Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-28-2014, 06:52 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 418
never mind on the first "Q"...saw it above...
05-28-2014, 06:56 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Your point one, I would think, if they are assigned short call, they would be legal for a trip of that length. Point 2, see above. Point 3, this is what I'm trying to find out and having alot of difficulty doing so...
Denny
05-28-2014, 07:14 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
I don't see how banding leads to furloughs. Our staffing situation is no longer static: the company needs to hire *a lot* of pilots in the coming years. This would only reduce that number.
Would it create change? Sure. Would some people profit more than others? Sure. However, I think it would be a win all around.
Regarding the negotiating process, I appreciate the illumination. I know this idea has been batted around for a while, and I was wondering if anyone had officially raised it (taking the idea from T's pet hobby horse to actual consideration).
Roadkill, I'm staying at a hotel on Va Ave as I contribute to our training churn. Come on by.
Would it create change? Sure. Would some people profit more than others? Sure. However, I think it would be a win all around.
Regarding the negotiating process, I appreciate the illumination. I know this idea has been batted around for a while, and I was wondering if anyone had officially raised it (taking the idea from T's pet hobby horse to actual consideration).
Roadkill, I'm staying at a hotel on Va Ave as I contribute to our training churn. Come on by.
Frank,
Denny alluded to this and it is important. Today some Pilots chase the $$$$ while others blissfully pursue QOL. The current system allows both to pursue their individual desires to a great extant.
Every guy that is chasing QOl and stays really senior in position allows another dude chasing the $$$$$ to advance much more rapidly than in a pay banding scenario.
Pay banding would greatly flatten the seniority bands for each seat position with the affect of greatly reducing ones ability to chase either QOL or $$$$.
I much prefer the current system.
Scoop
Last edited by Scoop; 05-28-2014 at 07:37 AM.
05-28-2014, 07:15 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Captain
Posts: 830
I am little apprehensive even writing this post as it requires public math, but what the heck. I also hope Tsquare will jump in with his ideas and suggestions. Pilots keep bringing it up "bigger pays more" but I have yet to see what it would pay the other way.
If I understand the argument correctly, since Delta is not a "wide body" airline, most of us will not fly the equipment that pays the most until late in our career, if at all. Seniority based pay would, for lack of a better term, spread the wealth across all aircraft thereby allowing a pilot to make more $$ earlier in their career. (TVM) I don't think anyone would argue that a 777 and 717 both takeoff on the same leg, that the 777 can "afford" to pay more and without increasing pilot casm per seat.
So the question is, what would our pay rates actually be? (Here comes the math) The simplest solution is to figure out exactly what our seniority based pay rate would like without increase system wide pilot casm.
I took each category and the number of captains (assuming everyone is 12 year) and multiplied that times their hourly rate. For example, there are roughly 230 777 captains that make $263 an hour. 230*$263=$60,500. That can be done for each fleet and you end up with a number of a little over a million bucks for one hour of flight pay system wide.. Now one can go back and divide that number by the total number of captains (around 4800) and you end up with about $215 an hour to pay every captain the same rate while keeping the same pilot costs that we have today.
$215 is a little lower than I expected, but the same reason that people are asking for seniority based pay (lack of wide-bodies) is the same reason the math comes out the way it does. Not so different than taxing the rich and spreading it to everyone else, it just doesn't end up being that much per person.
Now, I will freely admit I may be way off base with my math, but I would like to see an example from a proponent that shows what our rate would be while keeping our current costs, except for the savings from training costs since that would be directly related. (Pick a number and spread it across the fleet)
Once the rate is fixed, I also wonder what metric we use to establish rates going forward as the fleet changes? I certainly think it would drive us towards larger aircraft since pilot casm would go down since rates would be lower on those aircraft than it is today. If we add 20 777, do we just take the old $263 rate and further spread it across the fleet? Do we just go off some sort of pilot casm number and just try and get increases off of that?
And just to head this off at the pass, I am sure the next post is going to be "why can't we increase the cost of the contract?" I am not saying that, I am just trying to figure out what exactly my pay rate would be today, only accounting for an increase efficiency due to less training, not some percentages we negotiate in the future. In other words, if have a 2 billion dollar contract for just pay rates, what would that 2 billion look like if we all got paid based on seniority and seat?
If I understand the argument correctly, since Delta is not a "wide body" airline, most of us will not fly the equipment that pays the most until late in our career, if at all. Seniority based pay would, for lack of a better term, spread the wealth across all aircraft thereby allowing a pilot to make more $$ earlier in their career. (TVM) I don't think anyone would argue that a 777 and 717 both takeoff on the same leg, that the 777 can "afford" to pay more and without increasing pilot casm per seat.
So the question is, what would our pay rates actually be? (Here comes the math) The simplest solution is to figure out exactly what our seniority based pay rate would like without increase system wide pilot casm.
I took each category and the number of captains (assuming everyone is 12 year) and multiplied that times their hourly rate. For example, there are roughly 230 777 captains that make $263 an hour. 230*$263=$60,500. That can be done for each fleet and you end up with a number of a little over a million bucks for one hour of flight pay system wide.. Now one can go back and divide that number by the total number of captains (around 4800) and you end up with about $215 an hour to pay every captain the same rate while keeping the same pilot costs that we have today.
$215 is a little lower than I expected, but the same reason that people are asking for seniority based pay (lack of wide-bodies) is the same reason the math comes out the way it does. Not so different than taxing the rich and spreading it to everyone else, it just doesn't end up being that much per person.
Now, I will freely admit I may be way off base with my math, but I would like to see an example from a proponent that shows what our rate would be while keeping our current costs, except for the savings from training costs since that would be directly related. (Pick a number and spread it across the fleet)
Once the rate is fixed, I also wonder what metric we use to establish rates going forward as the fleet changes? I certainly think it would drive us towards larger aircraft since pilot casm would go down since rates would be lower on those aircraft than it is today. If we add 20 777, do we just take the old $263 rate and further spread it across the fleet? Do we just go off some sort of pilot casm number and just try and get increases off of that?
And just to head this off at the pass, I am sure the next post is going to be "why can't we increase the cost of the contract?" I am not saying that, I am just trying to figure out what exactly my pay rate would be today, only accounting for an increase efficiency due to less training, not some percentages we negotiate in the future. In other words, if have a 2 billion dollar contract for just pay rates, what would that 2 billion look like if we all got paid based on seniority and seat?
05-28-2014, 07:22 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
Hopefully they were given a blanket party by all the guys who would have been furloughed due to massively increased productivity this incredibly stupid/from a pilot perspective/ idea would have caused. Probably the bottom 15 %of the list. Tell me your address an I'll be sure to attend the next beating if you mention this company antipilot wet dream again.
RK,
You lost me here. Are you threatening another DAL Pilot for making a suggestion? As a matter of fact I agree with you on this issue but am not sure if you were joking (I dont see a
) or if this was just a poor choice of words.I am hoping you just left off the smiley thingy.
Scoop
05-28-2014, 07:31 AM
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,730
Good work on showing the math in public Ron Rico, but don't forget about the 'real reason' the company would LOVE a longevity based pay system, and that is reduced manning, due to the reduced training you eluded to.
We are coming off 5 years of stagnation due to age 65 and merger synergy, so going forward, there will be a lot more pilots swapping seats and stuck in training for a month or more. How many pilots are -off line- going to school is hard to say, but let's use 10% because the math is easier.
IF we had LBP, there would be far fewer pilots playing musical chairs, chasing the big bucks into a widebody, so far fewer pilots required on the seniority list. The bottom 10% of every category could be lopped off, and thus the bottom 10%, or about 1100 pilots on the bottom, would go out the door, or the top 1100 retire and not be replaced.
Then there is the "Productivity" argument. Once you decouple aircraft pay rates from aircraft productivity, why should the company pay a 747 Captain any more than a 50 seat RJ Captain?
We are coming off 5 years of stagnation due to age 65 and merger synergy, so going forward, there will be a lot more pilots swapping seats and stuck in training for a month or more. How many pilots are -off line- going to school is hard to say, but let's use 10% because the math is easier.
IF we had LBP, there would be far fewer pilots playing musical chairs, chasing the big bucks into a widebody, so far fewer pilots required on the seniority list. The bottom 10% of every category could be lopped off, and thus the bottom 10%, or about 1100 pilots on the bottom, would go out the door, or the top 1100 retire and not be replaced.
Then there is the "Productivity" argument. Once you decouple aircraft pay rates from aircraft productivity, why should the company pay a 747 Captain any more than a 50 seat RJ Captain?
Last edited by Timbo; 05-28-2014 at 07:48 AM.
05-28-2014, 07:34 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 770
I agree with a point that Scoop made about QOL regarding pay bans. I personally have throttled back to spend more time with my family as a wide body F/O. If we did a pay band that moderated F/O pay, pilots in my position would be motivated to take the narrowbody captain jobs that we can hold to get the more significant captain pay increase (especially, in light of the new productivity that would erode the differences in QOL). So, if you see yourself as a narrowbody captain benefitting from a pay ban, consider the unintended consequence of today's QOL senior F/O's putting downward pressure on the back half of the seniority list's chances for upgrade to captain.
And more generally, it seems like less choice would be less better.
And more generally, it seems like less choice would be less better.
05-28-2014, 07:39 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
05-28-2014, 07:41 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
This sounds like a time for
Excel Spreadsheet Super Hero Man!
Fact or Fiction?
Tsquare: " I know the 777 has a higher percentage of mandatory retirements coming in the nest few years"
........ ... .... need double if statement... . ... ... ...
TRUE.
If you're dumb enough to trust ESSHM, the 777A is going to lose 26% of its pilots (72 total) in the next 3 years. The 744A comes in at 21% (46).
Now the next highest percentage of loss comes from the 765A losing 23% or 41 pilots in the next 3 years, the 330A only loses 12% or 36 pilots.
NB? The 717A will lose a higher % of As to retirement then the M88A (3% vs 2%), although there are nearly 1000 M88As vs 185 717As.
The 7ERA will lose 109 As but that is only 7% of that category.
I think the whole DTW744A -> ATL744A is nothing more than an effort to irritate FNWA. The thought is that because of the fence that DTW744A is junior-ish. Thus if you closed it and reopened it in ATL at the end of the year then senior guys would bid it and flush out all of the FNWA from 744A.
The only thing is training capacity couldn't handle a complete flush, you'd be taking As (there's only a dozen-ish Bs senior to the 744A plug) and moving them to the 744 which probably wouldn't happen in mass and why bother?
ATL 744 departures per day... 1
DTW 744 departures per day... 2
MSP 744 departures per day... 1
LGA 744 departures per day... 0
SLC 744 departures per day... 0
CVG 744 departures per day... 0
LAX 744 departures per day... 1
SEA 744 departures per day... 0 <- big mistake if they want to troll Alaskan Airlines
JFK 744 departures per day... 2
Excel Spreadsheet Super Hero Man!
Fact or Fiction?
Tsquare: " I know the 777 has a higher percentage of mandatory retirements coming in the nest few years"
........ ... .... need double if statement... . ... ... ...
TRUE.
If you're dumb enough to trust ESSHM, the 777A is going to lose 26% of its pilots (72 total) in the next 3 years. The 744A comes in at 21% (46).
Now the next highest percentage of loss comes from the 765A losing 23% or 41 pilots in the next 3 years, the 330A only loses 12% or 36 pilots.
NB? The 717A will lose a higher % of As to retirement then the M88A (3% vs 2%), although there are nearly 1000 M88As vs 185 717As.
The 7ERA will lose 109 As but that is only 7% of that category.
I think the whole DTW744A -> ATL744A is nothing more than an effort to irritate FNWA. The thought is that because of the fence that DTW744A is junior-ish. Thus if you closed it and reopened it in ATL at the end of the year then senior guys would bid it and flush out all of the FNWA from 744A.
The only thing is training capacity couldn't handle a complete flush, you'd be taking As (there's only a dozen-ish Bs senior to the 744A plug) and moving them to the 744 which probably wouldn't happen in mass and why bother?
ATL 744 departures per day... 1
DTW 744 departures per day... 2
MSP 744 departures per day... 1
LGA 744 departures per day... 0
SLC 744 departures per day... 0
CVG 744 departures per day... 0
LAX 744 departures per day... 1
SEA 744 departures per day... 0 <- big mistake if they want to troll Alaskan Airlines
JFK 744 departures per day... 2
Oh, and I think this is a little overdramatic
I think the whole DTW744A -> ATL744A is nothing more than an effort to irritate FNWA. The thought is that because of the fence that DTW744A is junior-ish. Thus if you closed it and reopened it in ATL at the end of the year then senior guys would bid it and flush out all of the FNWA from 744A.
05-28-2014, 07:51 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Has anyone ever actually submitted a motion at a council meeting in favor of 2-tier pay rates (CAPT/FO) and scheduled annual increases well after the 12-year mark?
It just seems like eliminating pilots' financial incentive to change aircraft every so often would so reduce training churn that it would represent a windfall we could negotiate to put in our pockets.
So, seriously, has anyone submitted a motion to this effect? If so, what happened?
It just seems like eliminating pilots' financial incentive to change aircraft every so often would so reduce training churn that it would represent a windfall we could negotiate to put in our pockets.
So, seriously, has anyone submitted a motion to this effect? If so, what happened?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
