acl65pilot

No that was not my point. I do not think it was not the intention when the rates were negotiated, but could be an unseen benefit or effect.

horrido27

Well.. you brought it up.

Fact remains, there is a difference in pay rates for a direct replacement aircraft. Why?

Motch

tsquare

Because many still think that bigger must pay more. Until you can change that "logic" it will continue to be that way. It's all gonna have to start by making pilots realize that management buys the equipment.. not us. We never have.. and never will. Until then, watch the downgaging continue until management is forced into larger airplanes. Every time a big airplane is parked.. many many pilots take a paycut. Every... single... time.

horrido27

Agreed...
But let me ask you this-
How did you Vote on your TA?!
Why DIDN'T your NC with the support of ALPA National not see this 737NG vs. 757 issue?

How do you place all the blame on the Pilots when their own NC put this on the table for a vote? It should never even get past the NC!
As technology advances, and planes get lighter and go further, a new way of thinking with regards to compensation needs to happen.

Reality is, the 777-300er is a direct 747-400 replacement also. You guys were smart (or lucky) enough to have those two ships banded together... but what about the 787-9?

This is all food for thought. We'll see what happens here at UCAL, though I know alot of pilots are worried about paybanding and are against it.
Me, I expect paybanding based on size AND mission..
we'll see~

Motch

gloopy

How many can the 73-9ER seat? Not company chosen config, but max certifiable, which I think is the yardstick for the seating metric in the speed/efficiency/payload/whatever formula. I think the 73-9ER seats less than the 757, which means we will need more 73's to move the same number of people.

Of course we could (probably will) continue to shrink so we can keep funding the order books of the ULCC's and our west coast 737 ACMI regional feederbut even in that case we were going to shrink anyway so if the 757's never went away as a fleet we'd still be parking some of them to dicipline the capacity or leverage the synergy or whatever term the latest $300 regurgitation textbook calls "shrinking our way to profitability" in B school this semester.

So while we will be replacing 757's with lower paying 737's, our 737 pay is still a lot higher than pretty much anyone we have a remote chance of merging with. That is still one factor that will remain and be a part of the "career expectation" model. If we buy Kalitta there is no way in he11 a 2 year "74 Captain" making our 3rd year narrowbody FO pay and less benefits is going to slide on over in a full relative with where it takes to hold that seat here. No way, ever, no matter what. Pay will be used regardless to some extent as will many other factors.

Likewise, some of the 737-900ER's will be replacing older A320's (40 I think?) which will be a pay increase for that lift. The real wild card will be the ramaining 320's but especially the MD88's. C Series? 73MAX? Bigger "RJ's"? Mo' Shrinkage?

I think this would help us a little WRT the hypothetical carrier someone was just alluding to, and WRT the other hypothetical carrier also in the mix that only has like 400 pilots, it probably won't matter a whole heck of a lot anyway. A far, far more crucial variable will be when a merger happens. Right now we're eating a stagnation sandwich while others are in growth mode. Even a small carrier can pump out a few new hire classes and buff their over all relative list by a percentage that would take us years of epic hiring to match.

We need to merge now or wait until we're in unreal mass hiring mode and they are stagnant.

horrido27

The following is taken from Wiki...

The 737-900ER, which was called the 737-900X prior to launch, is the newest addition and the largest variant of the Boeing 737 line and was introduced to meet the range and passenger capacity of the discontinued 757-200 and to directly compete with the Airbus A321. An additional pair of exit doors and a flat rear pressure bulkhead increase seating to 180 passengers in a typical 2-class configuration or up to 215 passengers in a single-class layout.

At UCAL, the 737-9er seats 173, while the 757-2 now seats 169.

As far as the yardstick is concerned...
Why do you have a payscale for the CRJ-900 that tops out at $89.75 yet you outsource the same plane, with 76 seat.. to your feeders which pay half that?

If "the yardstick" for the CRJ900/EMB190 is $131.42/$89.75 from the DALPA point of view, then ALPA National is letting down ALL Regional pilots by allowing them to fly those aircraft at such a cut rate payscale!
No one even comes close to those rates.

You're now the second guy who has brought up a possible merger with regards to your 737 payrates. Is ALPA National now in the business of "setting" contracts due to possible merger scenarios?

The fact still remains.. DALPA & ALPA National approved a replacement aircraft at a lower wage..

Motch

PS> at Legacy Continental (sCAL), we pay the same for the 75's and the 73NG's [757-2, 757-3, 737NG = Large Narrow Body; LNB] and under our Contract 08 proposal (which we have been told was our starting point for the JCBA talks) we also lumped the 757-2 with the 737NG and the A320/321...
Those would have been Category C aircraft.
$219.04/$149.50 for 12yr Capt/FO based on Jan 2013.
We will see how they are banded now, and what they pay~

tsquare

This is EXACTLY the kind of argument that will prevent us from ever going to a pay scheme that is strictly based on the fact that we drive the train... whatever train.. -and this is a very key concept- that management chooses to buy and deploy, in whatever numbers they deem necessary. We seem to think that their decisions somehow reflect on our talents, responsibilities yada yada yada. I push throttles.. pay me.... period. Now with that out of the way, I can bid the equipment/base that suits my lifestyle the best. Why does everything have to be so damned complicated?

tsquare

I was a very happy yes vote.

I disagree with your concept of technological advances having anything to do with pay. Since it is simplifying our lives, one would really think that tech would reduce pay, not enhance it, so I have no idea where you are going with that... or are you saying that flying magenta lines are somehow more difficult than an arcing VOR approach in the mountains? (For you young guys, a VOR is a ground based navigation system) THAT would be a really slippery slope IMHO.

Push throttles.. get banana. Period. Easy breezy.

firstmob

Are you saying Alaskan Air is our target, or are
you just connecting dots?

acl65pilot

\

Not saying that at all. Just giving an example.