|
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1143949)
What the company wants is pay banding. It could be a good thing on narrow body jets, but on the 744, as soon as we agreed to band it with say the 330,765,and ER I bet we would see the 773 or 748i.
It depends on what this pilot group wants, but as with everything, there are unintended consequences for every action. We are currently not seeing those jets because it is cheaper for us to operate the 767-300ER's across the pond and AF operate the large metal. Banding may allow larger jets to be placed at DAL, but one must weigh the pros and cons of banding in both cases, then vote on it. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1143999)
Simple. The 757 will be going away long before the ER's do. The ER's in many instances will be here for another 20+ years. Therefore you want to pull it up. You will not be able to pull the 739 up to the WB band, but most will not agree that it should be in the NB band. It is effectively the CAL Wide, LN, SN scheme. It also allows for the 787 to pay the same as the 767(wide) and 777 if you use three bands.
The middle band allows for the 321, 739, 757, 753 to all be in that middle band while keeping the predominantly international jets separate. It leaves some room for negotiation. If you wanted make it four bands, but then all you are really doing is banding the nb jets and keeping the 777 and 744 separate. For you blood pressure, there is a lot of traction on banding. It just needs to be done correctly, that is all. Just a note on 73-9 pay, banding etc. and not to ACL but to everyone: We need to becareful where we define this jet. If we band the airplane into a WB band that includes the ER or greater aircraft, just wait for the the potential massive fireworks show. What happens if we were to perhaps purchase Alaska? Where do you think they would want to start integrating into that SL? If I were on their side, I know I would be making an argument to insert our list in on a ratio starting on the largest a/c in that band. We need to think before we leap and not regret this decision later. |
Carl Spackler ...
There was a DAL 747-400 at ETAR today. Was that you? |
Originally Posted by TheManager
(Post 1144004)
Just a note on 73-9 pay, banding etc.
We need to becareful where we define this jet. If we band the airplane into a WB band that includes the ER or greater aircraft, just wait for the the potential massive fireworks show. What happens if we were to perhaps purchase Alaska? Where do you think they would want to start integrating into that SL? We need to think before we leap and not regret this decision later. Sorry about the A$$wipe thing.. I owe you a beer.. even though you started it. :D |
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 1144005)
Carl Spackler ...
There was a DAL 747-400 at ETAR today. Was that you? Carl |
Originally Posted by TheManager
(Post 1144004)
Just a note on 73-9 pay, banding etc. and not to ACL but to everyone:
We need to becareful where we define this jet. If we band the airplane into a WB band that includes the ER or greater aircraft, just wait for the the potential massive fireworks show. What happens if we were to perhaps purchase Alaska? Where do you think they would want to start integrating into that SL? If I were on their side, I know I would be making an argument to insert our list in on a ratio starting on the largest a/c in that band. We need to think before we leap and not regret this decision later. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1144006)
More info please. Fireworks show regarding what? If we purchase AK, (which I don't consider a real possibility), since they have no 737-900, they would not be considered a career expectation for them. I don't see that as an issue. Besides, we cannot base our negotiations on what might happen down the road.. well not completely anyway.. we'd be foolish to not at least consider that possibility. And I agree that we need to tread carefully, but what we have now is retarded.
Sorry about the A$$wipe thing.. I owe you a beer.. even though you started it. :D Alaska operates the 737-900. They have 12 in operation a more on order. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1144002)
You get what you negotiate. No need for the middle band. Two is one too many IMHO, but I have conceded this far.
My BP is fine, but thanks for your concern.. I can't figure out how to imbed a video, so here ya go.. it's all in how you count. I understand that a top pay does not work well for most pilots here, and I am one of them, but it also helps differentiate our jets when more jets come on property, or more jets from another airline. Like "the manager" said, you put the 739 in the WB category or the 757 which would probably be seen as an equivalent, then you are looking at a many possible targets, and their seniority lists who may try to argue that they have WB expectations based upon our super simple pay scheme. Like I have been trying to say with out saying it, you need to be careful what you wish for. I know that leaves less pay for guys like you, but at least it will help out when you want to keep you seat. All things matter in seniority integrations. I still expect to see us dealing with that in the no too distant future. Prefer growth, but our company and its investors want to consolidate. |
Originally Posted by TheManager
(Post 1143564)
Love to know why they never joined the fight. Then again, look at their successes in their other fights. TWA v ALPA, United Pilots v ALPA, their own office staff v ALPA, etc. etc.
ALPA clearly has its reasons as to why they have no interest in changing the RLA...they're just not saying what those reasons are. Carl |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1143978)
It may mean more jobs, but they may pay significantly less.
More people on the property is always better. Nu |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:11 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands