Airbus news for AA/US..
 

Pretty easy decision.
35-40% capacity bump; cost 10%
Crew cost bump? ZERO

We can't do anything about it, but I'd rather have a ****ty trip with 320s and 319s than a great trip with a 321.

Why?


Filler..

Because it's a Wheezer.

It wheezes itself to FL250 then climbs at 50fpm to cruise for the duration of the flight! :-;

It's not THAT bad! Come on. Once it gets to FL250, it's only got a couple of more thousand feet to cruise altitude.

Once you hit 160 feet its autopilot on and then its all the same pretty much.

I'm sure ATC loves these things!

Jus fun in with ya folks.

But to be clear, it is total crap :-)

I don't really have a preference as long as the FMGC auto-initializes

I'd take a new 321 over a beat to hell 320 any day and twice on Tuesday

The things I end up writing up seem to be about the same for east or west airplanes. The same kinds of things, with the same frequencies etc etc.

Compared to the 319 and 320 it's just a sled. You can feel the lack of wing in literally every regime. I was over dramatizing it a bit, I don't really mind flying it at all, in fact I feel blessed to be in my position, but I do much prefer the other two.

Airbus news for AA/US..
 

I flew one of ours at JetBlue the other day for the first time, I didn't think it was that bad from all the stuff I have read ... Many step altitudes but worked well. Then again it's our "first class / mint" config so it's not as weight limited compared to say Spirits when they stuff 3000 people in theirs .

It's not a great performer but who cares. I've got the tray table out, autopilot on, and the headset off, getting paid the same whether I'm climbing 2000 fpm or 500.

Only thing that really bothers me is waiting for 187 to deplane on the last leg of the day for the short overnight.

I don't get the new bath they're teaching but 187 instead of 150 is 25%.

Won't be an issue after we split with the flight attendants.

The IAE 321s seem to have a little better climb performance(although I like the CFM better)I'm looking forward to seeing the difference with sharklets.

I bid for the trip, not the plane.

Average of 319 and 320 seating? Don't know, but Kirby is certainly a numbers guy, and it bet he has an answer!

That's gonna be so nice, we won't have to baby them anymore.

Next thing that should happen is separate hotels, one for pilots and one for the stews. I hate having to overnight in hotels in boonies because it's "by a mall"

Twoop.................

Would be nice if the 321 paid the same as the 757. Same number of seats give or take. I think DAL pays Group III for the 321.

As a Delta guy, I have no idea what a Group III plane is, the only groups we have are WB and NB. Also, we don't have an A321 rate in the PWA. The company has ordered some, but still needs to negotiate a pay rate. Probably gonna happen in the C15 negotiation.

My bad, it's UAL where the 321 and 757 pay the same. The 319 and 737-7 pay less.

UAL doesn't have 321s. Jeffy can't seem to see beyond the 737.

Well apparently your "NB" and "WB" rates are different within each group. Group III refers to a pay band. Do all "WB" planes at Delta pay the same? If so, then the pay rates at APC are wrong... It shows a 747 pays more than a 767... Both "WB" aircraft.

UAL has 321 pay rates. And it's the same as the 757.....and the A320 and 737-800.

AA and DL have the 757 at 767 pay rates.

Delta doesn't pay band by group. Certain categories are blended, like the 757/767, (but the 767-400 is not included,) the A319/320 and the M88/90. All the 737s pay the same. Also, the 747/777 pay the same, but I believe that was a political move from the merger so neither side could claim they brought the highest paying seat to the party. (But we know who actually did! ;) )

I guess my point wasn't to get mired down into how each company breaks out their pay rates, but to point out that although UAL doesn't operate any 321s, if they did, they would pay the same as a 757...which makes sense because the 321 is almost the same size as the 757.

Most of the 757-200s seat right around 200 pax. Our A321s seat 187...close enough in my book. You'll also notice that UAL's 737-8 rates are the same as the 757, for probably the same reason.

The JCBA is supposed to be cost neutral. People don't' seem to realize if we get more money in one area it's got to come at the expense of another. I don't like it either but the MOU makes it clear that the pie is going to be the same size and the only thing allowed to change are the size of slices.

That is true...although, if the company accepts the APA proposal of DAL pay rates now plus 3% for the next 3 years, that puts off the true DAL parity that would have happened in 2016...and if DAL gets a big raise in 2015, the company would be saving a great deal over the length of this JCBA...so maybe that's where the profit sharing $ would come from, etc.

I would honestly like better work rules over pay raises. It's nice making big pay rates but if you have to work 20 days a month then pay rates aren't that nice.

The MOU was before "things changed." The APA's stance is that the company needs to cough up more dough since the MOU was negotiated with some...let's just say...not-so-accurate information. Whether or not the APA is successful in negotiating that is a different matter. We'll know soon enough...28 days now.

I hope so, there is no reason we shouldn't be the highest paid pilots in this hemisphere and have work rules to go with them.

I would agree. I'd rather keep the current pay agreement in place and improve the way we do scheduling, reserves, etc. But even still, if you think about it, the APA pay proposal actually benefits the company, of all things. You'd think we could negotiate that getting paid less than DAL for another 3-4 years means they need to improve our work rules in exchange.

I've emailed the NAC about this issue a few weeks back - and of course no response


1. If we get pay parity now (2015), what happens if UAL and DAL get a new contract after the 2015 pay parity, do we get an additional pay parity?

2. Is the 2016 pay parity rates already locked in (the ones in the MOU summary), or would a 2015 Delta pay increase bump the rates up?

3. Why no pay parity for group I pay? 16.29% increase isn't enough

From what I could tell, the proposal to the company does not include parity review. That would be something we'd have to ask for after 2018 (the last year this current proposal addresses). All the current proposal states is current DAL pay rates now, with 3% increases for the next three years. As I said before, that benefits the company because DAL will most certainly get some kind of a pay raise with their new contract, and it could be substantial.

As for the 2016 pay parity, all I've seen is a fixed percentage, which is supposed to be "parity", but even at those rates it doesn't quite match DAL's rates, especially for Group I aircraft. The current MOU also doesn't do anything to adjust first year pay, which we could conceivably be the ONLY major airline in 2019 that pays $40 per hour, which is below even Allegiant and other minor players.

But I believe the actual MOU states that the 2016 pay raise will be based on comparative contractual rates and ASM weighting...so whatever percentage that would produce would be our actual realized pay raise. I think the 16+% was a guestimate.

1. Depends on what they negotiate to get early (2015) parity. Probably would be the only parity review, but it would come down to what is negotiated in the future, so no firm answer can be given now.

2. The rates are not locked in, which is why the MOU calls them estimates. They are based on the actual rates in effect at DL and UA as of 1/1/2016 on A320/B737 aircraft.

3. All groups will get the same percentage pay raise in the current parity plan, so Group I gets the same percentage as II, III, and IV. The percentage will be decided by comparing weighted averages of DL/UA A320/B737 rates, then applied to each group at AA. I believe this had one additional clause that the raise would not bring any group above the rate in effect at UA/DL for that aircraft.

That's great and all but group I never had parity in the first place. It's sad.

Maybe they meant "parity-ish" for Group I?

If 30% less counts as close enough:D