Delta TA

Cptnchia said:
The JV was EASK or Equivalent Air Seat Kilometers. So if say AF put an A380 on a route, that was equal to two Delta 767s. More pilots needed. Now it is based on block hours so an A380 is equal to a 757. Loss of pilots.

As for new hire pay, it was bumped up, and I believe hotels may be included(?) I've heard it both ways, but haven't seen the full language yet.
Click to expand...

That's definitely a concern. It would be strange for the union to rush to an early deal if it meant a large loss of wide body jobs. More info needed. I'll hold off on debating this one until the union releases more definitive details with charts etc.

MEC vote
smack300 said:
Is that chart really saying you can make $350,000 flying 747 or 777?
Click to expand...

Or A350 since the 747 is be a goner soon. That is correct. $350,000 including profit sharing based on $6 billion yearly profit at Delta. Some projections have a $10 billion profit in 2016. 747/777/A350 compensation will be around $380,000 at that profit level.
 
ian said:
again, i'm an outsider.

but my thought is DL is going to bring those 100 seat airplanes on property no matter what since the FFD carriers are having such problems staffing. Why would you allow them to add more airplanes to the regionals when you don't have to? You are basically saying give us x planes and then you can give the regional y planes.....when big daddy D is gonna bring X planes anyways....so you are needlessly giving Y planes (again, my opinion). And I'd argue the JV change to block hours is a loss of scope. With the current A380 vs 2 767s going to A380 vs 1 767
Click to expand...

At current rates if the planes are coming anyway you will have a new B scale. 12 year E190 Capt pay is currently $140 an hour. You'll have FOs being displaced to E190 Captain. No thanks
 
The graduated rates with high top end was great when your pension was calculated taking the highest 5 grossing years out of the last 10 (or whatever metric your airline used).

However, that's over and done with and it's time we move toward a more equal pay system. Top pay comes down, bottom pay comes up. Of course, you can't ask the guys at the top end to take $100,000 a year pay cuts, they would go ape•, we almost need a contract that allows guys to choose currently, and newly implemented for new hries moving forward.

Me personally, I'd rather take an additional $75,000 a year as an FO than an additional $120,000 a year my last 5 years or so. The compounding with the 401k system is insane when you look over a 35 year career.
 
The pension was never the reason for the pay slope. Some pension plans used the highest five years of pay, anyway, not just the last five. The fact that most pilots spend a majority of their career at the 12 year rate has always been the reason for the slope, and it's still valid. A shallower gradient really only benefits older career changers.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
The pension was never the reason for the pay slope. Some pension plans used the highest five years of pay, anyway, not just the last five. The fact that most pilots spend a majority of their career at the 12 year rate has always been the reason for the slope, and it's still valid. A shallower gradient really only benefits older career changers.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with the 12 year "slope".

What I'm not fine with is the $75/hr starting, and $300/hr finish that is only with you for the last few years (unless you're super lucky).

Most guys don't spend 20 years in the left seat of their 777. Some might, but it's not very many. Where as many will spend 20 years in the right seat of their Airbus. Many pilots will retire having never seen anywhere near those top end pay rates, not just a select few. It's also much more important to have higher wages to begin with, as it greatly increases your compounded money at the end at retirement.

I'd much rather the union negotiate much higher starting wages with a fairly flat pay scale, and FO rates of 85% of CA wages. A side benefit is it would allow those to hop from one carrier to another much easier as the loss in wages wouldn't be as significant. This is particularly important at the commuters, and it would add upward pressure to wages.

The entire gig is a pyramid scheme the way it's rigged up now.
 
Last edited:
Seggy said:
Me me me me me me me me me! Now now now now now!
Click to expand...
Actually I think that's more about the topped out guys in the wide bodies personally.

Same with the commuters, $100/hr as CA and $20/hr for new hire FO? WTF? I wrote in our negotiation survey that any raise for the CA's should be turned over to the FOs, and I was a CA. I had no interest in getting a raise when FOs made such paltry wages.

Before the merger with AA, there was significant movement toward doing just what I described. However the AA merged sealed the fate on that idea.

Guys had seen the effects of low FO wages as the airline was cut in half. CAs were now junior FOs. It's great when you move up quickly through the ranks if you were lucky, but bad when stagnation happens.

I *should* be OK, having been hired on at 32, my fear is those hired in five-seven years or so, with thousands hired above them at younger ages.
 
The major problem with the pyramid style pay scale is that it completely destroys lateral mobility. Thus, management doesn't have to consider the effects their decisions have on employees... Because everyone is stuck. Perhaps if pilots could bail and make similar money elsewhere right away, some thought would go into the negative effects of management decisions. I think this would make a huge difference at the regional level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top