C066 Update
#351
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,117
#352
#355
Not really….the 737-800 enjoyed the powerful negotiating tool in the contract referred to as 3.B.6. The company couldn’t operate an aircraft until a pay rate was agreed to. The 777 was the only other aircraft brought in while we had this in our contract.
After the merger, I think the A319/320 paid less, compared to the 737 fleet is because we only had 10 737-700’s, vs. the 319/320, where we had more 319’s than 320’s, so an average seat count on that fleet was probably 140 on the airbus, vs 160 on the 737. Just my opinion, but the 737 was almost all 160 seat aircraft and the Airbus had 130-160, with a slight lean towards the 130 seater, so ALPA accepted the lower pay on the Airbus. I know I didn’t explain it the way my mind sees it, it’s late and I should be in bed.
Happy New Year!
I agree completely with the sentiment that it doesn’t make sense the 75/76 pays the same rate when we have 3 separate pay rates for the A320 fleet though. That fleet is underpaid across the board.
#356
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Not really….the 737-800 enjoyed the powerful negotiating tool in the contract referred to as 3.B.6. The company couldn’t operate an aircraft until a pay rate was agreed to. The 777 was the only other aircraft brought in while we had this in our contract.
After the merger, I think the A319/320 paid less, compared to the 737 fleet is because we only had 10 737-700’s, vs. the 319/320, where we had more 319’s than 320’s, so an average seat count on that fleet was probably 140 on the airbus, vs 160 on the 737. Just my opinion, but the 737 was almost all 160 seat aircraft and the Airbus had 130-160, with a slight lean towards the 130 seater, so ALPA accepted the lower pay on the Airbus. I know I didn’t explain it the way my mind sees it, it’s late and I should be in bed.
Happy New Year!
I agree completely with the sentiment that it doesn’t make sense the 75/76 pays the same rate when we have 3 separate pay rates for the A320 fleet though. That fleet is underpaid across the board.
After the merger, I think the A319/320 paid less, compared to the 737 fleet is because we only had 10 737-700’s, vs. the 319/320, where we had more 319’s than 320’s, so an average seat count on that fleet was probably 140 on the airbus, vs 160 on the 737. Just my opinion, but the 737 was almost all 160 seat aircraft and the Airbus had 130-160, with a slight lean towards the 130 seater, so ALPA accepted the lower pay on the Airbus. I know I didn’t explain it the way my mind sees it, it’s late and I should be in bed.
Happy New Year!
I agree completely with the sentiment that it doesn’t make sense the 75/76 pays the same rate when we have 3 separate pay rates for the A320 fleet though. That fleet is underpaid across the board.
#357
It ended up paying less in the joint contract because there was only so much money the company was willing to put up for the joint contract. The lower pay rates meant the bulk of that pot of money was going to North pilots because their pay rates were lower than the South rates. The joint contract had to be ratified by both sides. They needed to provide some raises to the South or the joint contract would not have been ratifiable.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post