CAL MEC Message 11/02/10
11-02-2010, 02:53 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: A320/A319/B737 Sys Acft Maint Controller
Posts: 303
I agree. It boils down to this: the only legitimate argument here (i.e. that is NOT prepping for SLI) is whether or not pay banding is good for us pilots.
If one supports banding the 747/777, then why would one not advocate lumping the 767 and 757 in the same band? Wouldn't that raise pay for all the 767/757 pilots? Keep going...why not band everything ala UPS?
It's an old argument, and one that has been mostly won by pilot groups in airlines that we do NOT get banded pay. The banding of 747/777 and 320/737 happened during bankruptcy in a concessionary contract...we want to REVERSE that because it costs us money, period. If you really think banding is better, then let's hear the argument for it ABSENT any SLI/expectations argument. Any tell me why banding is good for certain categories but not across the board.
If one supports banding the 747/777, then why would one not advocate lumping the 767 and 757 in the same band? Wouldn't that raise pay for all the 767/757 pilots? Keep going...why not band everything ala UPS?
It's an old argument, and one that has been mostly won by pilot groups in airlines that we do NOT get banded pay. The banding of 747/777 and 320/737 happened during bankruptcy in a concessionary contract...we want to REVERSE that because it costs us money, period. If you really think banding is better, then let's hear the argument for it ABSENT any SLI/expectations argument. Any tell me why banding is good for certain categories but not across the board.
If I recall in correctly, In 2001 when the Pilots at UAL got their contract the Delta pilots made the claim that the 777 was more efficient so they should be paid accordingly. That was a good argument at the time because they HAD no 747-400's and no access to any either.. fast forward to NOW and they're merged with Northwest. were they of knowlege of the fact as they stand today, would they have made the same choice NOW as then?? The Pay, if not based on total seniority ala UPS would then equate to the tangibles like Max Gross Weight
Given that scenario I've suggested pay rates based on EVERY aircraft's Gross weight and Use. And this suggestion is based on the airplanes flying TODAY.. SO?? How then would the 747 and 777 of ANY age be determined as the SAME when the 747-8 intercontinental is going to max gross at 998,000 Pounds and carry 455-525 passengers in 3 or 2 class interiors?? The A380 presently has a max Gross of 1,325,000 Pounds. Whether I believe in the "Banding" or NOT since I have no Horse in this race, and I'm speaking Purely form Logic. The Banding was brought about by CH-11 abd the 1113 Process where if it WASN'T agreed to? Then UAL might have been LIQUIDATED or the ENTIRE Pilot Contract Abrogated!! So NOW it comes BACK to regaining the previously rendered concessions. DOES it NOT?? Where the 747 WAS at the top of the "food chain" (to use a figure of speech) the 777 would be next on, the 767-424,322,224,the 757-324,-222,/-224,the 737-924,824,724,the A320, A319 and the 737-524 (which might not even see another summer).. Airplanes to come are the A350-900, and the B787-800 and 900 the move up is sequential By Gross Weight with ALL move ups being PAID for!! Now Exactly WHAT is wrong with the Logic IF, the top Seniority Pilots from EITHER airline are put where their seniority will HOLD, DOWN the LINE?? And Yeah that means NO fences!! NO carveouts!!, Everything Above Board and ON the SQUARE. This ENTIRE tone of conversation makes you guys look ALMOST as STUPID as the "Dimwits" from USAPA (US-Air Easties) and on top of that?? WHY would you put your "business in the streets" in THIS manner?? Do you BELIEVE that UAL and CAL management can't READ?? You don't even know for Sure Who is "Stoking the furnace" in this conversation yet you're ready to Drop Napalm on each other.. This conversation is for an ALPA PUBLIC NON- viewable Website!! THAT is where your Business should be dicussed! I work with some of the Smartest Pilots in the World As a Controller, I also have the misfortune to speak to the some of the totally DUMBEST as well. (mainly on the weekend) You guys are better than THIS and you need to show it! Cmon Guys! Pick it up a notch and stop Flamin' each other. I shouldn't have to tell you this.
11-02-2010, 03:14 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: 737 capt
Posts: 335
************************************************** ******
If I recall in correctly, In 2001 when the Pilots at UAL got their contract the Delta pilots made the claim that the 777 was more efficient so they should be paid accordingly. That was a good argument at the time because they HAD no 747-400's and no access to any either.. fast forward to NOW and they're merged with Northwest. were they of knowlege of the fact as they stand today, would they have made the same choice NOW as then?? The Pay, if not based on total seniority ala UPS would then equate to the tangibles like Max Gross Weight
Given that scenario I've suggested pay rates based on EVERY aircraft's Gross weight and Use. And this suggestion is based on the airplanes flying TODAY.. SO?? How then would the 747 and 777 of ANY age be determined as the SAME when the 747-8 intercontinental is going to max gross at 998,000 Pounds and carry 455-525 passengers in 3 or 2 class interiors?? The A380 presently has a max Gross of 1,325,000 Pounds. Whether I believe in the "Banding" or NOT since I have no Horse in this race, and I'm speaking Purely form Logic. The Banding was brought about by CH-11 abd the 1113 Process where if it WASN'T agreed to? Then UAL might have been LIQUIDATED or the ENTIRE Pilot Contract Abrogated!! So NOW it comes BACK to regaining the previously rendered concessions. DOES it NOT?? Where the 747 WAS at the top of the "food chain" (to use a figure of speech) the 777 would be next on, the 767-424,322,224,the 757-324,-222,/-224,the 737-924,824,724,the A320, A319 and the 737-524 (which might not even see another summer).. Airplanes to come are the A350-900, and the B787-800 and 900 the move up is sequential By Gross Weight with ALL move ups being PAID for!! Now Exactly WHAT is wrong with the Logic IF, the top Seniority Pilots from EITHER airline are put where their seniority will HOLD, DOWN the LINE?? And Yeah that means NO fences!! NO carveouts!!, Everything Above Board and ON the SQUARE. This ENTIRE tone of conversation makes you guys look ALMOST as STUPID as the "Dimwits" from USAPA (US-Air Easties) and on top of that?? WHY would you put your "business in the streets" in THIS manner?? Do you BELIEVE that UAL and CAL management can't READ?? You don't even know for Sure Who is "Stoking the furnace" in this conversation yet you're ready to Drop Napalm on each other.. This conversation is for an ALPA PUBLIC NON- viewable Website!! THAT is where your Business should be dicussed! I work with some of the Smartest Pilots in the World As a Controller, I also have the misfortune to speak to the some of the totally DUMBEST as well. (mainly on the weekend) You guys are better than THIS and you need to show it! Cmon Guys! Pick it up a notch and stop Flamin' each other. I shouldn't have to tell you this.
If I recall in correctly, In 2001 when the Pilots at UAL got their contract the Delta pilots made the claim that the 777 was more efficient so they should be paid accordingly. That was a good argument at the time because they HAD no 747-400's and no access to any either.. fast forward to NOW and they're merged with Northwest. were they of knowlege of the fact as they stand today, would they have made the same choice NOW as then?? The Pay, if not based on total seniority ala UPS would then equate to the tangibles like Max Gross Weight
Given that scenario I've suggested pay rates based on EVERY aircraft's Gross weight and Use. And this suggestion is based on the airplanes flying TODAY.. SO?? How then would the 747 and 777 of ANY age be determined as the SAME when the 747-8 intercontinental is going to max gross at 998,000 Pounds and carry 455-525 passengers in 3 or 2 class interiors?? The A380 presently has a max Gross of 1,325,000 Pounds. Whether I believe in the "Banding" or NOT since I have no Horse in this race, and I'm speaking Purely form Logic. The Banding was brought about by CH-11 abd the 1113 Process where if it WASN'T agreed to? Then UAL might have been LIQUIDATED or the ENTIRE Pilot Contract Abrogated!! So NOW it comes BACK to regaining the previously rendered concessions. DOES it NOT?? Where the 747 WAS at the top of the "food chain" (to use a figure of speech) the 777 would be next on, the 767-424,322,224,the 757-324,-222,/-224,the 737-924,824,724,the A320, A319 and the 737-524 (which might not even see another summer).. Airplanes to come are the A350-900, and the B787-800 and 900 the move up is sequential By Gross Weight with ALL move ups being PAID for!! Now Exactly WHAT is wrong with the Logic IF, the top Seniority Pilots from EITHER airline are put where their seniority will HOLD, DOWN the LINE?? And Yeah that means NO fences!! NO carveouts!!, Everything Above Board and ON the SQUARE. This ENTIRE tone of conversation makes you guys look ALMOST as STUPID as the "Dimwits" from USAPA (US-Air Easties) and on top of that?? WHY would you put your "business in the streets" in THIS manner?? Do you BELIEVE that UAL and CAL management can't READ?? You don't even know for Sure Who is "Stoking the furnace" in this conversation yet you're ready to Drop Napalm on each other.. This conversation is for an ALPA PUBLIC NON- viewable Website!! THAT is where your Business should be dicussed! I work with some of the Smartest Pilots in the World As a Controller, I also have the misfortune to speak to the some of the totally DUMBEST as well. (mainly on the weekend) You guys are better than THIS and you need to show it! Cmon Guys! Pick it up a notch and stop Flamin' each other. I shouldn't have to tell you this.
11-02-2010, 04:44 PM
#25
New Hire
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3
This is all about the top dogs at UAL...aka the 570 whoever the hell they are. They do not want to be junior to our "scabs" and are willing to throw their junior pilots under the bus to ensure their seniority. I believe their MC and Vice Chairman are part of this secret 570 group. Longevity they are behind our scabs...status and category relative % seniority they are behind our scabs...so the only thing they have left is career expectations..aka 747... Make sense now?
11-02-2010, 05:49 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 126
Catfish, I hope you're wrong...it's complete BS either way. BUT, it doesn't really matter if a logical argument is used (see my earlier posts and strfyr51's). We should either be trying to band everything or nothing...what is the goal? Which is more fair and pays better for EVERYONE?
If we continue to support scales that separate payrates based on weight class (not banding everything), then we should advocate a separate 747 payrate. Draft a resolution/whatever that states the new payrates (JCBA) will NOT be considered in SLI.
If we continue to support scales that separate payrates based on weight class (not banding everything), then we should advocate a separate 747 payrate. Draft a resolution/whatever that states the new payrates (JCBA) will NOT be considered in SLI.
11-02-2010, 05:56 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: B767/757 Capt
Posts: 182
This is all about the top dogs at UAL...aka the 570 whoever the hell they are. They do not want to be junior to our "scabs" and are willing to throw their junior pilots under the bus to ensure their seniority. I believe their MC and Vice Chairman are part of this secret 570 group. Longevity they are behind our scabs...status and category relative % seniority they are behind our scabs...so the only thing they have left is career expectations..aka 747... Make sense now?
You are correct the MC and Vice Chairman are 570's...............
11-02-2010, 06:17 PM
#28
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 11
Lets not have our cake and eat it too. You will dilute all other fleets with a separate pay scale for the -400. You will have a fence that therefore gives this advantage to one group for the life of the fence. If the -400 goes away so does the rate and the money goes back to management. It is time to think long term not instant gratification for a few.
11-02-2010, 06:39 PM
#29
APC co-founder
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B777
Posts: 5,853
This is all about the top dogs at UAL...aka the 570 whoever the hell they are. They do not want to be junior to our "scabs" and are willing to throw their junior pilots under the bus to ensure their seniority. I believe their MC and Vice Chairman are part of this secret 570 group. Longevity they are behind our scabs...status and category relative % seniority they are behind our scabs...so the only thing they have left is career expectations..aka 747... Make sense now?
Any JCBA is going to have be accepted by a majority of the rank and file pilots. I doubt, seriously doubt that any agreement would pass if there was a carve out for a select few.
Further, the merger and subsequent SLI will not (under current policy) allow for pilots to be displaced from a fleet/seat/domicile by virtue of the merger.
I think the majority of pilots at both airlines are intelligent and know what they need in the JCBA.
11-03-2010, 05:53 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: IAH 320 CA
Posts: 190
Maybe the JCBA has more to do with our Scope clause not your -400. Banding the -400 with the 777 has become an ALPA industry standard. I dare say OUR Scope is not quite Industry Standard.
Lets not have our cake and eat it too. You will dilute all other fleets with a separate pay scale for the -400. You will have a fence that therefore gives this advantage to one group for the life of the fence. If the -400 goes away so does the rate and the money goes back to management. It is time to think long term not instant gratification for a few.
Lets not have our cake and eat it too. You will dilute all other fleets with a separate pay scale for the -400. You will have a fence that therefore gives this advantage to one group for the life of the fence. If the -400 goes away so does the rate and the money goes back to management. It is time to think long term not instant gratification for a few.
Your scope clause is what it is. One of the best in the industry. I would think the JCBA would water it down if anything. (I hope not)
After talking with my reps, I understand this is about much more than the pay on the 747.
It is about the fact that the CAL MEC feels that they must use the JCBA to prove or improve their SLI arbitration argument.
The UAL MEC feels that the SLI should be based on the ALPA merger policy criteria AS OF THE MERGER ANNOUNCEMENT DATE. They do not want the JCBA details to influence the SLI.
So, it's about much more than pay on the 747. It's more about one side trying to limit the gains of the other side because they want to use the JCBA for SLI arguments.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
