Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-11-2010, 08:00 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,899
Nu- why must you start up the same crap every couple evenings? Just when things have chilled out, you've got to go on another DAL-S sucks rant. Of course, now alfa is going to come back and tick every body else off with his response to yours.
It's a different operation and you're learning it now like a newhire- in fact got much better help than we had in newhire in many ways. There are going to be gotchas! Have beer and chill out.
It's a different operation and you're learning it now like a newhire- in fact got much better help than we had in newhire in many ways. There are going to be gotchas! Have beer and chill out.
I rejected my borg implants. Sorry....
Nu
04-11-2010, 08:04 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
I know you don't. I don't agree with that premise either, nor do many on here. It's the way you present it.
I agree with many of your points except now you're just coming accross as a whiner.
04-11-2010, 08:20 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,899
Yup. Myself and other DALN guys have seen that label thrown around quite a bit. Which is the crux of the problem.
Waves was asking "why all the moaning, after all, you got a pay raise, right?". NewK, Ferd, Keen, myself and others have been attempting to tell him why.
Of course, I get complaints for simply saying I like the direction of the MEC, so it appears as if it's impossible to win no matter what people say. Unless it's the party line, or if it's not the party line.
Nu
04-11-2010, 08:26 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Not just a label when you do the same thing every couple of days.
I don't favor the north or the south guys on this forum, and I do not withhold judgement on people making fools of themselves on either side. You know that.
04-11-2010, 08:31 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,899
04-11-2010, 08:40 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
He's getting up to speed slowly on this thread. Let's give the noob some appropriate hazing without going all 16 year old troll on the guy.
I quoted you before I saw your edit a couple posts up: If you remember, myself and a few others jumped on waves. The usual unionoid suspects jumped on and stirred the pot again. It was very nice seeing newK and ferd jump back in despite it... just hasn't been the same without them.
Overall, I hate the drama. That crap does nothing but divide and put emotion into a place where emotion should not be welcome. I want solutions and not rhetoric... from both sides.
In other news, I'll have some good rumors and such sometime this week... kool-aid meeting 2010 begins in about 12 hours... Here's to good news!
Last edited by 80ktsClamp; 04-11-2010 at 08:51 PM.
04-11-2010, 08:49 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: FO forever
Posts: 413
Personally, I'd be for the 73/small bus being on the same rate. Heck, throw the 90 and the 88 on there too.
The 744 absolutely should have a different pay rate as well... it hold's so much more than any of the other airplane, it is certainly in a category of its own.
The 9 in general is smaller than the others, that's logical as well to be a separate category. It also helps make a stronger economical argument to get a 100 seater on our list vice the arguments mgmt would make if we had that size aircraft grouped in with the 160 seaters.
Not a fan at all of single CA and FO pay lists.... not one bit. There are many reasons, and another was added tonight: scope recapture.
I know Mr. Itsnotcomingback wrote in the C44 Roar a few months ago that it's not going to happen, and I am very glad he's not sitting at the negotiating table for us. Yahoos with views like his don't need to be representing us.
Nu- why must you start up the same crap every couple evenings? Just when things have chilled out, you've got to go on another DAL-S sucks rant. Of course, now alfa is going to come back and tick every body else off with his response to yours.
It's a different operation and you're learning it now like a newhire- in fact got much better help than we had in newhire in many ways. There are going to be gotchas! Have beer and chill out.
The 744 absolutely should have a different pay rate as well... it hold's so much more than any of the other airplane, it is certainly in a category of its own.
The 9 in general is smaller than the others, that's logical as well to be a separate category. It also helps make a stronger economical argument to get a 100 seater on our list vice the arguments mgmt would make if we had that size aircraft grouped in with the 160 seaters.
Not a fan at all of single CA and FO pay lists.... not one bit. There are many reasons, and another was added tonight: scope recapture.
I know Mr. Itsnotcomingback wrote in the C44 Roar a few months ago that it's not going to happen, and I am very glad he's not sitting at the negotiating table for us. Yahoos with views like his don't need to be representing us.
Nu- why must you start up the same crap every couple evenings? Just when things have chilled out, you've got to go on another DAL-S sucks rant. Of course, now alfa is going to come back and tick every body else off with his response to yours.
It's a different operation and you're learning it now like a newhire- in fact got much better help than we had in newhire in many ways. There are going to be gotchas! Have beer and chill out.
I agree that a mistake was made with respect to 747 pay and now we will have to live with it. I'm not sure how the DAL pay rates are calculated, but at brand x we had a formula based on production. Therefore, a 747 pilot was more productive than a 9 pilot due to the size of load in passengers and cargo. Seems DAL is along these lines as well but would like to hear how your or our rates have been determined in the past.
You would have a huge argument on your hands to try and increase the 74 pay because it would be labeled an increase for a small segment of the group whereas had it been done in the beginning it would not have been viewed that way. We had a big kadu over trying to keep 2 capt postions on the plane and alot of junior guys were ticked about that battle long ago. Hopefully we do not have to fight that battle again in the future on the 777, 330, and 747 for trips over 12. That was a win for us from the DAL work rules. There ya go, had something good to say.
04-11-2010, 09:00 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Position: 320B
Posts: 511
Yahoo!!!! Done with 5 weeks of training!
04-11-2010, 09:01 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: FO forever
Posts: 413
Any rumors or news out there on fleet migration. Seems like it went pretty well in the Pacific.
04-11-2010, 09:04 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
I think it would be very difficult to have our pay based on something other than aircraft type. It is engrained in the way we have been living our careers from day 1. To change now would cause a huge shift in positions and huge training cost. It is easy for those of you that are new here to seek a new way to come up with pay, but for those who have lived 20-30 years under the current system, it would be a hard pill to swallow. People have positioned themselves in bases, bought homes, and pretty much have planned their lives around what aircraft can be flown and what it pays. To change that changes almost everything.
I agree that a mistake was made with respect to 747 pay and now we will have to live with it. I'm not sure how the DAL pay rates are calculated, but at brand x we had a formula based on production. Therefore, a 747 pilot was more productive than a 9 pilot due to the size of load in passengers and cargo. Seems DAL is along these lines as well but would like to hear how your or our rates have been determined in the past.
You would have a huge argument on your hands to try and increase the 74 pay because it would be labeled an increase for a small segment of the group whereas had it been done in the beginning it would not have been viewed that way. We had a big kadu over trying to keep 2 capt postions on the plane and alot of junior guys were ticked about that battle long ago. Hopefully we do not have to fight that battle again in the future on the 777, 330, and 747 for trips over 12. That was a win for us from the DAL work rules. There ya go, had something good to say.
I agree that a mistake was made with respect to 747 pay and now we will have to live with it. I'm not sure how the DAL pay rates are calculated, but at brand x we had a formula based on production. Therefore, a 747 pilot was more productive than a 9 pilot due to the size of load in passengers and cargo. Seems DAL is along these lines as well but would like to hear how your or our rates have been determined in the past.
You would have a huge argument on your hands to try and increase the 74 pay because it would be labeled an increase for a small segment of the group whereas had it been done in the beginning it would not have been viewed that way. We had a big kadu over trying to keep 2 capt postions on the plane and alot of junior guys were ticked about that battle long ago. Hopefully we do not have to fight that battle again in the future on the 777, 330, and 747 for trips over 12. That was a win for us from the DAL work rules. There ya go, had something good to say.
I was shocked that it had gone to 1 CA and 3 FO for over 12. That was just a travesty. Just a few short years ago, NWA required 2 CA and 1 FO for anything over 8. I was appalled at DL doing 1 CA and 2 FO when I first heard about it. Imagine if we staffed CA positions like that the amount of upgrades that would create. Guys that "could never" be a widebody captain here would all of a sudden have it in their grasp again. Ah...the old school.
As far as the rates... to me it just makes sense to group them in such a manner. I don't have the specific formula, but it's logical that something that holds 405 will produce more than something that holds in the 280s.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
