Originally Posted by tsquare

My acronym data base is out of data. I have no clue what ESSHM is. Frankly this subject isn't all that interesting, so I'll bow out. Ciao.

Oh, and I think this is a little overdramatic
don't you? Not everybody wants to fly the 747. The 777 pays the same, mostly goes to the same or similar destinations... yada yada yada. But I guess it's probably just me. Castell doesn't have to worry about me coming in on top of him....

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Originally Posted by tsquare

Why should they pay a 747 captain more than an RJ captain? You think the RJs are gonna take the job of the 777? You said yourself that you would drive to MCO to fly the 717 rather than commute...but for that money thing... I just don't understand why QOL takes such a backseat. So if guys were making top tier wages based on their years of service WHO CARES what airplane they are flying? If it meets their desires for lifestyle, I say throttle up. If management wants to retire all the widebodies and buy all E-170s, good for them. They have to pay you and I more each and every year to fly them. I think the cost effectiveness and economy of scale is out the window at that point. The ONLY argument that I see having any legitimacy is that the seniority at the bottom of the list would be spread across all fleets. So what? Do you see any real indication of a furlough in the coming years? Your retirement argument. 1100 could retire and not be replaced. OK.. oil goes to $150/bbl. 747s go to the desert with no replacement. NOW you have a cascade downward throughout the entire list. How do you justify that?

Originally Posted by Timbo

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?

Originally Posted by RonRicco

One thing I have learned since being here, is when you change something there is always unintended consequences and you really need to investigate them as thoroughly as possible before you act.

Originally Posted by gloopy

I think all day 4 and beyond availabilities are viewed as the same for all 4 and under day trips. So if you're on for 6 days you're (your?) available for 4 days…3 days in a row.

Originally Posted by Timbo

I think Lufthansa pays by seniority vs. equipment, and their most senior pilots fly shuttle type trips on the 737 out of Berlin, show up early, fly a couple out and backs, go home every night. Their junior guys have to fly their 747's (and now A380's) around the world, on 14 day trips.

Originally Posted by Alan Shore

Sounds pretty good to me.

Originally Posted by Scoop

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