Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-11-2010, 05:10 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
Ooh, ooh, ooh. I know the answer, pick me. The answer to your very appropriate and great question is: NONE.
04-11-2010, 05:23 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Why does the A330-200 and A330-300 pay the same? Isn't there a substantial seating difference?
Why do the 737-700 and 737-800 pay the same? Why is the -900 is slightly different?
Why do the 757-200/200ER/300 and 767-200/300/300ER pay the same? Why does the 767-400 pay substantially more?
If Delta were to get MD-87's, would that be a lower paying aircraft?
Why did the freighters (with zero revenue pax seats) pay better than the A330?
So many questions....
04-11-2010, 05:30 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Nice while it lasted
Posts: 326
In a world where size matters, you're absolutely right. But does it really? (save that one for the Playboy forum
).I also lost my almost all my DB (for the record, my frozen NWA pension will net around $1100/month, which I suppose is better than nothing-hundred, but we didn't make out like bandits). Like you, I can never recover the value of my lost pension and, like you, think it's time to put the past behind us and focus on the future. That's why I philosophically agree with Shiz and have to stand on his side of the net.
04-11-2010, 05:34 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Hey slow, quick question, I think you were the one eons ago that talked us out of a ups style system and since that is a sexy looking system that I bet will be brought back up any moment from now so can you rehash your reason not to do it real quick?
If that was indeed you.
If that was indeed you.
04-11-2010, 05:34 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Ferd
04-11-2010, 05:39 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
I disagree. (and I am pretty darn junior). High payrates on the biggest metal is a great idea when everybody will get to spend the last 3-5 years as a captain on said metal, AND IF YOU HAVE PENSIONS BASED ON FAE....
We have retirements based on % of earnings now. As such, I would MUCH rather see higher payrates SOONER(and end up flatter later) rather than make up for it with trying to top out high late so I can take advantage of compounding and have a better retirement.
It goes back to career earnings, not earnings at the end of the career.
We have retirements based on % of earnings now. As such, I would MUCH rather see higher payrates SOONER(and end up flatter later) rather than make up for it with trying to top out high late so I can take advantage of compounding and have a better retirement.
It goes back to career earnings, not earnings at the end of the career.
No dog in this fight, as an old guy from another profession............
But, using your logic, are you in favor of just capt pay and fo pay regardless of airplane size and range? What if we actually capture the 76 seat flying? Does that captain make the same as a 777/Whale capt?
Can of worms open you young jedi
Ferd
04-11-2010, 05:39 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 737n/FO
Posts: 667
Well,
I for one can say that I was a big proponent of the merger. There were two very good carriers with very complimentary route systems and most importantly a very bight future. As a former NWA guy I was glad to get rid of the NWA anti labor culture.
The problem I see is that some on here think that Delta acquired NWA which in their opinion was a broken down carrier with little value. That could not be farther than the truth. NWA was flush with cash, over 5 billion, had fortress hubs with excellent facilities, a highly profitable joint venture with KLM and the pacific op. The latter has been ridiculed by many south guys until they get over there and see it. I think where our frustration stems from is that NWA guys have had a unique perspective of seeing how both airlines do thing. There are some things that Delta does very well and others which leave most of us shaking our heads.
This was a merger of two equals and NWA was actually in better financial shape than DAL. This IS a fine airline now and DAL has a great future ahead. But let's not forget that is was TWO good carriers that came together to form one great airline.
I for one can say that I was a big proponent of the merger. There were two very good carriers with very complimentary route systems and most importantly a very bight future. As a former NWA guy I was glad to get rid of the NWA anti labor culture.
The problem I see is that some on here think that Delta acquired NWA which in their opinion was a broken down carrier with little value. That could not be farther than the truth. NWA was flush with cash, over 5 billion, had fortress hubs with excellent facilities, a highly profitable joint venture with KLM and the pacific op. The latter has been ridiculed by many south guys until they get over there and see it. I think where our frustration stems from is that NWA guys have had a unique perspective of seeing how both airlines do thing. There are some things that Delta does very well and others which leave most of us shaking our heads.
This was a merger of two equals and NWA was actually in better financial shape than DAL. This IS a fine airline now and DAL has a great future ahead. But let's not forget that is was TWO good carriers that came together to form one great airline.
04-11-2010, 05:46 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 737A
Posts: 1,890
Gotta disagree, Waves, and ask "Why?". My personal aviation experience is that the bigger the jet, the easier the job (as a multi-year whale Captain in a previous life I feel qualified to make that statement). Flying the 74 was the easiest thing I've ever done in an airplane; the DC-9 is WAY more work.
In a world where size matters, you're absolutely right. But does it really? (save that one for the Playboy forum).
I also lost my almost all my DB (for the record, my frozen NWA pension will net around $1100/month, which I suppose is better than nothing-hundred, but we didn't make out like bandits). Like you, I can never recover the value of my lost pension and, like you, think it's time to put the past behind us and focus on the future. That's why I philosophically agree with Shiz and have to stand on his side of the net.
In a world where size matters, you're absolutely right. But does it really? (save that one for the Playboy forum
).I also lost my almost all my DB (for the record, my frozen NWA pension will net around $1100/month, which I suppose is better than nothing-hundred, but we didn't make out like bandits). Like you, I can never recover the value of my lost pension and, like you, think it's time to put the past behind us and focus on the future. That's why I philosophically agree with Shiz and have to stand on his side of the net.
I think it makes sense to group similar jets in pay. It would certainly make sense to me that A319/320 be paid the same as the 737 guys. And I think it was a real victory for the south guys to get the 75's up to 76 pay. I'd like to see some rationalization of the payrates, and I agree with those that are talking about trying to ramp up earlier vs only getting 5-6 years at the top.
04-11-2010, 05:51 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
You can call me anything you like, as long as afterwards we can still go out and have a barley pop together. Like I said, I understand your point. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what we are really disagreeing on. Maybe I should attempt a clarification. If you are saying that a DC-9 should pay the same as a 747-400, then I may have to place your comments on the ignore section. 
My point was simply weight, range, and speed. The 777 is not even in the same league as the 747-400 and should be paid accordingly. I was not really thinking pay cut for us less fortunate ones. I think you were indicating that you were not willing to make a personal sacrifice to increase the hourly rate of the 747 for those old geezers who have been here as long as dirt. Is that your premise, or am I misreading your posts? Because if I'm not, it sounds a little, tiny, bit selfish to me.
P.S. I always buy the beers, even when we disagree. Ha
My point was simply weight, range, and speed. The 777 is not even in the same league as the 747-400 and should be paid accordingly. I was not really thinking pay cut for us less fortunate ones. I think you were indicating that you were not willing to make a personal sacrifice to increase the hourly rate of the 747 for those old geezers who have been here as long as dirt. Is that your premise, or am I misreading your posts? Because if I'm not, it sounds a little, tiny, bit selfish to me.P.S. I always buy the beers, even when we disagree. Ha
I just can't see how "weight, range and speed" mean anything to the workload of a 777 crew from ATL-MCO, or the M88 crew that does the same route late that day.(Thank god DAL isn't wasting a 777 doing that anymore!)
I think, in my personal opinion, that one should be paid for the difficulty and/or complexity of the the work performed. (that explains my night/intl. override suggestions).
"Old geezers" shouldn't get more because they fly bigger metal, (IMHO) they should get a "catch up" for retirement lost. (You'll never recoup the majority of it, but the young guys will never even get a taste of that golden age either, its not likely coming back)I believe your catch up shouldn't hinge on what airframe you sit in for 60-80 hours per month.
Bid the flying you WANT to do, and get paid more for working at challenging and fatiguing body-clock hours or dealing with ocean crossings/difficult divert scenarios. (i.e. paid for working harder)
Don't be financially FORCED to bid something based on whether the landing gear has trucks or not.
A pay system in this scenario has drawbacks, namely QOL increases are slower for junior guys (i.e. ME), because guys stop chasing payrates to make the money and would bid what they truly want (likely leaving junior guys the 738 and 75/76 red eye flying, along with ACC, DKR, and KWI, 9 day ER trips away from family and other rather undesirable flying in other categories.
Its a give and take no matter how you slice it, but I really think a common payscale and "incentives" for night and international legs makes sense. (Having a bonus for holidays(holiday pay) has some great QOL implications too, but that's yet another discussion).
04-11-2010, 05:52 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
Why does the A319 pay the same as the A320? If Delta got A318's, should that be a lower payrate?
Why does the A330-200 and A330-300 pay the same? Isn't there a substantial seating difference?
Why do the 737-700 and 737-800 pay the same? Why is the -900 is slightly different?
Why do the 757-200/200ER/300 and 767-200/300/300ER pay the same? Why does the 767-400 pay substantially more?
If Delta were to get MD-87's, would that be a lower paying aircraft?
Why did the freighters (with zero revenue pax seats) pay better than the A330?
So many questions....
Why does the A330-200 and A330-300 pay the same? Isn't there a substantial seating difference?
Why do the 737-700 and 737-800 pay the same? Why is the -900 is slightly different?
Why do the 757-200/200ER/300 and 767-200/300/300ER pay the same? Why does the 767-400 pay substantially more?
If Delta were to get MD-87's, would that be a lower paying aircraft?
Why did the freighters (with zero revenue pax seats) pay better than the A330?
So many questions....
I'm not even sure you have a point here, but if you do, maybe it is that each and every aircraft should have it's own pay scale. Just guessing. If that is your point, then I must agree. Grouping aircraft together was actually just another pay cut we received in the name of simplicity. When I was flying the 757-200, 767-200, 767-300, 767-300ER, each had it's own scale based on weight, range, and speed. At least I think range was a criteria. Now so many aircraft are grouped together. Some are very similar, while others are vastly different. Similarities in name don't necessarily equate to size. The 767-300 and 400 are much different. Conversely, the 757-200 and 300 are almost identical. The 747-400 is vastly different to it's pay equivalent 777 sister. It should be paid accordingly.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
