1. Whomever is saying this will probably be retired by the time another contract get completed.
2. The 747's will be long gone by then as well.
I really don't understand the heartache with pay banding. We are negotiating a number (not a contract). Whatever that final number (overall cost of the contract is) is what we'll get. Paybanding saves the company money, reduces the cost of the contract, and allows room for gains in other areas of the contract.
Spoken like a true company man....
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
1. Whomever is saying this will probably be retired by the time another contract get completed.
2. The 747's will be long gone by then as well.
I really don't understand the heartache with pay banding. We are negotiating a number (not a contract). Whatever that final number (overall cost of the contract is) is what we'll get. Paybanding saves the company money, reduces the cost of the contract, and allows room for gains in other areas of the contract.
Back to splitting the pie? B.S. Bring more pie to the table. I don't care about saving them money; I care about making me more money. I don't care about reducing the cost of the contract; I care about getting more from the contract. I want gains in other areas too! So you see, they need more pie!
Spoken like someone who doesn't like to see the big picture or can't comprehend what it means.
These are made up numbers, but say, for instnce, the cost of the contract is $1 billion dollars and the cost of not paybanding is $200 million, I would rather that $200 million go towards another section of the contract (such as pay rates) that will actually do us some good. If the company wants it, let them have it, just make sure we are compensated in other ways.
Back to splitting the pie? B.S. Bring more pie to the table. I don't care about saving them money; I care about making me more money. I don't care about reducing the cost of the contract; I care about getting more from the contract. I want gains in other areas too! So you see, they need more pie!
Of course there will be more pie, but it's still going to need to be sliced up. Every piece of the contract is costed out, paybanding is no different.
Spoken like someone who doesn't like to see the big picture or can't comprehend what it means.
These are made up numbers, but say, for instnce, the cost of the contract is $1 billion dollars and the cost of not paybanding is $200 million, I would rather that $200 million go towards another section of the contract (such as pay rates) that will actually do us some good. If the company wants it, let them have it, just make sure we are compensated in other ways.
Out.
What you're doing is taking from the top airplane and giving to the bottom. Is that right? It shouldn't be! What you want is the 747 Capt making as much as possible, not because of trickle down, but as a driving force for rates on all fleets and seats. Why do you think the company likes the paybanding of 747 at the lower rate of the 777. Now put the 767-400 in the mix and before long we are at 757/737 rates and no where to go but down. Look at the history of paybanding. It's not new and it serves to drive pay down. The only reason we are discussing this is JP wants it for SLI.
Spoken like someone who doesn't like to see the big picture or can't comprehend what it means.
These are made up numbers, but say, for instnce, the cost of the contract is $1 billion dollars and the cost of not paybanding is $200 million, I would rather that $200 million go towards another section of the contract (such as pay rates) that will actually do us some good. If the company wants it, let them have it, just make sure we are compensated in other ways.
Out.
And you really think that $200 million is going in our pockets?
What you want is the 747 Capt making as much as possible, not because of trickle down, but as a driving force for rates on all fleets and seats.
So what happens if the 747 is phased out over the next few years? How does that help us with 777 / 767 rates being that we had spent untold hours arguing to the company that a 747 should pay higher than a 777? It will be a driving force, alright, but driving the rates into the ground.
And you really think that $200 million is going in our pockets?
We're screwed.
Have you ever negotiated anything larger than a new car? It comes down to the bottom line. Every single item in a TA has been costed out to the penny. There is a bottom line number that we can extract from the company and it doesn't matter (in their eyes) where those costs come from.
"The pay bands would be corrected during the next contract."
This statement is a joke, right?
Here's another thing I know:
Nothing is "corrected" in the next contract. Why? Because each contract brings a challenge of its on and to think "pay-banding" will be "corrected" is one of the most ignorant things one could say, let alone think.
So if you want and like "pay-banding" then its OK, if not don't vote for it.
So what happens if the 747 is phased out over the next few years? How does that help us with 777 / 767 rates being that we had spent untold hours arguing to the company that a 747 should pay higher than a 777? It will be a driving force, alright, but driving the rates into the ground.
Paybanding is only an issue for SLI. Trying to take from the top and give to another group or cause is a mistake. We are not socialist!!!!
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
