Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-02-2012, 06:31 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 7ERB
Posts: 2,039
. I almost PUKED. That is one "RATHER" style photo. I, second, Jesse or Super to inject some medicine to offset this NASTY picture. PUKE
03-02-2012, 06:35 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Since you haven't been reading the whole topic, you're ill-informed. The topic is pay banding. Iceman reminded us all that we already have pay banding at Delta. I responded with my post above.
It's simply a fact. Nothing to do with right, wrong or personal complexes. Just a reiteration that we already have pay banding at Delta.
Carl
It's simply a fact. Nothing to do with right, wrong or personal complexes. Just a reiteration that we already have pay banding at Delta.
Carl
03-02-2012, 06:41 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Not necessarily. It's just the way ALPA contracts have been written since prior to the jet age.
The theory goes back to the introduction of jets. Jets not only vastly increased capacity, but vastly increased speed. Both were huge increases in productivity per hour of piloting. ALPA fought hard for pay increases based on this productivity. Management fought it extremely hard. Management wanted pilots to be paid the same.
It was what ALPA fought hard for. It had nothing to do with ol Carl. Unions get insulted constantly for being afraid of more productivity. It's a slur. ALPA fought hard back in the day, and won the right to be paid via productivity. To me, it has always made economic sense to pay per productivity. For me personally, I would prefer to fly day trips on the 757. That would be my idea of the ideal gig. I don't do that because it's not the best financial decision for me. If we move away from pay based on productivity, we play into the hands of those who wish to taint us with the brush of being afraid to be productive.
It has NOTHING to do with my job being any harder than anyone elses.
It could be argued that way, and could be argued another way. Truth is, both jobs have significant risks and skill requirements. That's a given. The only question is whether you pay pilots based on the amount of revenue they produce based on the aircraft they fly.
I can only give you my opinions and the historical background of how we got here.
Carl
The theory goes back to the introduction of jets. Jets not only vastly increased capacity, but vastly increased speed. Both were huge increases in productivity per hour of piloting. ALPA fought hard for pay increases based on this productivity. Management fought it extremely hard. Management wanted pilots to be paid the same.
It has NOTHING to do with my job being any harder than anyone elses.
I can only give you my opinions and the historical background of how we got here.
Carl
03-02-2012, 06:46 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 478
03-02-2012, 06:48 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
I'll give you the bullet points.
-Biggest pays most under current system. Fine. That would be great if we had 50 of each of them.. we don't. we have 16 and 18.
-Management chooses which airplanes we fly, we negotiate how much we will be paid to fly whatever they buy.
-All we have done, and all we are going to be doing for the foreseeable future is buying smaller gauge airframes than those CURRENTLY on the property.
-net result is less pay for the entire pilot group over the course of a career.
-the net result of THAT is that we have less $ in our retirement and investment plans, because the DB plan no longer exists and we have to fund our own retirement...
-That seems like we are continuing to shoot the group as a whole in the foot just to keep guys like Carl paid the most...
-The net result is less pay AND as a bonus, a crappier QOL over the course of a career to keep this same system because if you want to maximize your retirement, you have to either a)fly more, or b) bid an airplane where you have no seniority.. Hobson's choice. they both suck, and it is so unnecessary.
-Biggest pays most under current system. Fine. That would be great if we had 50 of each of them.. we don't. we have 16 and 18.
-Management chooses which airplanes we fly, we negotiate how much we will be paid to fly whatever they buy.
-All we have done, and all we are going to be doing for the foreseeable future is buying smaller gauge airframes than those CURRENTLY on the property.
-net result is less pay for the entire pilot group over the course of a career.
-the net result of THAT is that we have less $ in our retirement and investment plans, because the DB plan no longer exists and we have to fund our own retirement...
-That seems like we are continuing to shoot the group as a whole in the foot just to keep guys like Carl paid the most...
-The net result is less pay AND as a bonus, a crappier QOL over the course of a career to keep this same system because if you want to maximize your retirement, you have to either a)fly more, or b) bid an airplane where you have no seniority.. Hobson's choice. they both suck, and it is so unnecessary.
While you're entitled to your opinion, your bolded statement above is simply not factual.
Carl
03-02-2012, 06:55 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 736
Sorry for thread drift gents but I need to check loads again for tomorrow, if it's tight I'll have to buy a ticket instead of jumpseating.
It's for Saturday march 3, ATL-MBJ, 8:30am and 9:49am flights, can you also list if any non revs are listed? Thanks much!
It's for Saturday march 3, ATL-MBJ, 8:30am and 9:49am flights, can you also list if any non revs are listed? Thanks much!
03-02-2012, 06:58 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Pay banding could well exacerbate this point. With pay banding, you actually reduce the CASM of wide body aircraft relative to their narrow body counterparts. If you reduce the relative CASM of wide bodies, you incentivize management to buy more of them. More wide bodies mean less need for pilots. That's one of the main reasons ALPA fought hard for this productivity pay when the 707 was introduced decades ago.
Carl
03-02-2012, 07:01 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Not necessarily. It's just the way ALPA contracts have been written since prior to the jet age.
The theory goes back to the introduction of jets. Jets not only vastly increased capacity, but vastly increased speed. Both were huge increases in productivity per hour of piloting. ALPA fought hard for pay increases based on this productivity. Management fought it extremely hard. Management wanted pilots to be paid the same.
The theory goes back to the introduction of jets. Jets not only vastly increased capacity, but vastly increased speed. Both were huge increases in productivity per hour of piloting. ALPA fought hard for pay increases based on this productivity. Management fought it extremely hard. Management wanted pilots to be paid the same.
It was what ALPA fought hard for. It had nothing to do with ol Carl. Unions get insulted constantly for being afraid of more productivity. It's a slur. ALPA fought hard back in the day, and won the right to be paid via productivity. To me, it has always made economic sense to pay per productivity. For me personally, I would prefer to fly day trips on the 757. That would be my idea of the ideal gig. I don't do that because it's not the best financial decision for me. If we move away from pay based on productivity, we play into the hands of those who wish to taint us with the brush of being afraid to be productive.
It has NOTHING to do with my job being any harder than anyone elses.
It has NOTHING to do with my job being any harder than anyone elses.
It could be argued that way, and could be argued another way. Truth is, both jobs have significant risks and skill requirements. That's a given. The only question is whether you pay pilots based on the amount of revenue they produce based on the aircraft they fly.
I can only give you my opinions and the historical background of how we got here.
Carl
I can only give you my opinions and the historical background of how we got here.
Carl
03-02-2012, 07:04 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
What I've bolded above is the falsehood upon which you've based your argument on pay banding. Truth is, none of us knows this to be true. In fact (as acl65pilot posted earlier), the new 747-8i could likely provide irresistible levels of CASM to Delta.
While you're entitled to your opinion, your bolded statement above is simply not factual.
Carl
While you're entitled to your opinion, your bolded statement above is simply not factual.
Carl
03-02-2012, 07:05 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
