"...avoid Bankruptcy At All Costs"

[luv2fly]

[/QUOTE]ok...still not feeling sorry at $70k/yr. maybe your spouse will have to go and get a job.


Nobody asked you for your pity.


This is probably the smartest thing as it removes a lot of training cost incurred when pilots move up to get more $$$. If there was no advantage to moving up, they would more than likely stay where they are.

Is this how other industries work? Stay where you are? Don't move up? Ever hear of the corporate ladder? If you are a manager you should be well versed in it. Sorry, it doesn't apply in the corporate world and it doesn't apply here.

 

[luv2fly]

Whoa there, nelly. I do not believe that every DL pilot is making $300 an hour.

"No you don't. You make $300 an hour."


Funny, you claimed I did.

 

[mweiss]

Ever hear of the corporate ladder?

Moving up the corporate ladder means greater responsibility and more decision-making power. The equivalent in the cockpit is moving from FO to Captain. Moving from a DC9 to an A380 does nothing to increase one's decision-making power.

The analogy you draw doesn't wash.

 

[mweiss]

"No you don't. You make $300 an hour."
Funny, you claimed I did.

Funny, I didn't realize you were "every DL pilot." I'm sure the others in the cockpits of DL aircraft will be surprised to learn this.

I claimed you did, based on your $134/hour claim, coupled with your 9-14 hour duty days. Based on the admitted assumption that average flight days came to 5.5 hours, and average duty days of 12 hours, that comes to $292.36 per flight hour...well within the margin of claim for $300.

Now, if you are claiming to make $134 per flight hour, then you must be a 737 FO with three years' seniority (leading me to ask how on earth you're not furloughed).

 

[luv2fly]

Moving up the corporate ladder means greater responsibility and more decision-making power. The equivalent in the cockpit is moving from FO to Captain. Moving from a DC9 to an A380 does nothing to increase one's decision-making power.

The analogy you draw doesn't wash.

And moving from a RJ FO to 767 FO isn't greater responsibility? There is no difference between flying domestic FO versus international? What would you know about that?
Corporate decision making??? Please tell us how well our "corporate decision" making has been as of late. If our managers were paid by productivity and " corporate decision making" abilities, they would be the ones applying for food stamps.
Delta enjoyed one of its safest years in it's history last year, thanks to the hard work of the line employees, not your "corporate decision making." I would call that excellent productivity and good decision making. If you can't draw and appreciate that analogy, I hope to god you are not truly in a position of authority.

 

[mweiss]

Try rereading my post. I'll give you some pointers to help you understand my points better.

Moving up the corporate ladder means greater responsibility and more decision-making power.

(emphasis added) Not "or." "And."

And one more time:

Moving up the corporate ladder means greater responsibility and more decision-making power.

Not "abilities." "Power."

 

[luv2fly]

Funny, I didn't realize you were "every DL pilot." I'm sure the others in the cockpits of DL aircraft will be surprised to learn this.

I claimed you did, based on your $134/hour claim, coupled with your 9-14 hour duty days. Based on the admitted assumption that average flight days came to 5.5 hours, and average duty days of 12 hours, that comes to $292.36 per flight hour...well within the margin of claim for $300.

Now, if you are claiming to make $134 per flight hour, then you must be a 737 FO with three years' seniority (leading me to ask how on earth you're not furloughed).

No mweiss,

I claimed I made $134 per flight hour. You said I made $300 per flight hour. That is how my pay is computed, not by formula you have assumed. Your formula just serves to perpetuate the belief that I make $300 per flight hour. The $134 per flight hour is the rate for a 5th year FO on May 1, 2003 pay rates which is the rate of pay being referenced by the company for desired pay cuts, not the May 1, 2004 rates which you are addressing. There are fifth year FO's who are not furloughed, much to your dismay, I am sure.

 

[luv2fly]

[/I]Try rereading my post.

Thanks, but once is about all I can stomach.

Moving up the corporate ladder means greater responsibility and more decision-making power.

(emphasis added) Not "or." "And."

And one more time:

Moving up the corporate ladder means greater responsibility and more decision-making power.

Not "abilities." "Power."


Moving up to larger aircraft, yields more responsibility. The more responsibility the higher the income. Once again, do you believe that there is no discernable difference between an RJ captain and a 777 captain?
As for power, you define it how? Power to do what?

 

[mweiss]

The $134 per flight hour is the rate for a 5th year FO on May 1, 2003 pay rates

So, in other words, you lied. You are not paid $134 per hour. If you are currently flying 737s, and you are a FO, and you have five years' seniority (are all of these things true?), then you are being paid $140 per hour of flight time.

Why not come out with it instead of dancing around the issue? Are you a 5-year 737 FO? If so, then I simply misinterpreted your post. Nothing more. It's not like I hadn't seen the payscale, obviously.

There are fifth year FO's who are not furloughed, much to your dismay, I am sure.

Why would it be to my dismay? I far prefer people to be employed than unemployed. I just would have been surprised to find that the furloughs hadn't gone up beyond three years.

Once again, do you believe that there is no discernable difference between an RJ captain and a 777 captain?

The only difference is the amount of "stuff" behind the chairs...and how far that stuff can be taken. One can make a compelling argument for increased pay associated with the increased productivity (more ASMs) associated with the larger aircraft. Beyond that, no, there is no discernable difference. The rest is all ego.

As for power, you define it how? Power to do what?

Power to make decisions about the direction of the company. A pilot has the power to decide what happens with an aircraft. A senior executive has the power to decide what happens with a fleet of aircraft, including a significant set of rules as to what the pilots themselves are required to do.

 

[luv2fly]

So, in other words, you lied. You are not paid $134 per hour. If you are currently flying 737s, and you are a FO, and you have five years' seniority (are all of these things true?), then you are being paid $140 per hour of flight time.


I just would have been surprised to find that the furloughs hadn't gone up beyond three years.

No mweiss, I did not lie. My original discussion was centered around what kind of effect these concessions would have on pilot pay. The 30-40% pay cuts are predicated on 5-1-03 rates. If you wish to address the 5-1-04 rates, add an additional 4.5% to the requested concessions. I have seen two pay periods pay on the 5-04 rates and don't anticipate seeing too many more.

 

[luv2fly]

The rest is all ego.

That is your opinion. I disagree. I could make the same argument against management positions.


Power in many cases is a perception. While a Ceo may yield the power as to the "direction" of the company, the corporate ladder is filled with managers who yield very little power. It is apparent to me that we are on opposite ends of the spectrum on this subject and would be better suited by agreeing to disagree.

 

[mweiss]

the corporate ladder is filled with managers who yield very little power

That's true at many companies. That's not how it should be, but it often is.

But back to the difference between RJ and 777 for a moment...what other difference is there, really, besides the amount of stuff behind the cockpit and the distance the stuff can move?

It is apparent to me that we are on opposite ends of the spectrum on this subject and would be better suited by agreeing to disagree.

My read is that we're not as far apart as you think.

 

[WorldTraveler]

2) Delta is dying. It announced a $2 billion loss for the quarter. Granted most of that money was a one-time charge, however the legacy carriers always seem to have these one-time charges. The rationale for Delta to get the big raise was that the company was turning a sizeable profit and they should share the money with the pilots. Now DAL is turning 3 years of monsterous losses, but the pilots now don't use the same rationale. AA is undercutting DAL by up to $100 and they still can't make money. So offering to forego a 4.5% raise and give back under 10% shows a bizarre detachment to the current plight of DAL.

Let's not be so quick to write Delta off. Keep in mind that the reason Delta has been unsuccessful in getting concessions from labor and lenders is that Delta, like NW, has been sitting on a stack of cash since right after 9/11. You might remember that Delta was the first airline to access the capital markets after 9/11 and has done it many times. In fact, the DL pilots union has said before that they would not grant concessions because the company had the cash and wasn't on the verge of failure. Delta's management has moved the game along, completely under their control, to the stage where it is. They have pre-paid pension obligations and managed debt so that they could get the company in a position where the pilots and lenders legitimately believe that Delta is on the verge of filing for bankruptcy if they don't get what they won't. Delta has a very aggressive plan to get its balance sheet back in shape and cut costs as was apparent from their conference call yesterday. The pilots and lenders would be absolute fools not to work with the company and give what is needed; my Delta pilot contacts indicate that the frontline pilots are very willing to give significant concessions to turn the company around and talks are moving in that direction.
You might also notice from yesterday's earnings release that Delta's fuel-constant mainline CASM was down 10%; Delta has announced several new routes and additional flights just in the past few days indicating that they will drive CASM further down by increasing productivity.
Delta has a long history of being a well-run company. This present situation is clearly unnerving for people who have never seen Delta like this. Keep in mind that Delta has accrued less than 1/2 of the losses AMR and UAL have incurred since 9/11 even though DL is about 2/3 the size of both. I think we will see in the next few weeks and months if Delta has what it takes to turn that company around but I remain confident that Delta will be with us as a viable competitor for a long time to come; I also believe that AA will get its recovery back on track and remain a viable competitor.

I will be anxiously watching other airline earnings releases and will comment on anything noteworthy from them as well.

 

[wontflyforfood]

The only difference is the amount of "stuff" behind the chairs...and how far that stuff can be taken. One can make a compelling argument for increased pay associated with the increased productivity (more ASMs) associated with the larger aircraft. Beyond that, no, there is no discernable difference. The rest is all ego.

Mr Weiss,
Having worked for 5 different airlines and flown 4 different airplanes and I can tell you that there IS a greater responsibility associated with the size of the aircraft. It's funny reading your know it all posts...until you've done the job you will never understand so why don't you go to the YAHOO board where you can find someone who will believe all your BS.

Sincerely,
the overpaid pilot..

 

[WorldTraveler]

...there IS a greater responsibility associated with the size of the aircraft.

I, too, am having trouble understanding why the sense of responsbility is higher on a 777 than an RJ. I can't think of an RJ pilot who says that he doesn't need to get his machine and its passengers safely and economically to the destination his company told him, follow all the rules and laws governing his flight, and treat well the passengers who pay his salary. I can't see a difference in the mission of a pilot between any two airlines. If there is, how can one union represent pilots who fly multiple airplane types?