, and you're sincere in your motivations, but what you're advocating is 100% wrong for the group, and amounts to pulling up the ladder. I'm not accusing you of doing this consciously, or with malice. I'm just pointing out why you're banging your head on this, and failing to convince some of us on LBP: your QOL desires are understandeable, but the LBP system you require to make them a reality is a poor system.

Originally Posted by MrBojangles

can someone please define LBP, LGBP etc..? I have enough acronyms to remember working here and I dont know what these are.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

What he is saying here is their current CPA was negotiated prior to CH11, prior to our TA and therefore cannot force them in be in compliance with the holding company language within our PWA if they opt not to re-negotiate their CPA's with DAL for a RJ swap. Effectively em fighting words.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Longevity Based Pay...

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Yes. I suspect that the DTW 744 A and B, 330 A and 77 A and B will see openings. The rest will probably not be backfilled. Just my guess based on where the 115 early outs are coming from as well as demand for bodies due to network changes.

*777 may not materialize on this bid if they opt to keep DHing ATL crews. At some point we will see a shift of 777s to DTW though.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

thanks Skywest. Thanks a pant load for not screening or monitoring the people you hire to replace Delta pilots.