cencal83406

Sounds like the UAL Rep brings the kool aid too.... "best career expectations"....

EWRflyr

I agree the two tones are completely different. However, the end result is the same: they are both advocating for their pilots by pointing out what they feel makes their respective carriers in the best position.

Though, personally, I would question his statement:

as being up for debate. But each side could go round and round on their position. But that is exactly the point! These points should be left to the SLI arbitrator and not be used at the JCBA table.

I agree with what someone said earlier. Jeff Smisek has no love for the 747 (insert twitch from the other J.S. in management here). If he intends to remove them from service and over time replace them with 787s and A350s, why not capture a higher wide body pay scale that will be in effect after the 747s leave?

UAL merger people can still make their 747 argument until they are blue in the face when it gets to SLI arbitration.

EWRflyr

Q: How do you know when J.S. is back from vacation?

A: The number of pilot bulletins issued in a week goes up.

SoCalGuy

NO TRUER STATEMENT THAN THAT!!

However, he's been known to travel/fly with his lap-top in tow. He can still put out a pretty "wicked" long distance Pilot Bulletin while on his overnight in Hong-Kong.

Coto Pilot

More pilots in training at any given time requires more pilots on the property. Banding aircraft types together for the purposes of pay reduces pilot movement and thereby reduces training events. If you take the time to look, I think that you will find that ALPA has been opposed to the concept since its inception. Now the CAL MEC wants to say that is OK in this one specific example so it won't be used in the SLI. What part of this doesn't make sense?

skippy

i think the whole "pay banding " is confusing some people.

I was under the impression UAl doesnt want pay banding ( not making the 777 and the 787 the same but banding the 777 and the 747)

the basic arguement that ual will use ( yes im ual) is that if u unband those two aircraft for example, the ual pilots had a "career expectation to fly the biggest aircraft for the biggest money which should come in handy during the SLI and where everyone sits on the seniority list.

so for example if two pilots were hired on the same date, the ual should go ahead of the cal guy simply b/c a few things- he had higher career expectations to fly a bigger aircraft for more money-- ironically they dont take into account that the cal guy( or chic) would have made captain quicker on the narrowbody and made probably more money overall-if that person chose that route--
who knows.

i llike everyone-- i just let the mec's figure it out-- i was hired in 07 i dont expect much except maybe:
some sort of signing bonus, stock allocation, for the FU we all got.... and
longevity pay

truly anything else is a bonus ( everything else benfit wise will be worked out by the mec's anyway)\

i could be wrong, but that unbanding thing is how it was explained by some dude.

SKIPPY

Fritzthepilot

The 400 according to Boeing, weighs 875k, carries 416 in a 3 class, and cruises at mach 85. The 777-200er weighs 656k, carries 301 in a 3 class, and cruises at mach 84. If I understand this correctly, CAL not only wants to pay band these two planes, but they want to add the "North Atlantic Speed Bump" 767 to the fray as well?

Please don't say that Smisek will pay 777 and 767 rates for what a 400 commands. The 400 will in the end subsidize the pay banding rates versus producing the pay it deserves at a stand alone rate.

Here's a novel idea, how about negotiating top dollar for each airframe? Enough of the shell games with the abacus.

Fritz

AxlF16

That is certainly part of the argument. Another issue is the overall nature of our pay structure. Do we really want 3 buckets to stick all of our airplanes in or do we want separate pay rates for each type? For example, when the 787 comes to CAL it will be paid the WB pay rate. If the 787 were to come to UAL under our current contract it would present an opportunity to negotiate a new pay rate. DON'T underestimate the ability to negotiate new pay rates! Although we no longer have the leverage to keep the metal on the ramp until we negotiate the new pay rate, any opportunity to negotiate pay is good. Under our current contract, the 757-300, 767-400, and 737NGs would all require additional negotiated pay rates. There is way more to the 'band/unband' argument than what you've read here. My point is that we better get it right since getting it wrong will bite us in the ass later. Caveat: I don't know the 'right' answer and am not advocating either course. The MECs MUST take every bit of info they can get (or infer) from the company and make a strategic decision. The must dive into the pro's and con's of each type of pay scale in order to reach the right decision. Posturing over the SLI is shortsighted and poses a threat to all of us.

SoCalGuy

Does that take into account training freezes, company imposed "effective dates of training" that are to take place as far out as 18 months, when in reality, there could (and most likely will) be other bids that superside previous bids that were "adjusted" strictly on "company imposed" staffing changes from the last bid cycle?? In short......"phanton training" cycles that disappear as the company's 'needs' conveniently change from one bid cycle to the next.

In a Perfect Environment, that argument may hold water. From what we have seen at CAL, bids are 'never fully' shaken down/top to bottom before future bids come about by way of staff reductions/shifts that in a sense nullify awards when the rubber meets the road (as we have contractually 2 or more system bids per calendar year).

As I expressed earlier.....what's good for one side, should be good for the other. If STAFFING is truly the motivator behind the method you seek/advocate, then there's something by way of SCOPE protection that will have a lot more of an impact on "pilot jobs" than worry about Banded vs Unbanded pay.

Speaking of "Banded Pay Rates", seems to work pretty well over at a respected/well compensated Pilot Group......one called UPS. If your hanging ALPA's ways as the "end all to be all" in conducting 'business', can't say I (I'm sure along with many others) would join you on that island.

AxlF16

Exactly. Posturing over the SLI impact is shortsighted and dangerous. The wrong choice here will have huge negative consequences for the rest of our careers. I would go so far as to say that the pay scale structure we select now will NEVER go away. We may negotiate new hourly numbers, but the overall structure will be cast in stone. We must choose wisely.