Rocketiii

I have heard this is was a big sticking point and why compensation issues had yet to be presented to the 'company'. However, the UAL contract has both the 747 and 777 under one pay rate, so I don't see how that would affect current SLI issues. And FWIW, I think that was ironed out in Denver last week as it really isn't an issue in SLI because the two aircraft contractually pay the same. An issue for the future JCBA? Yes. An issue for current SLI? I think not.

Monkeyfly

I thought merger committe business was supposed to be independent of contract negotiations.

SoCalGuy

Was through Houston today and spoke briefly with a "Red Lanyard" Rep who was in Ops.....this is what he explained: (I know your not UAL, but his answer was based using UAL's former CBA).

He referred to UAL's present contract which has the B747/B777 on the same hourly pay/under one pay rate as you quoted above. He seemed to 'think' that under the previous UAL contract (2000??), old UAL's pay-rates for the above mentioned equipment was different....IE the B747 had a separate hr rate (higher) than that of the B777 rate back at that time.

The disparity mentioned above comes when in/if any future contract is ratified (IE having the new JCBA in the old UAL method of your contract 2000, the two above platforms paying different scales), there is the anticipation of a fence being est on the B747 for the UAL guys. Having that equipment paying more (higher than that of the B777) would present a 'barring' of the senior/top CAL pilots from being able to 'touch' the highest obtainable pay rates w/o out being able to fly the B747 per the fence that are anticipated to be in place in any future SLI post the JCBA ratification.....follow??

In speaking with him, I do understand his point.....the top CAL pilots expect some type of fence (rightfully so) to protect old UAL's Golden Goose, but in the same respect, it segregates the top CAL integrated pilot's from obtaining the present top category of pay (assuming the B747 is be the solo/top paying bird) is a sticking point that sets the scene of contention in any likely future plans in integrated the lists post JCBA.

Clear as mud??

After listening to the explanation (didn't have a lot of time to stick around as there was a few other guys present to asking then to dispel rumors & I was trying to catch the commute home), it does make some sense if that's how the former/pre-BK CBA did actually read & this was something that was trying to be reconstucted in any future agreement. I don't see it as getting directly involved in an SLI issue, but CAL's side of the Joint Neg Comm trying to prevent something that they see as a potential windfall issue in the future anticipated arbitration following a JCBA ratification going into the SLI. Why not stop the smoke now if there is some anticipation of the possibility of a full-blown fire in the not so distant future on the next step of the pilot group being a single list??

Rocketiii

I understand your post and as always, there are a few different issues, each touched on in the thread. And they are probably interwoven as the the SLI and JCBA are NOT negotiated in a vacuum. But I heard comments on the line and from correspondence with reps that UAL might expect a more favorable SLI. The reason being that they ONCE had a higher pay rate for the 747 than the 777 from the contract ten years ago. That would be a maneuver to show greater career expectations, but using an example from an old contract. And the statements you made are the same: that negotiating a JCBA with a fenced off higher payrate might show different career expectations if the SLI is arbitrated with that in mind. I guess it really doesnt matter as the arbitrator will have all of the information available. Its the same thing that they have to process regarding the composition of the fleets. Is it better for UAL guy because they have a much higher percentage of widebodies? Or will the arbitrator see that they have a much higher percentage of widebodies because they parked most of the narrowbodies and nearly 1500 pilots? Will he see each of our last decade's performance or anticipate what each of our next decade's performance would be without the merger? Will he see more UAL guys with earliar dates of hire or is longevity figured in a different way? Will the snapshot show all the returned CAL pilots from the last bid? Or was it taken a few months ago? Lots of questions and the only good thing is that it isnt in our individual control.

SoCalGuy

You got that right Rocket......it's ALL beyond 'US' having any kinda of direct control in what you listed above. All we CAN do it vote on the JCBA when that time comes.

I'm sure if one side (via their MEC's) feels that there something is not 'correct' per the framework of any TA, the respective MEC will sharp shoot it prior to either group getting a chance to get their hands on it for voting. Could this be perceived as putting the "Cart before the Horse" regarding a JCBA as it may indirectly play out in future arbitrations in any type of integration?? Doesn't matter......this provision is something that was set forth within the rules of how the MEC's will be directly involved in any TA as it comes down from the Joint Neg Comm.

All we can do is sit back and be called to duty when there's something to vote on.....interesting times to say the least!

ualratt

I think the unbanding of the rates simply has to do with how UAL calculated pay rates for pre-BK CBAs. When I was hired in 2000, the bands were B747-400, B747-200, B777, DC10, B767/B757, B727, A320/319, B737. Banding the equipment during BK was just another concession and should be addressed in the same way as all the other concessions like Scope, pay and workrules.

Wendy Morse has publicly made it clear that eqiuipment unbanded pay rates is the goal of the JCAB.

The rest I won't attempt to discuss but I would hate to see short term greed cloud the advantages this benefit provides to our profession. These aircraft will eventually be replaced starting around 2015 so I don't think that is much of an issue even if it were fenced.

AxlF16

I'll start by saying that I don't know anyone involved in the negotiations, and I haven't spoken to my rep about this issue -- so what I'm about to type is purely my opinion.

I don't think the issue is UA pilots trying to pull a 'fast one' on SLI. It's likely about HOW we are going to negotiate future pay scales. Decision 83 provides the basis for pay to speed and gross weight. Until our concessionary C03, it has served us very well. I don't know if someone has a looking glass and can predict the future airplanes we will fly and has decided that D83 will serve us well in the future? As much as a disproportionate wage increase to the 400 will irritate me, it may well be that it is in all of our best interest??? I will have to call my rep about this one!

Rocketiii

I expect each group to fight their collective arses off for every single seniority number. I want an agreement that leaves not one dollar left on the table. I want an unweighted vote equal between both groups. Then I want a nice pretty uniform like Airborne used to have and many 24 hour CUN layovers so we can all get to know each other better! Cheers.

Monkeyfly

In addition to being the way the pay was pre-bankruptcy, the argument is (from my LEC reps) the 747 weighs 200k more and cruises .0X Mach faster (like a 757 vs. CRJ) so therefore should pay more for all that revenue. I'd hate to leave that money on the table for the mere speculation of fences and SLI. Especially if we bought 747s in the future and management would have the last laugh.

gettinbumped

Curious.... Do you folks over at CAL have a 787 payrate? Was it banded with the Widebody rate you have, or had that not been negotiated yet?