Originally Posted by
Flyguppy
In my opinion, I think it's a bad idea to keep a SIGNIFICANTLY larger aircraft tied in pay to a smaller one. Sets a bad precedent for new airplanes a la the 787 you mentioned. The fact that it was banded in the first place was a CONCESSION. I should think that we try to get back as many of those as possible in this contract.
That being said, I would think it GROSSLY unfair to think that a higher pay for the Whale would somehow entitle the pilots on that aircraft to move to the front of the seniority line on the ISL.
I should think there is some middle ground here.
Flyguppy, taking all of the SLI/union bickering out of this, here's why I think the pay should be banded... The 747-4 fleet at UAL has an average age of 14 years, not necessarily ready for the boneyard, but not new iron either. There are no more 747-4s being built or on order. There are lots of 787s and A-350s on order. That increased pay for the 747 doesn't materialize out of thin air, it comes from somewhere else in the contract. We negotiate with the company for the size of the pie, we determine ourselves how we want to slice it. If the company parks our highest paying plane, our pie gets smaller. If we get more of the highest paying planes, our pie gets larger. Where do you think the fleet growth will be?