Originally Posted by rekatron

Well, my priorites are the pay rates, and i'd gladly throw R&I under the bus for it. You vote your way and I'll vote mine.

Originally Posted by Sunvox

First no way our pay rates will end up 5% higher than Delta's so, yes, the percent for us will be less and MUST be because AGAIN . . . no way we end up 5% over Delta.


Imagine if you will we get a 13/5/5/5 offer with no concessions, minor QOL gains, and a bump in some non-tax areas. Then UAL pilots vote it down. Months pass and we approach a release date. The potential for a strike becomes front page news in all the media outlets. Just happened to the railway workers, and they got a contract imposed on them by Congress with one extra day off and a 24% raise. So you guys think we can turn down 34% in total raises and Congress will let us strike for more?

Personally I don't think that is remotely possible, and I pray to God most pilots realize that as well. Fortunately, I think they do and will go on record here taking a WAG that the Delta AIP will become a TA and will get voted in 70/30 or higher.

Originally Posted by Jb97

The company’s concern about agreeing to a deal that would not ratify (based on a subsequent agreement at another carrier) appear well-reasoned.

Originally Posted by hummingbear

For anyone reading this and actually considering 13% DOS as reasonable, you may want to start reading your union communications. After we received our LOA 5%, the MEC statement was that they will not accept any deal that applies that raise to our section 6 negotiations. A Delta minus 5% deal (can’t believe this is even being discussed as an acceptable target) would clearly fall into that category; so if you’re in favor of that proposal, you’re actually undercutting your own representation- even those reps who voted to approve the original TUMI TA.

As has been discussed, pay rates don’t live in a vacuum, & it is possible to see contractual improvements (daily credit guarantees, for example) that push a lower percentage increase into the acceptable range; but absent some very significant gains elsewhere in the contract, 13% will never even see the light of day- the suggestion that “most UAL pilots know better” aside.

Because of Delta’s snap-up, 18% DOS for example would still put us behind them in pay, but we would at least be advancing the industry standard. Frankly it’s the least we could do after we botched our position as first negotiators & deferred to them to do all the heavy lifting. The fact that even now we’re talking about a DAL -5 contract underscores how we managed to get in the [TUMI] position we are in presently.

Originally Posted by Planetrain

I need to see the final language but there is some impressive soft money gains that are going to really supercharge pay I think people may be glossing over:

Paybanding: Could be another 2-6% (that is pensionable)
Per diem: Based on M&I rates. Most international destinations are triple what current per diem pays. NYC would be near double. (need language). And this is tax free.
Holiday pay: Finally. Will free up Christmas for jr pilots.
CQ/QT: Wanted 5:15, but this puts us more than halfway to that goal at 5:00CQ and 3:05/day QT+including days off. 30-day training course would pay 92.5 hours?
Vacation: Wanted 5:15, got more than halfway to that goal. 4:00/4:15/4:35 from 3:45/3:30
Reroute 150%: This is huge money especially in summer. 200% day2+. Reroute is essentially GS pay and doesn’t burn your GS counter. You wanted that layover in XYZ? Company burns you now they pay for it AND have to release you from the trip with full pay and penalty re-transiting base (so you can go GS the rest of the trip footprint). I think this is the most overlooked bullet point.
MCD: 30hr layovers could pay an additional 2:30.
After midnight release: Extra 2:00 (each one of these will pay for 5-6 nights of commuter hotel)
DC increases to 18% over time.

A lot of this adds up, substantially.
And if they plug the parameters in the sodomizer and solve for min cost are going to change bid packets.

Originally Posted by Mooner

FUN WITH NUMBERS 2.0

Math is fun because it don’t lie. It is what it is. I had so much fun with Math 1.0 I just couldn’t resist. Many here won’t like what the math says, but that’s a problem I can’t help with. But for those interested in getting accurate numerical analysis, here we go.

First let’s designate our model so we can compare and cross check this analysis with others’.

1. 7 year effective duration.
2. Utilize historical Fed data for 2020-2022 inflation
3. Utilize a 3 year moving average to forecast inflation for 2023-2026. This is the most conservative and worst case instead of the 4 year moving average that best fits our future duration.
4. Compute a ending compounded pay rate increase, and a annualized compounded pay rate increase
5. Compute an effective total compounded increase and annualized compounded rate increase considering retro payment.

First, the annualized inflation data from the Minneapolis Fed:

2020 - 1.2%

2021 - 4.7%

2022 - 8%

Therefore, the annualized 3 year compounded rate is 4.6%. Out year inflation:

2023 - 4.6%

2024 - 4.6%

2025 - 4.6%

2026 - 4.6%

Total compounded inflation for 7 years is 36.99% or 4.6% annualized.

Now, total unadjusted compounded pay rate increase and unadjusted annualized compounded rate:

2023 - 18%

2024 - 5%

2025 - 4%

2026 - 4%

Total compounded rate 34.01% or a compounded annual rate of 4.27%

Therefore, without retro cash up front, we lag inflation by nearly 3% total and .42% annually.



Now, let’s adjust for retro cash by computing equivalent pay rate increase required to generate annual retro dollar amount plus pay increases for 2023-2026:

2020 - 4%

2021 - 0%

2022 - 9.6%

2023 - 7.66%

2024 - 5%

2025 - 4%

2026 - 4%

Total adjusted compounded rate increase of 39.37% or annual rate of 4.86%

This exceeds total inflation by 2.38% or .34% annually.

We are concerned with money earned during the period starting Jan1 2020 through Dec 31 2026. Therefore it’s immaterial whether the money arrives in our accounts via pay rates, single cash payout, or any combination of the above.

401K is increasing another 2%. Most pilots will see this increase paid in their paychecks because the company will reach the max contribution limit. Effectively this becomes a 2% raise. This makes the total effective pay increase 41.37%.

The union says total contract value increased by 45%. That looks right considering there is substantial money value captured outside of pay rates, retro, and 401K. 45% outpaces inflation by 8%. Not too shabby considering the industry has gone backwards relative to inflation for decades and we were negotiating in a hole 3 years deep.

Now that’s the math. One can quibble about whether there is enough money. That’s everyone’s prerogative. What we can’t quibble about is the two paths we can take. There is only two:

1.) We wait for a TA with language, analyze it, and then vote to ratify it.

2.) We wait for a TA with language, analyze it, and then vote to reject the TA.

Then we live with the consequences of either path and the risks inherent with the two possible outcomes.

Risk of outcome 1 is well appreciated in my view, being that we lag inflation over the next four years.

I’m seeing signs again that risk with outcome 2 is being discounted or not even considered. The result of a rejected TA is not a mystery. The MEC is obliterated, reps are recalled, the NC resigns, the MEC Chairman resigns or is fired (in our case the MEC Chairman is on the way out regardless). A new MEC is reconstituted, a new NC is elected, a new chairman steps up. Then the pilots are surveyed to come up with a new position at the table. All this takes the better part of year. Many very bad things can happen in a year, especially with a looming inflationary driven recession. Just saying.

I find the risk reward ratio far more favorable for outcome 1 and will of course vote accordingly.

Good luck out there folks. Don’t drive yourself or anyone else crazy.

Merry Christmas.

Originally Posted by Sunvox

Well obviously you and I disagree considerably. I will go on record saying that whatever our final agreement is, that we at United accept, it will have pay rates within 1% of Delta's. Now I won't speak to the other sections of the contract, but I am quite confident in making the WAG that our pay rates will be close to identical, and furthermore I predict an 80/20 vote in favor of any TA that is similar to Delta's current AIP.

Come see me in a few months time and hopefully let me know how close or far off my guesses were.

Originally Posted by Sunvox

Honestly the fact that anyone would even think we will achieve rates substantially higher than Delta's current offer is simply unimaginable to me.

Originally Posted by hummingbear

We may be looking at this from different directions. I agree we’ll likely be within a percent of DAL once the dust settles because their snap-up will essentially guarantee that. What you seem to me to be saying is that because of that we should just target whatever increase puts us slightly below them presently; which you’re figuring at around 13%. That approach essentially gifts our pandemic 5% back to the company in direct opposition to what our union is advocating; so I’d advise raising your expectations to join the rest of us.

Anyone who wants to undercut the union should reconsider their position. Considering you are proposing undercutting the master chair who so recently praised the TUMI TA should really give you pause.

Originally Posted by EwrRocks

Current Delta 12th year 737-800 CA = 284
Delta AIP 18% Delta 12th year 737-800 CA = 335

Current UAL 12th year 737-800 CA = 297
Delta AIP 12th year 737-800 CA + 1% = 338

- Difference is 14%

You said that you thought we would be within a percent of Delta. If true, that means a new deal for us looks like 14% DOS. What am I missing?

If you are saying we should also get 18/5/4/4 fine, that would be Delta AIP +5%.

Originally Posted by rekatron

Well, my priorites are the pay rates, and i'd gladly throw R&I under the bus for it. You vote your way and I'll vote mine.