orvil

I was on the 737 in 2004. I made $237.00.

Today, I am on the 737. I make $210.

I have yet to make as much as I made in 2004. I didn't fly high time then, I don't fly it now.

I wasn't furloughed. That makes me lucky. I didn't green slip the entire time. I couldn't have looked my furloughed neighbor in the eye if I had green slipped.

My seniority on equipment is the same percentage as it was in 2004. I moved up to bigger equipment for a while, but the merger pushed me back.

I'm very satisfied to have the retirement in my own name.

I'm not happy about my pay rate.

I lost a lot. I'm sure there is somebody who lost more.

How can you achieve an objective without first defining the objective?

Instead of restoration, how about restoration plus?

Free Bird

If you look at the Contract comparison that DALPA sent out, there should be some info in there on it. I think?

DAL 88 Driver

I've been asking that same question for almost 10 years now. Apparently, the conconventional wisdom within DALPA is that it's not only unnecessary, it's actually a bad idea.

jetnwa

FWIW Orvil,

There are a lot of us who were furloughed from both sides of the company who appreciate and respect your position with guys on the street. My hat is off to you and you are one that I want to say "Thank you"!

Oberon

Pretty much. There's a time and place for everything. For instance, it clearly doesn't make sense to take a strike vote now but it would make sense if the company attempted to stonewall.

You have to get close to self help in order for a strike vote to mean anything which means playing the game. If you ask for "x" because that's what you used to be paid you probably won't get to self help. If you ask for "x" and show how it relates to the rest of the industry and that company financials will support it you stand a better chance.

I can't speak for anyone but myself but to me it means not being a pain in the ass when it isn't warranted. Finding ways to deal with issues before the grievance process. In my experience, this has been a much more effective way conducting business. It doesn't mean "give the company whatever it wants".

I'm guessing you are okay with the CPO using proactive engagement. When you have a bad day and make an ill-advised PA blaming the company for a delay you get called in to do the carpet dance, right? The meeting can go one of two ways; 1) you explain your bad day, apologize profusely, listen to an explanation of why we don't do that and are on your merry way. 2) You defend your actions, refuse to change your behavior and are rewarded with an unpaid week at home which you can choose to fight further or just accept. Without proactive engagement you wouldn't have option 1 or 2, you'd just get the punishment and your choices would be fight it or accept it. Both situations are terrible.

By the way, I don't mean to imply you'd make an ill-advised PA. I'm sure, like 99% of our pilots, you are always professional.

Throw it in if you'd like. I don't suggest making it your argument because the company doesn't care and the mediator isn't likely to make any decisions based on it.

tsquare

Good list. Now. How do you reconcile it for each individual pilot? Since bigger pays more and all....

orvil

Why don't you use me? Middle of the road 737A. I'm in the same place today as 2004. I haven't moved within 1%or 2% of my category since 2004. I don't fly high time. I still try to fly 75 hours each month.

Just add up what I lost. It will provide an average. The figure would be pretty eye opening.

tsquare

I think that is a lot easier said than done because it is different things to different pilots. Frankly, I'm not interested in a payrate of C2K + inflation in and of itself. I have my reasons, but I will betcha that many pilots near or above my seniority have a similar reasoning. I want that money tax sheltered.

tsquare

That works for you and sailingfun.. but not for me.. or 88driver actually. And it doesn't provide any kind of average. Sorry, but it won't, because there are 11,000 different situations. So I will say this again. If you simply want to talk about restoration of payrates, that's one thing, and ya'll can argue that all day long. But that is only a small part of the equation. And I'm not saying that the figure isn't "eye opening" Never said any such thing. What I AM saying however is that it is not as simple as some here like to make it out to be.

Raging white

I think folks well below that seniority level would agree with that. Fill up 401k, AND 401c to fed limits in combination with ""reasonable"* pay rate increases is a goal I could get behind, before higher pay rates with no change in retirement contribution.

* reasonable is up for debate. Fights on.