UAL MEC message - 11/1/10
11-03-2010, 07:01 AM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,905
I am SOOOO sick of all this bickering that "the 747 is this and that and this and that" CRAP. Hell, I fly a B737-900ER that holds close to 180 people. I fly three/four legs a day which computes to approximately 700+ passengers, I have to brief 15/20 flight attendants (5 or so EACH LEG), and do a HELL OF A LOT more WORK (which many of those senior guys have no clue what that is) than a B747 CA. I think I should be paid more. How's that? My God folks, enough............................
Seriously though, on this pay band issue, there are:
26 747-400s
74 777-200s
If the goal is to get the most pay for the most pilots, wouldn't banding the two aircraft together result in the highest pay for the most pilots equating to better career and QOL expectations (due to money)? Make the 747 separate and money is allocated away from the remainder of the fleet to give the whale guys their premium. That effects every pilot from the 777 to the 737/319.
Someone asked before about keeping the JCBA out of the SLI arbitration. I don't know for sure, but I am going to guess. One of the arguments CAL could make is that UAL guys were under-compensated MORE prior to the JCBA than CAL pilots were. As such, consideration should be given to the money expectations of each group prior to the merger based on the pre- and post-merger contracts. The UAL MEC may see this argument too and want the EB to prevent such an argument from being made. Our MEC wants the ability to present ALL information, unfettered with no editing, to the arbitration hearing and let the chips fall where they may. Like I said I do not know if this is the case, but only a guess on my part looking at the situation. I am not advocating one way or the other or trying to create controversy.
11-03-2010, 02:33 PM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 430
They are SUPPOSED to be. But, as you can see....lots of people are trying to intermingle the two.
11-04-2010, 02:16 AM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,874
LOL. Also, our airline starts with "C" and theirs "U" so alphabetically we should get our way.
Seriously though, on this pay band issue, there are:
26 747-400s
74 777-200s
If the goal is to get the most pay for the most pilots, wouldn't banding the two aircraft together result in the highest pay for the most pilots equating to better career and QOL expectations (due to money)? Make the 747 separate and money is allocated away from the remainder of the fleet to give the whale guys their premium. That effects every pilot from the 777 to the 737/319.
Someone asked before about keeping the JCBA out of the SLI arbitration. I don't know for sure, but I am going to guess. One of the arguments CAL could make is that UAL guys were under-compensated MORE prior to the JCBA than CAL pilots were. As such, consideration should be given to the money expectations of each group prior to the merger based on the pre- and post-merger contracts. The UAL MEC may see this argument too and want the EB to prevent such an argument from being made. Our MEC wants the ability to present ALL information, unfettered with no editing, to the arbitration hearing and let the chips fall where they may. Like I said I do not know if this is the case, but only a guess on my part looking at the situation. I am not advocating one way or the other or trying to create controversy.
Seriously though, on this pay band issue, there are:
26 747-400s
74 777-200s
If the goal is to get the most pay for the most pilots, wouldn't banding the two aircraft together result in the highest pay for the most pilots equating to better career and QOL expectations (due to money)? Make the 747 separate and money is allocated away from the remainder of the fleet to give the whale guys their premium. That effects every pilot from the 777 to the 737/319.
Someone asked before about keeping the JCBA out of the SLI arbitration. I don't know for sure, but I am going to guess. One of the arguments CAL could make is that UAL guys were under-compensated MORE prior to the JCBA than CAL pilots were. As such, consideration should be given to the money expectations of each group prior to the merger based on the pre- and post-merger contracts. The UAL MEC may see this argument too and want the EB to prevent such an argument from being made. Our MEC wants the ability to present ALL information, unfettered with no editing, to the arbitration hearing and let the chips fall where they may. Like I said I do not know if this is the case, but only a guess on my part looking at the situation. I am not advocating one way or the other or trying to create controversy.
Banding is a dead issue (747-777). It won't happen in this JCBA.
11-04-2010, 04:50 AM
#95
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
As far as the Banding be a dead issue.....YOU nor I will to VOTE TILL both MEC's do so first. By way of the respective letters over the last week, we BOTH have seen how CAL's MEC is standing/voting. If that's how their vote will be cast (which I believe is clear) involving any future T/A, calling it a "Dead Issue" is nothing short of naive.
11-04-2010, 05:04 AM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,874
Pay is NOT considered in past SLI Precedents?? That's an easy statement to hang your hat on since the CURRENT ALPA Frag/Merger Policy has NOT been used yet. To refresh your memory, it was re-written (or shall I say 'refined') POST the DAL Merger. Since "Career Expectations" is one of the "Big 3" factors that must be considered, pay IS something that is considered in when quantifying the above variable.....FACT.
As far as the Banding be a dead issue.....YOU nor I will to VOTE TILL both MEC's do so first. By way of the respective letters over the last week, we BOTH have seen how CAL's MEC is standing/voting. If that's how their vote will be cast (which I believe is clear) involving any future T/A, calling it a "Dead Issue" is nothing short of naive.
As far as the Banding be a dead issue.....YOU nor I will to VOTE TILL both MEC's do so first. By way of the respective letters over the last week, we BOTH have seen how CAL's MEC is standing/voting. If that's how their vote will be cast (which I believe is clear) involving any future T/A, calling it a "Dead Issue" is nothing short of naive.
Where I do concede is the fact that the new ALPA merger policy has not been used so there IS no precident - I will take that one.
As for all of this junk in public by BOTH MECs ??? Embarassing to say the least and is being gobbled up by MGT to use at the negotiating table.
11-04-2010, 05:21 AM
#97
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
I guess we are at an impasse then - the UALMEC will never let 747-777 banding happen. Maybe ALPA national needs to get involved and clarify the new merger policy to reiterate that the JCBA and SLI are seperate processes.
Where I do concede is the fact that the new ALPA merger policy has not been used so there IS no precident - I will take that one.
As for all of this junk in public by BOTH MECs ??? Embarassing to say the least and is being gobbled up by MGT to use at the negotiating table.
Where I do concede is the fact that the new ALPA merger policy has not been used so there IS no precident - I will take that one.
As for all of this junk in public by BOTH MECs ??? Embarassing to say the least and is being gobbled up by MGT to use at the negotiating table.
Regardless if the UAL Pilot's say it's about "Pay".....and the CAL Pilot's see it as more.....it's ALL a moot point. SCOPE is hands down agreed as being the "end all to be all". As WE hanker about the Banded vs Unbanded, Mgt has played the "Nothing to see here" BS card while quietly increasing the ever growing cancer of the outsourced RJ's within the route structure.....a'la IAH.
Interesting times.
11-04-2010, 07:28 AM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,905
Originally Posted by Shrek
Maybe ALPA national needs to get involved and clarify the new merger policy to reiterate that the JCBA and SLI are seperate processes.
While the PROCESSES may be separate, when it comes down to SLI arbitration, that does not seem to indicate that the JCBA cannot be used in making either side's argument.
11-04-2010, 08:31 AM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Retired
Posts: 230
11-04-2010, 08:40 AM
#100
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
True That. No refuting the comment you made in the lighter-half of the above. Mgt is loving every bit of that....without a doubt eating it up by the pound.
Regardless if the UAL Pilot's say it's about "Pay".....and the CAL Pilot's see it as more.....it's ALL a moot point. SCOPE is hands down agreed as being the "end all to be all". As WE hanker about the Banded vs Unbanded, Mgt has played the "Nothing to see here" BS card while quietly increasing the ever growing cancer of the outsourced RJ's within the route structure.....a'la IAH.
Interesting times.
Regardless if the UAL Pilot's say it's about "Pay".....and the CAL Pilot's see it as more.....it's ALL a moot point. SCOPE is hands down agreed as being the "end all to be all". As WE hanker about the Banded vs Unbanded, Mgt has played the "Nothing to see here" BS card while quietly increasing the ever growing cancer of the outsourced RJ's within the route structure.....a'la IAH.
Interesting times.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
