15-01v
#151
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
Except those guys who will fly it for the next 8 years at a reduced pay rate so that the 787 pilots could get more relative pay.
#152
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,083
A319/318 pay is the same as the 737-700. I'm not saying I think our paybands are exactly the way I would do them, but let's keep the facts straight.
Look, my only point in going down this road with you is to counter the often heard refrain that paybands were foisted upon us by CALALPA for SLI purposes. There's no doubt in my mind both sides wanted to protect their pilots when the bands were constructed. Why did LUAL all of a sudden want the 747 in a separate band? In any event, it's all water under the bridge and time to look forward. Personally, I want the airplanes of the future to pay as much as possible. As to your last question, no dog in this fight, just trying to keep the record straight.
Dying fleets or not - these airplanes are going to be the mainstay for some time. To artificially inflate the importance of the 787 has cost many that will never see the 2 airplane fleet in your vision. What year does your vision come to fruition.
It's in our best interest to get the most for our guys flying airplanes on the property TODAY. At what point do the guys flying current planes get a chance to fly those inflated 787's. Dollar wise - if it takes 10 years to get there we(majority of United pilots) lost money.
Do you have another reason to protect the 787????? It couldn't be selfish, could it?
It's in our best interest to get the most for our guys flying airplanes on the property TODAY. At what point do the guys flying current planes get a chance to fly those inflated 787's. Dollar wise - if it takes 10 years to get there we(majority of United pilots) lost money.
Do you have another reason to protect the 787????? It couldn't be selfish, could it?
#153
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,083
I'm not saying "screw the 747 guys" anymore than you're saying "screw everyone else." The fences come down in a couple of years and the 747 will probably be gone around the time I can hold WB CA, so from that aspect it's irrelevant to me. It's all a question of how we want to cut the pie. I just don't see the logic of putting pay for a plane scheduled to be phased out over the life of the next contract above everything else, when it wasn't above everything else at the time of the merger.
#154
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 341
Joe, I think the transition from longevity to pay bands occurred with Contract 97. The reason I remember this is because I was a new hire DC-10 engineer and remember the front seaters talking about the transition when the vote was going on and how it created a true "flush bid." I agree it's both conjecture as to the reason for the bands and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
#156
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 341
#158
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
I can picture the knowing grins the management guys will exchange when our openers inflate the pay scale of the holy whale. Just more motivation to send them to the desert. Btw Delta is parking four of them. Think Jeff won't do similar if his bean counter formula dictates it?
#159
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 341
You know the sad thing is we could bring rates up to the A380 rates and pay longevity and a large group pilots would have that same disgusted look!! I'm not a pure Longevity pay guy, but I also don't believe in breaking pay down into each A/C. I don't want to feel pushed up the ladder. I can hold WB now but am happy to be on my little guppy flying to Portland and back. There needs to be different pay for size but, I'm glad it's not a big difference! JMO
#160
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
I'm not saying "screw the 747 guys" anymore than you're saying "screw everyone else." The fences come down in a couple of years and the 747 will probably be gone around the time I can hold WB CA, so from that aspect it's irrelevant to me. It's all a question of how we want to cut the pie. I just don't see the logic of putting pay for a plane scheduled to be phased out over the life of the next contract above everything else, when it wasn't above everything else at the time of the merger.
I guess we will find out next contract.