Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
10-09-2009, 07:12 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
10-09-2009, 07:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Agreed. I've met a few international guy that have said, "I would fly domestic MD-88 if we had the old pay scales. I fly the ER because I can't afford not to."
We all know that the argument of size, speed, & efficiency = profit is flawed and as outdated as the 1930's. So perhaps our pay based on those things is outdated as well. If you think about it, it actually encourages the company to buy smaller airplanes.
I just wonder what the training savings to the company would be. With 12 different airplane pay scales we have now, I think it would be substantial.
My guess is the guys at the top of the list would not go for it, unless they were somehow pay protected.
We all know that the argument of size, speed, & efficiency = profit is flawed and as outdated as the 1930's. So perhaps our pay based on those things is outdated as well. If you think about it, it actually encourages the company to buy smaller airplanes.
I just wonder what the training savings to the company would be. With 12 different airplane pay scales we have now, I think it would be substantial.
My guess is the guys at the top of the list would not go for it, unless they were somehow pay protected.
I'm going to disagree with you guys about a single payrate for three reasons:
1) One of the ways we advanced pay in the industry, historically, was to get more each time the aircraft grew in capacity and speed. While I don't see anything happening in the very near-term, it's entirely conceivable that we will eventually see larger and larger aircraft (and perhaps even fatser and faster) on the property. Noty today, and not tomorrow, but at some point, the technology will match the demand. The A-380 is already in production. With a single payrate, we would not have arguments to get more for it, but the company would certainly have the ability to add revenue (or even decrease pilot ranks) with no penalty. The company ould have an economic incentive, under single payrates, to have less small planes, and more large aircraft. This would hurt our scope efforts.
2) One of the ways we were able to get more vs. profitable companies like SWA was to argue we carried more people on the larger plane. With a single payrate, that argument is gone. When times are better, payrates being equal, the pilot group that will have the most leverage to getting the best payrate will be the most profitable carrier. I'd rather not compete on that playing field. If I carry more, and am more productive, I want better pay. I don't want to argue that a SWA works more hours for a higher payrate.
3) I like the fact that we have multiple segments to work in. Conditions in the different fleets make it so that there are trade-offs in terms of pay and quality of life, so that it doesn't always pay to become junior in a higher category. I feel that this creates niches that everyone can play to their advantage. The objective of single pay is to let everyone choose what they want to do, and take the flying that is best suited for them, with no trade-offs or penalties. Sounds noble enough, except now you're competing with every F/O company wide, not just in your little pool. If it turns out that people like to do day-trips in DC-9's from your home town, and stop commuting to ATL for their 777 job, you're now (congratulations!) commuting to ATL to fly the worse 777 legs... for no financial gain.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I think you guys are trying to fix one of the few things that aren't broken. Just because it suits a niche player like UPS, doesn't mean it's good for us.
10-09-2009, 07:35 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
It doesn't make sense to me that the company would be encouraged to buy smaller aircraft, since there are fixed costs to each pilot in addition to hourly rates.
I'm going to disagree with you guys about a single payrate for three reasons:
1) One of the ways we advanced pay in the industry, historically, was to get more each time the aircraft grew in capacity and speed. While I don't see anything happening in the very near-term, it's entirely conceivable that we will eventually see larger and larger aircraft (and perhaps even fatser and faster) on the property. Noty today, and not tomorrow, but at some point, the technology will match the demand. The A-380 is already in production. With a single payrate, we would not have arguments to get more for it, but the company would certainly have the ability to add revenue (or even decrease pilot ranks) with no penalty. The company ould have an economic incentive, under single payrates, to have less small planes, and more large aircraft. This would hurt our scope efforts.
2) One of the ways we were able to get more vs. profitable companies like SWA was to argue we carried more people on the larger plane. With a single payrate, that argument is gone. When times are better, payrates being equal, the pilot group that will have the most leverage to getting the best payrate will be the most profitable carrier. I'd rather not compete on that playing field. If I carry more, and am more productive, I want better pay. I don't want to argue that a SWA works more hours for a higher payrate.
3) I like the fact that we have multiple segments to work in. Conditions in the different fleets make it so that there are trade-offs in terms of pay and quality of life, so that it doesn't always pay to become junior in a higher category. I feel that this creates niches that everyone can play to their advantage. The objective of single pay is to let everyone choose what they want to do, and take the flying that is best suited for them, with no trade-offs or penalties. Sounds noble enough, except now you're competing with every F/O company wide, not just in your little pool. If it turns out that people like to do day-trips in DC-9's from your home town, and stop commuting to ATL for their 777 job, you're now (congratulations!) commuting to ATL to fly the worse 777 legs... for no financial gain.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I think you guys are trying to fix one of the few things that aren't broken. Just because it suits a niche player like UPS, doesn't mean it's good for us.
I'm going to disagree with you guys about a single payrate for three reasons:
1) One of the ways we advanced pay in the industry, historically, was to get more each time the aircraft grew in capacity and speed. While I don't see anything happening in the very near-term, it's entirely conceivable that we will eventually see larger and larger aircraft (and perhaps even fatser and faster) on the property. Noty today, and not tomorrow, but at some point, the technology will match the demand. The A-380 is already in production. With a single payrate, we would not have arguments to get more for it, but the company would certainly have the ability to add revenue (or even decrease pilot ranks) with no penalty. The company ould have an economic incentive, under single payrates, to have less small planes, and more large aircraft. This would hurt our scope efforts.
2) One of the ways we were able to get more vs. profitable companies like SWA was to argue we carried more people on the larger plane. With a single payrate, that argument is gone. When times are better, payrates being equal, the pilot group that will have the most leverage to getting the best payrate will be the most profitable carrier. I'd rather not compete on that playing field. If I carry more, and am more productive, I want better pay. I don't want to argue that a SWA works more hours for a higher payrate.
3) I like the fact that we have multiple segments to work in. Conditions in the different fleets make it so that there are trade-offs in terms of pay and quality of life, so that it doesn't always pay to become junior in a higher category. I feel that this creates niches that everyone can play to their advantage. The objective of single pay is to let everyone choose what they want to do, and take the flying that is best suited for them, with no trade-offs or penalties. Sounds noble enough, except now you're competing with every F/O company wide, not just in your little pool. If it turns out that people like to do day-trips in DC-9's from your home town, and stop commuting to ATL for their 777 job, you're now (congratulations!) commuting to ATL to fly the worse 777 legs... for no financial gain.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I think you guys are trying to fix one of the few things that aren't broken. Just because it suits a niche player like UPS, doesn't mean it's good for us.
10-09-2009, 07:39 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 F/O
Posts: 90
10-09-2009, 07:50 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,324
It doesn't make sense to me that the company would be encouraged to buy smaller aircraft, since there are fixed costs to each pilot in addition to hourly rates.
I'm going to disagree with you guys about a single payrate for three reasons:
1) One of the ways we advanced pay in the industry, historically, was to get more each time the aircraft grew in capacity and speed. While I don't see anything happening in the very near-term, it's entirely conceivable that we will eventually see larger and larger aircraft (and perhaps even fatser and faster) on the property. Noty today, and not tomorrow, but at some point, the technology will match the demand. The A-380 is already in production. With a single payrate, we would not have arguments to get more for it, but the company would certainly have the ability to add revenue (or even decrease pilot ranks) with no penalty. The company ould have an economic incentive, under single payrates, to have less small planes, and more large aircraft. This would hurt our scope efforts.
The industry is trending away from larger aircraft. The 747 is going away and the A380 is going to flop.
2) One of the ways we were able to get more vs. profitable companies like SWA was to argue we carried more people on the larger plane. With a single payrate, that argument is gone. When times are better, payrates being equal, the pilot group that will have the most leverage to getting the best payrate will be the most profitable carrier. I'd rather not compete on that playing field. If I carry more, and am more productive, I want better pay. I don't want to argue that a SWA works more hours for a higher payrate.
We will still be operating larger aircraft than the SWAs.
3) I like the fact that we have multiple segments to work in. Conditions in the different fleets make it so that there are trade-offs in terms of pay and quality of life, so that it doesn't always pay to become junior in a higher category. I feel that this creates niches that everyone can play to their advantage. The objective of single pay is to let everyone choose what they want to do, and take the flying that is best suited for them, with no trade-offs or penalties. Sounds noble enough, except now you're competing with every F/O company wide, not just in your little pool. If it turns out that people like to do day-trips in DC-9's from your home town, and stop commuting to ATL for their 777 job, you're now (congratulations!) commuting to ATL to fly the worse 777 legs... for no financial gain.
There will always be niches, payrates will not change that. Secondly, the commuting thing is already happening except we commute to fly the dc9/md88, and there is no financial gain there either.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I think you guys are trying to fix one of the few things that aren't broken. Just because it suits a niche player like UPS, doesn't mean it's good for us.
I'm going to disagree with you guys about a single payrate for three reasons:
1) One of the ways we advanced pay in the industry, historically, was to get more each time the aircraft grew in capacity and speed. While I don't see anything happening in the very near-term, it's entirely conceivable that we will eventually see larger and larger aircraft (and perhaps even fatser and faster) on the property. Noty today, and not tomorrow, but at some point, the technology will match the demand. The A-380 is already in production. With a single payrate, we would not have arguments to get more for it, but the company would certainly have the ability to add revenue (or even decrease pilot ranks) with no penalty. The company ould have an economic incentive, under single payrates, to have less small planes, and more large aircraft. This would hurt our scope efforts.
The industry is trending away from larger aircraft. The 747 is going away and the A380 is going to flop.
2) One of the ways we were able to get more vs. profitable companies like SWA was to argue we carried more people on the larger plane. With a single payrate, that argument is gone. When times are better, payrates being equal, the pilot group that will have the most leverage to getting the best payrate will be the most profitable carrier. I'd rather not compete on that playing field. If I carry more, and am more productive, I want better pay. I don't want to argue that a SWA works more hours for a higher payrate.
We will still be operating larger aircraft than the SWAs.
3) I like the fact that we have multiple segments to work in. Conditions in the different fleets make it so that there are trade-offs in terms of pay and quality of life, so that it doesn't always pay to become junior in a higher category. I feel that this creates niches that everyone can play to their advantage. The objective of single pay is to let everyone choose what they want to do, and take the flying that is best suited for them, with no trade-offs or penalties. Sounds noble enough, except now you're competing with every F/O company wide, not just in your little pool. If it turns out that people like to do day-trips in DC-9's from your home town, and stop commuting to ATL for their 777 job, you're now (congratulations!) commuting to ATL to fly the worse 777 legs... for no financial gain.
There will always be niches, payrates will not change that. Secondly, the commuting thing is already happening except we commute to fly the dc9/md88, and there is no financial gain there either.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I think you guys are trying to fix one of the few things that aren't broken. Just because it suits a niche player like UPS, doesn't mean it's good for us.
Not trying to argue, just pointing out how I see it. Take it with a pinch of salt.
10-09-2009, 08:14 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
This is the type of discussion that needs to be happening. Keep it up.
10-09-2009, 08:28 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
It doesn't make sense to me that the company would be encouraged to buy smaller aircraft, since there are fixed costs to each pilot in addition to hourly rates.
I'm going to disagree with you guys about a single payrate for three reasons:
1) One of the ways we advanced pay in the industry, historically, was to get more each time the aircraft grew in capacity and speed. While I don't see anything happening in the very near-term, it's entirely conceivable that we will eventually see larger and larger aircraft (and perhaps even fatser and faster) on the property. Noty today, and not tomorrow, but at some point, the technology will match the demand. The A-380 is already in production. With a single payrate, we would not have arguments to get more for it, but the company would certainly have the ability to add revenue (or even decrease pilot ranks) with no penalty. The company ould have an economic incentive, under single payrates, to have less small planes, and more large aircraft. This would hurt our scope efforts.
2) One of the ways we were able to get more vs. profitable companies like SWA was to argue we carried more people on the larger plane. With a single payrate, that argument is gone. When times are better, payrates being equal, the pilot group that will have the most leverage to getting the best payrate will be the most profitable carrier. I'd rather not compete on that playing field. If I carry more, and am more productive, I want better pay. I don't want to argue that a SWA works more hours for a higher payrate.
3) I like the fact that we have multiple segments to work in. Conditions in the different fleets make it so that there are trade-offs in terms of pay and quality of life, so that it doesn't always pay to become junior in a higher category. I feel that this creates niches that everyone can play to their advantage. The objective of single pay is to let everyone choose what they want to do, and take the flying that is best suited for them, with no trade-offs or penalties. Sounds noble enough, except now you're competing with every F/O company wide, not just in your little pool. If it turns out that people like to do day-trips in DC-9's from your home town, and stop commuting to ATL for their 777 job, you're now (congratulations!) commuting to ATL to fly the worse 777 legs... for no financial gain.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I think you guys are trying to fix one of the few things that aren't broken. Just because it suits a niche player like UPS, doesn't mean it's good for us.
I'm going to disagree with you guys about a single payrate for three reasons:
1) One of the ways we advanced pay in the industry, historically, was to get more each time the aircraft grew in capacity and speed. While I don't see anything happening in the very near-term, it's entirely conceivable that we will eventually see larger and larger aircraft (and perhaps even fatser and faster) on the property. Noty today, and not tomorrow, but at some point, the technology will match the demand. The A-380 is already in production. With a single payrate, we would not have arguments to get more for it, but the company would certainly have the ability to add revenue (or even decrease pilot ranks) with no penalty. The company ould have an economic incentive, under single payrates, to have less small planes, and more large aircraft. This would hurt our scope efforts.
2) One of the ways we were able to get more vs. profitable companies like SWA was to argue we carried more people on the larger plane. With a single payrate, that argument is gone. When times are better, payrates being equal, the pilot group that will have the most leverage to getting the best payrate will be the most profitable carrier. I'd rather not compete on that playing field. If I carry more, and am more productive, I want better pay. I don't want to argue that a SWA works more hours for a higher payrate.
3) I like the fact that we have multiple segments to work in. Conditions in the different fleets make it so that there are trade-offs in terms of pay and quality of life, so that it doesn't always pay to become junior in a higher category. I feel that this creates niches that everyone can play to their advantage. The objective of single pay is to let everyone choose what they want to do, and take the flying that is best suited for them, with no trade-offs or penalties. Sounds noble enough, except now you're competing with every F/O company wide, not just in your little pool. If it turns out that people like to do day-trips in DC-9's from your home town, and stop commuting to ATL for their 777 job, you're now (congratulations!) commuting to ATL to fly the worse 777 legs... for no financial gain.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I think you guys are trying to fix one of the few things that aren't broken. Just because it suits a niche player like UPS, doesn't mean it's good for us.
10-09-2009, 09:01 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
Of course when I am trying to pay for two daughters in college, I may start reconsidering those Nike sprinting shoes.
Scoop
10-09-2009, 09:12 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 F/O
Posts: 90
Don't forget about the SAVINGS the company can have by less of a training footprint. SAVINGS can translate into Profits can translate into higher wages overall for all of us.
10-09-2009, 10:02 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 302
For real? We should take more concessions then, so the company can make more money, and we can get higher wages.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
