Sniper66

It's about all the pilots
If 20 percent can make top rate why not
400/hr for all will be fair

SpecialTracking

You forgot the emoji.

Dave Fitzgerald

Ok, for all you new guys, and that means anyone hired after 9-11:

Current pay banding was a result of bankruptcy and Glen Tilton. They wanted money and savings with a gun to the unions head. So, pay banding, the 747 rates were gutted, 777 was banded with the whale. The merger banded the 767-400 with the other wide bodies. 787 the same rate as a 747?? You've got to be kidding.

No incentive to bid to bigger equipment, no pay difference. Fewer training events, much lower top end pay to buoy the 767. Remember, the company wanted the bands and got them in a fire sale.

Any one who is viewing this as a benefit doesn't know the history and has no idea it is costing them and everyone other pilot on the property money--narrow body included. I don't care that it costs the company money, that's the cost of doing business. We, UAL, were responsible for banding, so the other airlines in bankruptcy followed suit.

Again, anyone thinking banding is a good thing, should review a bit of history.

CousinEddie

But...if the 747 brought more to the bottom line than the 787, we'd be keeping them. As a side note, Singapore just announced the beginning of the A-380 dump. Unless a government operation chips in enough to keep them going of course.

Singapore Airlines Won?t Extend First Airbus A380 Lease | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week

XHooker

I agree, but the methodology can run anywhere from flat rate per seat to different pay for different variants of the same aircraft. I personally don't see an issue with the pay bands concept, though I'd agree the bands we've got aren't perfect, rather a result of a variety of factors, many because of the merger fleet mix.

I'd argue the biggest unintended consequence would have been if we had spent negotiating capital on higher Whale rates, which would soon have been worthless. I think we need to be focused on industry trends, not history.

Agreed, but the pie is eventually going to get divided. We can't directly control where the company places its flying, but changing the AC type from a 744 to a 777, or 777 to a 787 (or vice versa) doing the same route (think ORD, IAH and I believe LAX) shouldn't cost a pilot who wants to drive to work money.

XHooker

Kinda sorta, Dave. True on the UAL side, but CAL had pay bands pre merger and UPS has always had a flat rate per seat. BTW, what will UAL pilots earnings flying the Whale be in a year or so after they're gone?

True to an extent.I think you mean the 764, and while I might not necessarily agree with the bands, what do you define as "much lower?"

Dave, it's fantasy to expect the company to unilaterally eat training costs without it coming out of somewhere else in the contract. And I'd like to sell oceanfront property in New Mexico to anyone who actually believes increasing the top WB rate will automatically put money in every pilot's pocket.

Let's stick to the facts and leave history out of it.

1) Time value of money means money earlier in your career will be worth more than money later in your career.

2) Pay banding can help alleviate the effect of company route/aircraft decisions on pilots within domiciles like we're currently seeing in ORD and IAH.

3) Pay banding cuts training costs and that's good for pilots... not just the company. If us keyboard commandos can figure that out, don't you think the negotiators and mediators understand that and place a value on it within the contract?

4) Circling back to #1, the career has changed radically from the pre-deregulation era. Pilots hit the airline with a much wider variance of ages. If you got hired in your 20s at the front edge of a hiring wave, rolling the dice and going to a strict adherence of a weight formula is probably how you'd lean. If you're like today's typical new hire who hits the line in their mid-30s in the middle to end of a hiring wave, buyer beware when someone tells you how important it is to have one type (which you'll never see the left seat of) pay more than everything else. Then again, pilots typically eat their "young" (junior).

SpecialTracking

X,

I know you know this but the company is concerned with the total dollar value of a contract. They could care less if we raised the 47 pay and reduced the 67-400 as long as the total dollar value matched. The whale and the 67-300 were both offered last rights as a reason to keep their pay rates low. The whale lasted five + years and the 67-300 well beyond that in regards to the jcba.

I understand your last paragraph but respectfully disagree. We can't social engineer this but rather need to pay an honest rate for the seat being occupied. The pilot needs to determine the acceptable tradeoffs based upon the variables involved. The contract, namely pay rates, should not subsidize those tradeoffs.

Probe

I have seen a couple of different iterations as well. Not sure which airplanes will get what.

I think we got "stuck" with the 10 across in coach as we are getting someone elses deferred orders. We got the aircraft on short notice, and the interiors are ordered years in advance. I read that about 85% of new 777's are delivered with 10 across in coach.

I have been in those seats a few times, luckily only for 3-4 hours. I believe they are 16.7 inches wide. It sucks. To compete, airbus for a time (possibly still) offered 10 across in the 350, with a seat width of 16.4. I don't know if they backed off this but it was a game to see who could advertise lower CASM on their website.

A 15 hour ORD-HKG in a 16.7 inch middle seat is going to really suck.

MasterOfPuppets

You think we are getting someone else's interiors on our brand new airplanes???? C'mon man.

Probe

Almost certainly. Aircraft, engines, components, all the way down to individual fasteners, are ordered years earlier, in a just-in-time delivery timetable. There is little excess capacity to add "extra cheese" whenever you want it.

If we order it 5 years out, we get what we want. If Boeing offers us a smokin' deal on someone elses airplanes next year, we may get some stuff we wouldn't necessarily chosen of our own volition.