Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-11-2010, 05:52 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
F-16yourdudeness...........I agree. Every job out there is paid by how much you generate for the man. Everyone from the top producing mortgage broker (opps never mind) to the big box office movie star to the star QB who puts the butts in the seats, we get paid for how much revenue we generate.
04-11-2010, 05:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
If you were to stovepipe our list right now against the number of Captain positions, you'll find that certain guys are "way" out of seniority. There are some FO's that could hold very senior Captain. There are some Captains that could no longer hold their seat. At a neutral cost (not advocating that, just the math exercise) there would be some tremendous winners and losers in a longevity based pay system. Even if you required guys to sit in a Captain's seat to get Captain's pay, there would be a tremendous shift of income. Think about that in regards to bidding preferences as we go along.
First, there are no training savings. All the "common" pay schemes shift aircraft fleet preferences around. The same amount of training gets done; instead of chasing dollars guys chase schedules (where not rostered vice bid) or quality of life. There have been extensive discussions with airlines using this pay system to verify that (where available) movement does occur. Common jet salary is a substantial training savings where management controls monthly rostering and aircraft assignment (see CX for an example). I doubt most US based pilots would go for that.
Common pay schemes also have "other" issues. At CX the A scale pilots with Ex-pat benefits lived very well. Each time they've hired, CX has lowered payscales for new hires, causing a continuous degradation in compensation over time (B-C-D scales). Pay is delinked from productivity, and there is no anti-B scale argument available, other than "that guy got paid more", just like anybody who lived under C2K got paid more.
Those are a couple of quick ideas. It's been a while since I thought about this and I know that I missed a bunch, but it's bed time on a school night...
04-11-2010, 05:54 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
he he he... so is the MD88 going to get a pay raise when we bump up to 150 seats from 142?
04-11-2010, 05:58 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Yes, it was me. While I understand the desire in the Defined Contribution world to front load (or flatten) pay, I think it is a mistake to completely delink pay from productivity. There isn't a longevity or seniority based pay system that achieves what those that want the flatter payscale believe it will achieve.
If you were to stovepipe our list right now against the number of Captain positions, you'll find that certain guys are "way" out of seniority. There are some FO's that could hold very senior Captain. There are some Captains that could no longer hold their seat. At a neutral cost (not advocating that, just the math exercise) there would be some tremendous winners and losers in a longevity based pay system. Even if you required guys to sit in a Captain's seat to get Captain's pay, there would be a tremendous shift of income. Think about that in regards to bidding preferences as we go along.
First, there are no training savings. All the "common" pay schemes shift aircraft fleet preferences around. The same amount of training gets done; instead of chasing dollars guys chase schedules (where not rostered vice bid) or quality of life. There have been extensive discussions with airlines using this pay system to verify that (where available) movement does occur. Common jet salary is a substantial training savings where management controls monthly rostering and aircraft assignment (see CX for an example). I doubt most US based pilots would go for that.
Common pay schemes also have "other" issues. At CX the A scale pilots with Ex-pat benefits lived very well. Each time they've hired, CX has lowered payscales for new hires, causing a continuous degradation in compensation over time (B-C-D scales). Pay is delinked from productivity, and there is no anti-B scale argument available, other than "that guy got paid more", just like anybody who lived under C2K got paid more.
Those are a couple of quick ideas. It's been a while since I thought about this and I know that I missed a bunch, but it's bed time on a school night...
If you were to stovepipe our list right now against the number of Captain positions, you'll find that certain guys are "way" out of seniority. There are some FO's that could hold very senior Captain. There are some Captains that could no longer hold their seat. At a neutral cost (not advocating that, just the math exercise) there would be some tremendous winners and losers in a longevity based pay system. Even if you required guys to sit in a Captain's seat to get Captain's pay, there would be a tremendous shift of income. Think about that in regards to bidding preferences as we go along.
First, there are no training savings. All the "common" pay schemes shift aircraft fleet preferences around. The same amount of training gets done; instead of chasing dollars guys chase schedules (where not rostered vice bid) or quality of life. There have been extensive discussions with airlines using this pay system to verify that (where available) movement does occur. Common jet salary is a substantial training savings where management controls monthly rostering and aircraft assignment (see CX for an example). I doubt most US based pilots would go for that.
Common pay schemes also have "other" issues. At CX the A scale pilots with Ex-pat benefits lived very well. Each time they've hired, CX has lowered payscales for new hires, causing a continuous degradation in compensation over time (B-C-D scales). Pay is delinked from productivity, and there is no anti-B scale argument available, other than "that guy got paid more", just like anybody who lived under C2K got paid more.
Those are a couple of quick ideas. It's been a while since I thought about this and I know that I missed a bunch, but it's bed time on a school night...
I mean rehash!
Its like that damn game of jenga, you think it'd be great to take that peg out and move it to the top and its not.
04-11-2010, 06:00 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
I think the general consensus is that it's not about how hard you work but about how much revenue you generate. When you are the Captain of a max loaded Whale with fully belly cargo, you are generating a lot of revenue. If it was about how hard you worked, I'd have skipped all this and stuck with roofing houses.
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.
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.
I do disagree with the premise of "generating revenue". We don't generate revenue. Like it or not, we operate machinery. IMHO, Glen Hauenstein and Neel Shah generate the revenue for a given flight.
We do however, control costs to some extent, but that isn't the same as generating revenue.
04-11-2010, 06:04 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
No, not selfish.....I guess you didn't catch the satire in that post.
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).
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, 06:04 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
I can get behind this idea as a compromise, and I think it has a lot of merit.
I do disagree with the premise of "generating revenue". We don't generate revenue. Like it or not, we operate machinery. IMHO, Glen Hauenstein and Neel Shah generate the revenue for a given flight.
We do however, control costs to some extent, but that isn't the same as generating revenue.
I do disagree with the premise of "generating revenue". We don't generate revenue. Like it or not, we operate machinery. IMHO, Glen Hauenstein and Neel Shah generate the revenue for a given flight.
We do however, control costs to some extent, but that isn't the same as generating revenue.
04-11-2010, 06:07 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B-7ER JFK
Posts: 931
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....
We as a pilot group are simply wired to make more $$$ because we fly bigger planes. I bet management loves the idea that we fight internally about different rates, rather than work as a group for better pay based on seniority.
Our greed is also proven with our reserve system. The line holder complains that he/she has to fly every bit of 70 hours while a reservist may sit home 90% of the time, making the same. Why then, is it that only the most junior guys/gals are sitting reserve? Maybe because the lineholder might get to fly 2 extra hours that month and might get a GS... Who knows? I know I will bid reseve for a long time to come and have adjusted myself to like it.
Again... just my $0.02...
04-11-2010, 06:08 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
All right boys..........this has been real fun but I've GOTTA bid. See ya all after later.
Your Uncle Ferd
Your Uncle Ferd
04-11-2010, 06:09 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Hummmmm,
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
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
76 seater the same as a whale? Maybe a bit of a stretch. How about a WB A/B rate and a NB A/B rate?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
