Originally Posted by
ualratt
Ah yes, the 97 contract did "modified" an already banded pay scheme that as I said before was introduced during the second bankruptcy in 1990, further lowering the bar with a wide, and narrow body large and small scheme.
That "banded pay scheme" you speak of is the same system UPS uses today.
Did you actually capture the most pay possible with the new scheme? I hardly think so but the company did because they wanted it.
Banded pay doesn't necessarily lower total pay anymore than it raises it. If anything, it can raise pay per pilot by reducing training and staffing costs... an argument simultaneously for and against banded pay.
And since you're in the business of splitting hairs, pardon me for seemingly leaving out such facts as "limited" historical banding, example UAL banded equipment in C2K (pre bankruptcy) with the 767/757, A320/A319, and the B737-300/737-500. However, those are generally limited to varients as the preceding pattern and your example of Alaska Airlines among others illustrates.
Within the 756 family the 764 is almost twice the size of the 752, yet because they're the same type, that's OK? I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but it kind of blows the larger planes should pay more argument out of the water, especially when you factor in the different range and mission (theoretically).
Still doesn't maximize cockpit pay.
In your opinion. Let's say we we unband the 747 from everything else. When was the last 744 built? How many 748s are on order for airlines? How many A380s are on order for US flag carriers? What happens when the 744s start to get retired? What planes are most likely to replace that capacity? Markets drive airplane acquisitions, and all the indications for a ten year horizon are that the B787, B777, and A350 offer the flexibility to best serve those markets. All we're left with then is a 747 pay rate that doesn't get used.
Fact is that banding always come into play during concessionary contractsand bankruptcies is a no brainer; that it is a tool used by those who from day one have set out to wage war on our wages and QOL.
Yet you brush aside the examples I gave you, including the banding of your 756 fleets, despite their totally different size and mission. Where's your concern about PBS, which has been (with one exception I can think of) directly tied to concessions?
...right now SLI rules...
... on both sides.
Look, I'm not necessarily for or against paybanding (or even PBS), but it's not as simple as saying "it's concessionary." There are valid arguments for and against.