Delta - DCI Seniority List (split from other thread)

[atrdriver]

One approach, at night, in the weather, to mins landing on a carrier deck equals 10 years of flying an RJ to mins.

Not to belittle military aviators, but if you bolt a few times and can't put it down on the boat, you can jettison the airplane...Can't do that in an RJ...you get it down or you die, and take a lot of others with you...

 

[Gorditas]

Sorry, just getting back from a 3-day, I know this has been going on for a few days... But in response to this:

However, nothing like this would work because of the payscales. Say after this was all done the Comair payscale was agreed upon for the RJ (also would never happen, but I digress). Your career progression (based solely on earning potential) would go something like this

RJ FO
RJ Captain
732 FO (or whatever the junior mainline airplane is)
and so on and so forth until you can hold 732 CA or whatever.

But what would be the point of bidding RJ captain other than pay? After all, getting PIC turbine time would mean nothing as you're already "hired" at mainline, right? Especially since 5th year mainline anything FO pays much better than 5th year RJ captain. It would be a weird system, and one that would probably not work.

While it would be nice for both sides to have one list, I don't see it ever happening.

This kind of thing already happens at mainline carriers today. How many ultra senior guys are FO's on the 777 or 767 in stead of upgrading. At AA when they had the F-100, how many FO positions at the company paid more than or had the potential to make more than a F-100 CA? I think that this is one of those things that would just work itself out in time. Guys that purely wanted QOL could stay in the right seat, and those who wanted to be CA could go to the left seat of the RJ. The sooner we stop over anylizing why it won't work and work on making it benificial for the company to do it, the sooner that we collectively as UNION MEMBERS can stop fighting over an ever dividing pie. The only thing that we know for sure, is the way that scope has been implemented up till now hasn't worked too well. No, I haven't drank the "Good Scope, Bad Scope" KoolAid. However, one definition of insanity is repeating the same thing expecting different results. If the way that ALPA, APA, etc have tried to prevent what amounts to outsourcing has failed in the past, it will most likely fail in the future.

I was TK's FO just before he left for Mainline and thought that he had it made. A few weeks ago I had a DAL furlogh as my FO. Neither of those guys (or many others) would have been in the current situation had ALPA acted like the RJ was an asset and not a worthless airplane because of it's size. There is a great quote from Flying The Line. I am pretty new to the boards, so if this horse has been flogged after cremation, I am sorry. But here it is, check it out on page 68..."Recently a pilot made the remark to me that the pilots of one company could not work for another company because they were not capable...Some of us seem to have the idea that we are a little bit better than any other pilot because we happen to be working for a certain company or flying a certain plane." Words from 1934!

I actually enjoy my job most days, and can live within the means that my current employer provides. (New hire FO pay is another story) Yes I would like (and still hope) to make more at another carrier in the future, but I can only count on (well, maybe not count on, my house is for sale and I have to move across the country due to base closure) where I am today. My biggest concern is that there will always be another Shaniqua or Skypest (Just a little gentle ribbing) who is willing to fly the SAME SIZE airplane for much less. (or one with 20+ seats for the same price!) At some point in time even Mesa will no longer be the whipping boy for everyone to pick on. I still hold out hope that this can be a good career, and that I am young enough to weather a cycle or two.

Just a few thoughts from a newbie to the boards,

Gorditas

 

[michael707767]

Not to belittle military aviators, but if you bolt a few times and can't put it down on the boat, you can jettison the airplane...Can't do that in an RJ...you get it down or you die, and take a lot of others with you...

umm, ok. Its just that simple isn't it? You know you get worked up over something that just is not that big a deal. I have flown to minimums in many aircraft, military and civilian, and it just isn't that hard.

 

[MetroSheriff]

Can't do that in an RJ...you get it down or you die, and take a lot of others with you...

Yeah, brave men we are.

Ya know, cause flying an RJ (or any other transport cat. a/c) is so dangerous.

Can you be a little more dramatic????

 

[Jim]

Not to belittle military aviators, but if you bolt a few times and can't put it down on the boat, you can jettison the airplane...Can't do that in an RJ...you get it down or you die, and take a lot of others with you...

It's a heck of a lot easier to land on a 10,000 foot piece of concrete that stays level than a 300 foot piece thats moving, pitching and rolling.

Landing on a carrier takes a lot more training and skill than landing on concrete.

So you are belittlling military aviators.

 

[J32driver]

One approach, at night, in the weather, to mins landing on a carrier deck equals 10 years of flying an RJ to mins.

I have no doubt that you are correct. Now take that and $2 to your local airport Starbucks and it just might buy you a cup of coffee.

 

[atrdriver]

It's a heck of a lot easier to land on a 10,000 foot piece of concrete that stays level than a 300 foot piece thats moving, pitching and rolling.

Landing on a carrier takes a lot more training and skill than landing on concrete.

So you are belittlling military aviators.

You'll notice that nowhere in my post did I state that landing on a carrier was in any way comparable to landing on a 10,000 piece of concrete. I feel quite sure that I would be incapable of doing so. I merely stated that there is a difference between flying a single seat aircraft that has an ejection seat and a transport aircraft with people in the back. Just like there is a difference between flying a C-152 and a Pitts. I applaud and honor the service of each and every member of our military. That having been said, they chose a career path that kept them out of the hiring at airlines, and pilots that chose a different path should not be penalized for it...