FrankCobretti

Thanks, T. Appreciate your quick response.

tsquare

Go back and read the bullet points I posted for you a few pages back. Then compare that to Carl's contention that he should be highly compensated because the airplane -that management bought- that he is senior enough to fly.... should be paid more than other airplanes... based on some sort of productivity metric that has NOTHING to do with the job... It is a classic pull up the ladder I got mine argument. He's fighting for his seat on top of the throne, and I'm saying that his category is no more important than M88Driver's...

Again, I would like to hear a good argument for the productivity thing, other than "that's what ALPA fought for.. that's the way it's always been done... we should be paid more because the COMPANY makes more on a given airframe" etc etc...

Carl Spackler

No, I'm assuming just the opposite. My thesis is the replacement of one 747 with a bunch of narrow bodies. If management did that, it would greatly increase their costs. It's why management can't always give the added frequency that passengers prefer.

Our pay does have an affect on the bottom line...just not the huge impact that some on here state. Specifically, some folks here have stated that it was the C2K pilot pay rates that pushed Delta into bankruptcy. Absolute hogwash. Even if the decreased CASM is small for widebodies, it still incentivizes management to buy aircraft with the lowest CASM.

I'm not holding on to that thinking at all. It's just a recitation of history. I'm only saying that I don't know if you've (or any of us have) thought out the ramifications of this.

Carl

Kingbird87

After skimming today's postings, I had a vision of Pete Sampras vs John McEnroe.

Carl Spackler

It cannot be denied that you and I do the exact same job. It also cannot be denied that when I fly for one hour, I do so with at least twice the passengers and cargo that you do. That produces at least twice the revenue to the company, but my pay rate is NOT twice that of yours. It's only marginally higher based on my increased production of revenue. IF we move away from the model of small marginal pay increases based on revenue production, then you are going back to the old argument that unions used to make. That argument was that we have to be paid simply by being on the property...not based on any work I actually do. That argument is one of the reasons the public soured on unions.

I'm just not sure we should ever go back to an era where we can be accused of that by our flying public. I think it's a loser for us if we try.

Carl

Carl Spackler

The family is back together! '

Carl

Carl Spackler

That's a terribly unfair characterization. I've never even intimated such a thing.

Carl

Carl Spackler

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!

Carl

tsquare

Ridiculous. What are we gonna do, relay passengers across the Atlantic and Pacific? Now serving London Heathrow hourly with only 4 stops???? Naaaaah you are making an argument that will have to be dealt with as a SCOPE issue.



I agree.. and I don't care what airplane they buy because they are gonna buy what they are gonna buy. I want the most pay for the most Delta pilots over the course of their careers that we can possibly get. Not just the few guys that got hired when they were 27... You and Timbo have nowhere to go but down.. There are 11,500 of us that still have a long way to go, and probably 8-9000 that will never reach your Nirvana..



I have absolutely thought this out. And I am still waiting for a logical justification for the productivity argument... When I hear one, I will shut up and bow to the whale and 777 as being the greatest things since sliced bread.

Sampras v McEnroe... I rather like McEnroe, but I think Sampras would take him

I am having a lot of fun with this discussion btw.

tsquare

It cannot be denied that you and I do the exact same job. It also cannot be denied that when I fly for one hour, I do so with at least twice the passengers and cargo that you do. So what? That produces at least twice the revenue to the company, again, so what? but my pay rate is NOT twice that of yours.not really relevant, but it is disproportionally higher. It's only marginally higher based on my increased production of revenue. Nope.IF we move away from the model of small marginal pay increases based on revenue production, then you are going back to the old argument that unions used to make.Again with the productivity argument.. who cares??? and why????? That argument was that we have to be paid simply by being on the property...not based on any work I actually do.
Not exactly, but we are getting closer. My argument is that the airplane doesn't matter. You still have to push it around the sky... IOW you still do work. It is not like being on welfare. But OK, in the old days, a guy could bid reserve, go low yellow and not fly for months on end and get paid a lot of money. That is no longer the case for the most part, seasonal differences and economic problems notwithstanding.

That argument is one of the reasons the public soured on unions.

I don't care what the public thinks at this point in time. They are not paying what is in my honest opinion, a reasonable price to fly around the world in an airplane.

I'm just not sure we should ever go back to an era where we can be accused of that by our flying public. I think it's a loser for us if we try. Well that might... might be true, but then again, the public doesn't care, or even know for that matter that we took a 50% pay cut in bankruptcy TEN YEARS AGO and have still not recouped that... but that is a different discussion.

Carl