Magenta Line - Monday, October 25, 2010
10-27-2010, 04:17 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Posts: 230
I don't understand your position. Why not create a 747 pay rate and then band all aircraft into that level? Your position is to create 747 at x payrate and everything else at a lesser rate. Mine is to put the 747 at the same x payrate and put everything else at the same rate. How am I tossing huge money and career advancement out the window?
Do you really think that a top dollar rate could be negotiated for the 400, we then look across the table, shake hands, and expect the company to pay the same for the 777 and 767?
Im beginning to think that if a $300/hr rate could be achieved for the 777 and the 400 got $300.1/, the CAL guys would scream bloody murder.
10-27-2010, 04:19 AM
#62
HOSED BY PBS AGAIN
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,713
Moral here? Don't believe everything you hear from management.
10-27-2010, 04:24 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: 73 CA EWR
Posts: 514
Kind of like the ALPA lawyers? Kind of like ALPA management? Kind of like the PBS dynamic duo telling us PBS works great? Kind of like voting on bullet points?
10-27-2010, 04:27 AM
#64
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
They are getting CAL Mgt, all's going to be better!!
Just wait.....they'll learn soon enough with Jeff and "CAL's" formers.
10-27-2010, 04:32 AM
#65
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Beeker,
Do you really think that a top dollar rate could be negotiated for the 400, we then look across the table, shake hands, and expect the company to pay the same for the 777 and 767?
Im beginning to think that if a $300/hr rate could be achieved for the 777 and the 400 got $300.1/, the CAL guys would scream bloody murder.
Do you really think that a top dollar rate could be negotiated for the 400, we then look across the table, shake hands, and expect the company to pay the same for the 777 and 767?
Im beginning to think that if a $300/hr rate could be achieved for the 777 and the 400 got $300.1/, the CAL guys would scream bloody murder.
It's been directly said by those who hold the right to "cast the lot" in the vote before we will ever see the T/A......NO to Banded pay.....
Much more of this, faces will continue turning a deeper shade of red.
10-27-2010, 04:47 AM
#66
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
I don't understand your position. Why not create a 747 pay rate and then band all aircraft into that level? Your position is to create 747 at x payrate and everything else at a lesser rate. Mine is to put the 747 at the same x payrate and put everything else at the same rate. How am I tossing huge money and career advancement out the window?
There's a company named UPS who uses something called "BANDED RATE STRUCTURE".....They have uniforms, big planes, and large Int'l route structure....I think they should look into it as a carrier who uses the proven concept not only for the B747....BUT the entire fleet.
What I find borderline comical now is that the UAL MEC hides behind the "We need Unbanded Rates for the B747"....."It's the way ALPA 'wants' it"....."This is a JCBA topic, not an SLI issue"....."This will have NO repercussions in future decisions concerning this issue during the Merger"......Move along, nothing to see here......yada yada yada.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again......Unbanded Rates (B747 segregated) would be entertained ONLY if there were NO fences in the deal....If NO fences does not fly with your taste, then Banded Rates it is.....Your choice to make. "Having your Cake and Eating it too" is not going to fly in a "JOINT" CBA when that particular pilot group (UAL) is negotiating from the side of lower/BK numbers from where they presently reside TODAY under their current CBA.
Last edited by SoCalGuy; 10-27-2010 at 05:11 AM.
10-27-2010, 04:54 AM
#67
Fore!
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 756 F/O
Posts: 505
10-27-2010, 04:55 AM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: 73 CA EWR
Posts: 514
I'm picking up what your laying down.
There's a company named UPS who uses something called "BANDED RATE STRUCTURE".....They have uniforms, big planes, and large Int'l route structure....I think they should look into it as a carrier who uses the comcept not only for the B747....BUT the entire fleet.
What I find borderline comical now is that the UAL MEC hides behind the "We need Unbanded Rates for the B747"....."It's the way ALPA 'wants' it"....."This is a JCBA topic, not an SLI issue"....."This will have NO repercussions in future decisions concerning this issue during the Merger"......Move along, nothing to see here......yada yada yada.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again......Unbanded Rates (B747 segregated) would be entertained ONLY if there were NO fences in the deal....If NO fences does not fly with your taste, then Banded Rates it is.....Your choice to make. "Having your Cake and Eating it too" is not going to fly in a "JOINT" CBA when that particular pilot group (UAL) is negotiating from the side of lower/BK numbers from where they presently reside TODAY under their current CBA.
There's a company named UPS who uses something called "BANDED RATE STRUCTURE".....They have uniforms, big planes, and large Int'l route structure....I think they should look into it as a carrier who uses the comcept not only for the B747....BUT the entire fleet.
What I find borderline comical now is that the UAL MEC hides behind the "We need Unbanded Rates for the B747"....."It's the way ALPA 'wants' it"....."This is a JCBA topic, not an SLI issue"....."This will have NO repercussions in future decisions concerning this issue during the Merger"......Move along, nothing to see here......yada yada yada.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again......Unbanded Rates (B747 segregated) would be entertained ONLY if there were NO fences in the deal....If NO fences does not fly with your taste, then Banded Rates it is.....Your choice to make. "Having your Cake and Eating it too" is not going to fly in a "JOINT" CBA when that particular pilot group (UAL) is negotiating from the side of lower/BK numbers from where they presently reside TODAY under their current CBA.
10-27-2010, 05:26 AM
#69
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Truely pathetic/weak retort.....Try and keep up.
Trojan (who suck this year) believes in his heart of hearts unbanding hurts his chances for a windfall.
A few more truths;
1. The 400 holds more, makes more, thus should be paid more. It's really simple.
As I have said before, and we don't need to guess if it 'can' work.....UPS does it system wide.....and it works. Enought of your excuses.
2. Unbanding doesn't necessarily mean the top CAL guys getting shafted.
Doesn't necessarily mean top guys get shafted?? 'Locking' them out of the top pay scale with the fences does NOT shaft them in the post relm of a JCBA??? Let me guess, you will profess Glenn Tilton is an "awesome" manager & has great skills too
3. What we make to fly the jets now really is irrelevant. Were negotiating raises no?
AH....FAIL....try again. What rates YOU bring to the table are black & white BK figures....no?? Doing so, it drags DOWN the curve/combine starting point between BOTH companies as to where straight section 6 starts....FACT.
4. Give everyone date of hire and 20 year fences on those fleets and domiciles is the inevitable outcome of that which SC boy advocates.
Again....That's all you got?? Stay off the "short bus", the product is obviously clouding the rational.
A few more truths;
1. The 400 holds more, makes more, thus should be paid more. It's really simple.
As I have said before, and we don't need to guess if it 'can' work.....UPS does it system wide.....and it works. Enought of your excuses.
2. Unbanding doesn't necessarily mean the top CAL guys getting shafted.
Doesn't necessarily mean top guys get shafted?? 'Locking' them out of the top pay scale with the fences does NOT shaft them in the post relm of a JCBA??? Let me guess, you will profess Glenn Tilton is an "awesome" manager & has great skills too
3. What we make to fly the jets now really is irrelevant. Were negotiating raises no?
AH....FAIL....try again. What rates YOU bring to the table are black & white BK figures....no?? Doing so, it drags DOWN the curve/combine starting point between BOTH companies as to where straight section 6 starts....FACT.
4. Give everyone date of hire and 20 year fences on those fleets and domiciles is the inevitable outcome of that which SC boy advocates.
Again....That's all you got?? Stay off the "short bus", the product is obviously clouding the rational.
10-27-2010, 05:49 AM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Posts: 230
I'm picking up what your laying down.
There's a company named UPS who uses something called "BANDED RATE STRUCTURE".....They have uniforms, big planes, and large Int'l route structure....I think they should look into it as a carrier who uses the proven concept not only for the B747....BUT the entire fleet.
What I find borderline comical now is that the UAL MEC hides behind the "We need Unbanded Rates for the B747"....."It's the way ALPA 'wants' it"....."This is a JCBA topic, not an SLI issue"....."This will have NO repercussions in future decisions concerning this issue during the Merger"......Move along, nothing to see here......yada yada yada.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again......Unbanded Rates (B747 segregated) would be entertained ONLY if there were NO fences in the deal....If NO fences does not fly with your taste, then Banded Rates it is.....Your choice to make. "Having your Cake and Eating it too" is not going to fly in a "JOINT" CBA when that particular pilot group (UAL) is negotiating from the side of lower/BK numbers from where they presently reside TODAY under their current CBA.
There's a company named UPS who uses something called "BANDED RATE STRUCTURE".....They have uniforms, big planes, and large Int'l route structure....I think they should look into it as a carrier who uses the proven concept not only for the B747....BUT the entire fleet.
What I find borderline comical now is that the UAL MEC hides behind the "We need Unbanded Rates for the B747"....."It's the way ALPA 'wants' it"....."This is a JCBA topic, not an SLI issue"....."This will have NO repercussions in future decisions concerning this issue during the Merger"......Move along, nothing to see here......yada yada yada.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again......Unbanded Rates (B747 segregated) would be entertained ONLY if there were NO fences in the deal....If NO fences does not fly with your taste, then Banded Rates it is.....Your choice to make. "Having your Cake and Eating it too" is not going to fly in a "JOINT" CBA when that particular pilot group (UAL) is negotiating from the side of lower/BK numbers from where they presently reside TODAY under their current CBA.
When I was hired, the pay was determined by your fleet and seat. If you want a non negotiated pay raise, bid another aircraft. The trade off is that you might lose some relative seniority on the new fleet. With pay to seniority, if you want a pay raise, you have to go to the company and ask for it.
With pay to seniority, the top 10-20 percent will just stagnate on each fleet. There is no incentive to move up. Everyone else will be left to pick up the crumbs for id's and vacation.
ALPA has never supported a pay to seniority system. UAL is trying to undo what was taken from us in BK. There is no hiding as you insinuate.
I find it comical that CAL is using the end will justify the means rationale.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
