Bph320

So let me see if I understand this. Some believe that a 757ER should be banded to a 767 while a non ER 757 should not. They also believe that a 767-400 is more like a 747-400 than a 767-300/200.


Riiiiiigghhht!!!!!

Bph320

I guess you think the CALMEC is in total charge of the process.

30west

Someone, is starting to see the forest (banding of fleets) instead of the big tree (747).

Best observation on this thread so far. This isn't about 747 its just the best example since its greatly different from 767-4.In this particular band.

I'll take it a step further to help others see whats this is disagreement is really about(merger cmmttes wont tip their cards). In past mergers (did some work on merger cmmte in former airline) of airlines one of the important factors arbitrators look at is how many wide-bodies(2 aisles) and how many narrow-bodies(1 aisle) does each merging airline bring. It establishes a ratio for use by the arbitrator, also usually a black and white number. But I bet Mr. Katz is throwing one out there on this deal hoping it sticks. If he can convince the arbitrators(3 this time) that since the pay is the same on (proposed CAL banding ) 747/777/767-4 and 767-2/767-3/757 etops this would greatly change the WB/NB ratio. Goes from what it really is 48 WB CAL/ 113 WB UAL to 110 WB CAL for pay/ 113+?(757 etops) WB UAL for pay. Makes the ratio much closer to even ,vastly improving CAL pilot position on SLI integration. IMHO I don't think you will get three separate arbitrators to set new precedent on this but I would have tried it also if I were on the committee.

Second, for everyone both sides UAL/CAL talking about orders/ options / Growth/ replacement aircraft, arbitrators in the last 20 years basically ignore all of that.They have included some aircraft when they were to be delivered in the very near term generally the 3-5 months out max. They go into the above mentioned ratio in there appropriate category WB/NB.

One last thing, if anyone believes pay banding is the holy grail at CAL. Why did Jay make the offer in DEN last month at the MEC's meeting "lets just get this contract with all the banding in place and on the next contract we will unband all the aircraft". He simply has a weak hand is trying to play it best he can, I would do the same, so would you.

IMHO still say in 5 years if management wants it. This will all be water under the bridge, big movement, new planes, big pay , everyone moving forward on the list quickly making more money and flying whatever you generally want to.

Cheers

30 west

chuckyt1

I hate to ask this, because it may sound divisive. But, if the merger never happened, and CAL had bought 744's, would you want those airframes to pay the same as the 777?

I don't know, nor do I care, how banding will affect SLI. I do know that banding pay rates was a concession. I want to remove as many concessions as we can.

An industry leading JCBA! Regardless of how it effects me as an individual.

gettinbumped

GREAT post here

30west

Personally I think all a/c should pay differently since the productivity/ mission/ revenue potential is different on each. The individual pilot should enjoy the rewards of that. Even a319/a320.

Also, if your really are part of ALPA then ALPA says the formula is to be used (don't remember all the factors weight, speed, seats, i.e.). Its simply part of being in ALPA. As i get older though it occurs to me CAL old 25year scale that paid according to seniority might be nice. Flying an A320 ord to mco all winter long then laying over might be nice instead of going back side of clock to NRT-BKK

Groundhog

You broke the code. Of course if you speak the truth around here you are accused of "attack(ing) and conquer(ing) in public".

Hog

Milton Waddams

Has anyone ever actually seen this mythical "weight/speed/seat" formula? Please point me to where it is as inquiring minds want to know. There is no formula these days. Each airline has historically gone for the highest rates they could get in the good times and then the least paycuts in the bad times. But believe me, I highly doubt that our JNC (and your NC in the past, even for your 2000 CBA) ever used a formula such as the you speak of above.

It is also unfortunate that widebodies seem to be the holy grail in these arbitrations. I still haven't figured out why.

I'll throw another one out there. Why would we pay something based on weight? Shouldn't we pay something based on profit potential? For example, the 787 is not going to weight nearly as much as a similarly sized airplane due to the materials and engineering behind the airplane. Should it then be paid less because it has a lighter ZFW? Seems to me that the 787 should be paid more than equivalent size airplane due to its lower cost structure yet equal revenue potential, which of course, equals a higher profit per trip.

MW

HSLD

Yes, I have seen the formula and I'm sure your reps could share it with you. If they don't have it handy, they can contact the Economic and Financial Analysis Department. Also, Yes to the productivity formula being applied in C2000. I'll have to look back through some old contracts, but I remember seeing it, in a side letter perhaps, in contract '92.

I won't attempt to repeat the formula from memory, but the basis is that pilot pay is linked to the productivity/revenue generation ability of the airframe. The more payload the aircraft can lift, and the faster it can get it to destination, the more productive the manpower is operating the jet.

Finally, the basis of weight in the formula is max payload, which is certainly a huge contributor to profit potential. A whale can carry 120,000lbs of cargo along with 397 passengers up top and get them there at mach .88 or better. The 787 may be greener, but it won't have near the lift or speed of the -400.

Captain X

Under the current concessionary CAL contract it would be a non-issue.

747 and 777 pay the same Widebody rate.

Much like the concessionary UAL contract.