Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-17-2011, 10:13 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
03-17-2011, 10:17 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Thanks for the input, ACL. Using both current nag LGB pay systems, where would you currently be paid and what would you QOL had the hiring stopped a month after you were hired? I guess what I'm trying to understand is if QOL and pay are affected by where one was hired in a cycle of either massive growth or stagnation, I.E. Possibly getting stuck at the bottom of the list for years (amr, ual, us). Thanks again.
Point is that I would be in the bottom 1% versus where I am now. It has been the same for all hiring waves though out the history of a seniority based system. Just ask the 86 sans the 88/89 crowd. Lets not mention the poor 91 hires.
If we were stovepiped which would be akin to the current system I have a better QOL today, and an even better QOL of later. I would make more money too, just not in ATL(today)
If we went to a longevity based system, I would make whatever the median rate would be, so about what I make today, and I would be on a bigger jet with about the same QOL I have now.
The LBS works better for guys hired at the end of waves and hurts the other 75-80% of people hired in those same waves. (honest opinion) Like I said, I suspect we would see everything really senior and really junior since pay would no longer be an object. The bottom 11% of the list would be on reserve and the rest would find lines. Sounds great, but the reality is some choose reserve for a reason. Money is one of them, and so is the ability to not fly as much.
QOL and its definition is different to each of us. It also chances as one gets older. For me a guy who has a wife that works full time and young kiddos; weekends off is key. For a pilot that is on his second marriage who is married to a FA and has grown kids, weekends mean nothing but holidays do. Holidays are defined differently for each of us to . Some want Christmas off, Some Chinese New year, some Passover, some the Greek New Year or Christmas, some none, but like to be off in the middle of the week when the stores are less crowded. The point is that trying to define a pay system by QOL is like using fuzzy math. Its value is different for each of us.
One last point. We are looking at a LBS because of what we see today, but forget that the trajectory will change quickly here to most if not all of us being A's or senior WB FO's over the next few years (Retirements, and an assumed status quo) Point is both systems have pluses and minuses, but as Sink has pointed out, the biggest detractor to the LBS is the ability to quickly rationalize the list due to where the most junior pilots will be sitting. It is a valid point and one that does not need to be brushed over.
03-17-2011, 10:18 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
OK, so you're debating this? I'm not sure if you're trying to make my point, or yours.
It's a lot more economical to furlough when the bottom of each category contains the junior pilot, than in an airline that's perfectly stovepiped. If you need to cut overall flying 20% (i.e. after 9/11), and you look at the 20% junior pilots, you find that (oops), that's 100% of you maddog F/O's, and 50% of your A320 F/O's. Now what? Well, you have to displace. The 88 F/O's "displace" to the street. The A320 guys to the 88, etc. Until enough displacements have occured, you can't operate the 80% of the 88 flying you still wish to perform, and you don't have enough for the A320 either. So you weigh this carefully. You look at the entire list, and ou calculate the cost of displacing 20% of the entire system, from the top fleet on down, and you have a powerful dissincentive to pull the trigger if you won't have enough time on furlough to recoup your costs.
This is why we didn't furlough in 2008: it wasn't worth it.
If you have a system that isn't stovepiped at all, all F/O's distributed somewhat evenly, depending on where they live, the flying they like, etc. The junior 20% of all pilots makes up about 40% of all F/O categories (I'm assuming we have the same number of A's and B's). Now, you don't need to wait until you have to retrain 80% of your 88 F/O's (the total flying you were performing, minus the 20% you don't want). You only need to train 20% of your 88 B's (40% of the guys getting furloughed, minus 20% cut in flying). The great news? You're displacing 20% of the Captains, too. And, better yet, 20% of your 88 Captains are already trained. Since you're in a LBP situation, chances are they're flying the 88 because they like it, so the geography and the flying already floats their boat. And since they won't make more money by displacing to a senior WB category (LBP for all, remember?), then they might as well stay as 88 B's. What's the downside?
So, under our existing rules, it takes months to get everyone on the street, and the replacements trained. Under a LBP sytem, the entire airline is potentially set up properly to chop off the bottom X % of any and all categories, no questions asked. Send the certified letters, and it's done!
So to answer you hypothetical about the 737 guy and the A320 guy, the answer is that the 737 under a LBP sytem wouldn't be senior or junior to the A320 guy, and since it's easy to chop off 20% of either category, he'd stay put. One less training event. One less cost to be factored in against a furlough.
This is the stuff that would have made Kolshack cream his pants. And Burns too, whatever she has in her pants.
It's a lot more economical to furlough when the bottom of each category contains the junior pilot, than in an airline that's perfectly stovepiped. If you need to cut overall flying 20% (i.e. after 9/11), and you look at the 20% junior pilots, you find that (oops), that's 100% of you maddog F/O's, and 50% of your A320 F/O's. Now what? Well, you have to displace. The 88 F/O's "displace" to the street. The A320 guys to the 88, etc. Until enough displacements have occured, you can't operate the 80% of the 88 flying you still wish to perform, and you don't have enough for the A320 either. So you weigh this carefully. You look at the entire list, and ou calculate the cost of displacing 20% of the entire system, from the top fleet on down, and you have a powerful dissincentive to pull the trigger if you won't have enough time on furlough to recoup your costs.
This is why we didn't furlough in 2008: it wasn't worth it.
If you have a system that isn't stovepiped at all, all F/O's distributed somewhat evenly, depending on where they live, the flying they like, etc. The junior 20% of all pilots makes up about 40% of all F/O categories (I'm assuming we have the same number of A's and B's). Now, you don't need to wait until you have to retrain 80% of your 88 F/O's (the total flying you were performing, minus the 20% you don't want). You only need to train 20% of your 88 B's (40% of the guys getting furloughed, minus 20% cut in flying). The great news? You're displacing 20% of the Captains, too. And, better yet, 20% of your 88 Captains are already trained. Since you're in a LBP situation, chances are they're flying the 88 because they like it, so the geography and the flying already floats their boat. And since they won't make more money by displacing to a senior WB category (LBP for all, remember?), then they might as well stay as 88 B's. What's the downside?
So, under our existing rules, it takes months to get everyone on the street, and the replacements trained. Under a LBP sytem, the entire airline is potentially set up properly to chop off the bottom X % of any and all categories, no questions asked. Send the certified letters, and it's done!
So to answer you hypothetical about the 737 guy and the A320 guy, the answer is that the 737 under a LBP sytem wouldn't be senior or junior to the A320 guy, and since it's easy to chop off 20% of either category, he'd stay put. One less training event. One less cost to be factored in against a furlough.
This is the stuff that would have made Kolshack cream his pants. And Burns too, whatever she has in her pants.
03-17-2011, 10:19 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
I am more worried about the rest of my career than what I can hold today. If we were totally stovepiped I would be on the 73N as a line holder.
Also, bid my current seat as a line holder, held nice four leg four day trips and then started moving backwards a few years ago. Not complaining but just pointing that out. My reason for where I am not is, I do not want to commit to a two year seat lock that may limit my options when more seats move. It has nothing to do with QOL. I made the decision to take a QOL hit to avoid another seat lock. Currently I do not get anything I bid for due to where I sit on the jet. Once the music stops, I will then bid off.
Yes, I am junior but have well over 10% of the total list below me.
Also, bid my current seat as a line holder, held nice four leg four day trips and then started moving backwards a few years ago. Not complaining but just pointing that out. My reason for where I am not is, I do not want to commit to a two year seat lock that may limit my options when more seats move. It has nothing to do with QOL. I made the decision to take a QOL hit to avoid another seat lock. Currently I do not get anything I bid for due to where I sit on the jet. Once the music stops, I will then bid off.
Yes, I am junior but have well over 10% of the total list below me.
03-17-2011, 10:21 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I hope that we learn from it as well. And I'm not sure what irks me more...us funding the most powerful and best funded startup ultra LCC in human history of the future (SKYW) or us funding a Lorenzo style "Air Group" (RAH/F9) right now. Both are strong evidence, IMO, that our current leadership team either doesn't care because they know they won't be here that long, or worse, they don't understand where the money is going in the first place. I doubt its the second one.
Fact is that we have done both. The real incentive for DAL was shortsighted imo. It got debt off our balance sheet with allowing DAL to maintain a market presence.
03-17-2011, 10:22 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
03-17-2011, 10:23 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
The differential between current rate and fifith year rate is about 15 bucks an hr, give or take. Yes, I was hired earlier rather than later, or really late in the general process, depending on how you are looking at it!
Point is that I would be in the bottom 1% versus where I am now. It has been the same for all hiring waves though out the history of a seniority based system. Just ask the 86 sans the 88/89 crowd. Lets not mention the poor 91 hires.
If we were stovepiped which would be akin to the current system I have a better QOL today, and an even better QOL of later. I would make more money too, just not in ATL(today)
If we went to a longevity based system, I would make whatever the median rate would be, so about what I make today, and I would be on a bigger jet with about the same QOL I have now.
The LBS works better for guys hired at the end of waves and hurts the other 75-80% of people hired in those same waves. (honest opinion) Like I said, I suspect we would see everything really senior and really junior since pay would no longer be an object. The bottom 11% of the list would be on reserve and the rest would find lines. Sounds great, but the reality is some choose reserve for a reason. Money is one of them, and so is the ability to not fly as much.
QOL and its definition is different to each of us. It also chances as one gets older. For me a guy who has a wife that works full time and young kiddos; weekends off is key. For a pilot that is on his second marriage who is married to a FA and has grown kids, weekends mean nothing but holidays do. Holidays are defined differently for each of us to . Some want Christmas off, Some Chinese New year, some Passover, some the Greek New Year or Christmas, some none, but like to be off in the middle of the week when the stores are less crowded. The point is that trying to define a pay system by QOL is like using fuzzy math. Its value is different for each of us.
One last point. We are looking at a LBS because of what we see today, but forget that the trajectory will change quickly here to most if not all of us being A's or senior WB FO's over the next few years (Retirements, and an assumed status quo) Point is both systems have pluses and minuses, but as Sink has pointed out, the biggest detractor to the LBS is the ability to quickly rationalize the list due to where the most junior pilots will be sitting. It is a valid point and one that does not need to be brushed over.
Point is that I would be in the bottom 1% versus where I am now. It has been the same for all hiring waves though out the history of a seniority based system. Just ask the 86 sans the 88/89 crowd. Lets not mention the poor 91 hires.
If we were stovepiped which would be akin to the current system I have a better QOL today, and an even better QOL of later. I would make more money too, just not in ATL(today)
If we went to a longevity based system, I would make whatever the median rate would be, so about what I make today, and I would be on a bigger jet with about the same QOL I have now.
The LBS works better for guys hired at the end of waves and hurts the other 75-80% of people hired in those same waves. (honest opinion) Like I said, I suspect we would see everything really senior and really junior since pay would no longer be an object. The bottom 11% of the list would be on reserve and the rest would find lines. Sounds great, but the reality is some choose reserve for a reason. Money is one of them, and so is the ability to not fly as much.
QOL and its definition is different to each of us. It also chances as one gets older. For me a guy who has a wife that works full time and young kiddos; weekends off is key. For a pilot that is on his second marriage who is married to a FA and has grown kids, weekends mean nothing but holidays do. Holidays are defined differently for each of us to . Some want Christmas off, Some Chinese New year, some Passover, some the Greek New Year or Christmas, some none, but like to be off in the middle of the week when the stores are less crowded. The point is that trying to define a pay system by QOL is like using fuzzy math. Its value is different for each of us.
One last point. We are looking at a LBS because of what we see today, but forget that the trajectory will change quickly here to most if not all of us being A's or senior WB FO's over the next few years (Retirements, and an assumed status quo) Point is both systems have pluses and minuses, but as Sink has pointed out, the biggest detractor to the LBS is the ability to quickly rationalize the list due to where the most junior pilots will be sitting. It is a valid point and one that does not need to be brushed over.
03-17-2011, 10:24 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
03-17-2011, 10:27 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Would it be fair to say that the airplane that Boeing designed for cargo is best at carrying tonnage?
Or look at this way, according to Boeing, 70% of the 107 748 orders are for the freighter version. With the 777 only 7% have been the freighter versions. Moving forward with the 777s 263 aircraft backlog 75% are 773s and only 17% are freighters.
Looks as if your right bar in the sense that the 773 is a winner, with lots of wins, more wins than the 747 while it's standing the kitchen making coffee in the morning. But when it comes to the heavy tonnage flying the 747 is the winner, with more wins. If you're route can take 400 passengers the 747 is there.
http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...&pageid=m15525
03-17-2011, 10:27 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by acl65pilot 
As I see it, the point being made is, all categories would be really senior, then really junior allowing less downbids and backfilling to furlough. You could uniformly cut capacity across the board with less of an effect wrt to cost and training. The flex would be much easier to manage for the company than the current pay system.
As I see it, the point being made is, all categories would be really senior, then really junior allowing less downbids and backfilling to furlough. You could uniformly cut capacity across the board with less of an effect wrt to cost and training. The flex would be much easier to manage for the company than the current pay system.
tsquare
I am asking the most junior guy on this board right now: Since it is apparent that there will be no hiring for the forseeable future, would you like to have the potential opportunity to be able to fly the 777/747/330/7ER... on reserve.. as you are now... or would you rather be shoehorned into the DC9 right seat.. like you are now? Yup.. QOL might be the same.. but opportunity might be better for that guy. It's not ALL about the money.. but I could be wrong.
I am asking the most junior guy on this board right now: Since it is apparent that there will be no hiring for the forseeable future, would you like to have the potential opportunity to be able to fly the 777/747/330/7ER... on reserve.. as you are now... or would you rather be shoehorned into the DC9 right seat.. like you are now? Yup.. QOL might be the same.. but opportunity might be better for that guy. It's not ALL about the money.. but I could be wrong.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
