tunes

granted it's been years since I was on the 73 but when I was doing LAX-HNL on it we could only takeoff from 25L and we always had to leave people behind.

Planetrain

If your argument is purely that 14 domestic 767s are being replaced by 100+ A321NEOs, then you must connect the methodology that the NEOs are replacing domestic 14 767s AND 113 MD88s and 64 MD90s, thus, the answer would be a blended rate, paying less than the 767.

OTOH, if you use the past precedent ALPA methodology of range, speed, seats, cargo capability, (and perhaps complexity of aircraft), I think your argument results in a better A321 rate, but in all those ways, the A321 is deficient to the 767 (and 757).

notEnuf

Unless you compare it to a comparable airplane like the 757-200 which pays the same as the 767-300ER. If our negotiated rate comes back less than the 767/757 plus 4%, I'd consider that a fail.

Hawaii50

Which also brings up the question of whether to split the -ER back off the 757 rate and bring it closer to the 767-400 rate. At the time the contract was sold as bringing 757 pay up to 767-300ER pay but is that still the best way to do things?

Anyone care to rahash the pros/cons of pay banding? I'm not sold either way but I am for getting the most people the highest pay rather than, as it seems now, a few at the highest rates. We don't have the number of aircraft at the highest rates that UAL and AA do.

Planetrain

The 757 is the same cockpit as the 767 and the pilots can go back and forth. The A321 pilot does not have the ability to go fly the 767 or A330. That is the first pay distinction and a very important one.

Secondly, the 757 is still a better airplane range, speed, payload, seats.

Range: A321NEO 3500-4100 miles depending on configuration
757-200 3300-4700 miles on (domestic vs TWA birds)
757-300 3200 miles

Speed: A321NEO M.78 cruise, MMO M.82
757-200/300 cruise M.80, MMO M.86

Seats: A321NEO 192
757-200 199
757-300 234

Payload: A321NEO: 56,000#
757-200: 57,160#
757-300 68,140#

MTOW: A321NEO 206,000#
757-200 255,000#
757-300 273,000#

I have now given you a reasoned, logical argument as to why the 757 and 767 could pay more than the A321NEO. I’m not dogging the NEO in any way. I like the airplane. I hope we get more than 100.

If we want to band the two to the same rate, fine with me. But you can’t argue that they should be paid the same on the basis of equality or superiority of aircraft. It is a little short on the 757 and vastly smaller than a 767.

Trip7

Game.. Set.. Match.... Planetrain

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

notEnuf

767(757) top CA rate $296.19 + already announced non-cons annual pay increase of 4% is $308.04. The -ceo/-739 is already under compensated when they were billed as a 757 replacement. Any thing less is a fail. But this is really about losing ground on domestic pay. The 767 is under paid is the real problem.

Speed and capacity have absolutely nothing to do with pay anymore. The 757/767 is the obvious example along with the A220 etc. Our situation is what I’m talking about. We don’t fly first generation jets and it’s not the 1950s. We get what we negotiate.

TED74

I know this will never happen. But it seems to me that in our sector, pay (if pay must be tied to something concrete-ish) should be roughly tied to the number of lives one is responsible for delivering from point A to B. Tying pay to speed/weight/capacity is historic methodology... but not because it must be. It isn't a reflection of profitability/revenue, or one's contribution to the bottom line for a whole host of reason:

City pairings have wide swings in revenue/profit.
Acquisition cost and sustainment isn't accounted for.
Big airplanes are sometimes (but not always) fed by small airplanes...or other big airplanes.
Small airplanes are sometimes fed by big airplanes...or other small airplanes.
We feed JV routes, on which we share profit/loss.
We are fed by JV routes.

Capacity isn't even a pure measurement since load factors can be all over the place.

In the end, pay can be tied to whatever we want to tie it to... but I think it's silly to feel obligated to adhere to conventional calculus for pay. Just about any formula we use will likely have outliers, exceptions or irregularities. Oh well. Pay rates are whatever we negotiate... and pilots can bid to fly whatever aircraft they think best matches their needs.

buckleyboy

If that is the case, the maddog should at least pay more (way more?) than the baby busses!

Edit for spelling/format, and to say that Trip7’s last post is an example of so many people don’t like him around here.

sailingfun

I would say the game is not over. He omits a key factor ALPA first used in our 73N negotiations. The efficiency of the airframe is a big consideration going forward and clearly the A321 is the winner in that category.