Pay Banding
#21
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 846
Likes: 86
So you want 5 different pay bands? Let's look at that. The MD is going away, so that pay band will possibly be short lived, especially if all the doom and gloom wet leasers are correct. You have the Airbus making less than our 767. So, if we are pattern bargaining, in 2027 the 777 makes $488, the 767 and 757 make $408 and the Airbus makes $390 per hour. That is based on Delta's 767-300 rate, which is banded with their 757. Isn't that how pattern bargaining works?
For those that are saying that total compensation is a smoke screen for substandard rates of pay, how do you justify those 777 FO's here that say they make more on the 777 than they would as a captain on the 75 working the same number of days. These aren't just junior FO's who would only be able to hold reserve on the 75, these are senior FO's who would be in the top 50% on that airplane. Are they lying? The 75 CAP pay rate is higher, so how do they make more for the same number of days worked if pay rates are what matter?
For those that are saying that total compensation is a smoke screen for substandard rates of pay, how do you justify those 777 FO's here that say they make more on the 777 than they would as a captain on the 75 working the same number of days. These aren't just junior FO's who would only be able to hold reserve on the 75, these are senior FO's who would be in the top 50% on that airplane. Are they lying? The 75 CAP pay rate is higher, so how do they make more for the same number of days worked if pay rates are what matter?
As far as the aircraft size and pay rate increase, it’s pretty common for the pay to increase with size. This happened all the time before pay banding. Even regionals have an increase in pay from the CRJ-200 to the CRJ-900 despite the weight only being 30k pounds different. Heck, the legacies have a pay bump from the 320 to 321 and variants of the 737 and A220. I think tying the 757 to the 767 was a vestige of being dual qualified on that type. Since we don’t do that anymore, I think splitting the 757 and 767 rates is reasonable.
As far as your Airbus argument, does that make logical sense to you? On one end, you’re arguing for pattern bargaining off size of aircraft (777 pays equal to other fleet 777), and the other you’re arguing against it (757 pays more than Airbus larger size and despite AA having Airbus rate equal to 757). Oh, you didn’t know that? Nobody is surprised. You didn’t know we had industry leading pay of our last CBA either
.Look, each CBA is unique to each carrier. AA doesn’t have A300s. They’re not going to invest in an increase. Same as Delta for 777s. SWA will have much higher 737 rates than the legacies. UPS has an 757 rates that pay the same as a 747. Ours can have reduced rates to pay for retirement, scope, and QOL. It’s a unique negotiation.
It’s just a discussion. Just wanted to hear opinions about the advantages and disadvantages.
Also, there’s no need to be churlish. I shouldn’t have to fight the urge to be a jerk when responding. It’s unnecessary. We’re on the same team.
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,813
Likes: 0
I don’t want anything. I just put it out there for discussion and presented an example. I think we should look at it and know the pros and cons.
As far as the aircraft size and pay rate increase, it’s pretty common for the pay to increase with size. This happened all the time before pay banding. Even regionals have an increase in pay from the CRJ-200 to the CRJ-900 despite the weight only being 30k pounds different. Heck, the legacies have a pay bump from the 320 to 321 and variants of the 737 and A220. I think tying the 757 to the 767 was a vestige of being dual qualified on that type. Since we don’t do that anymore, I think splitting the 757 and 767 rates is reasonable.
As far as your Airbus argument, does that make logical sense to you? On one end, you’re arguing for pattern bargaining off size of aircraft (777 pays equal to other fleet 777), and the other you’re arguing against it (757 pays more than Airbus larger size and despite AA having Airbus rate equal to 757). Oh, you didn’t know that? Nobody is surprised. You didn’t know we had industry leading pay of our last CBA either
.
Look, each CBA is unique to each carrier. AA doesn’t have A300s. They’re not going to invest in an increase. Same as Delta for 777s. SWA will have much higher 737 rates than the legacies. UPS has an 757 rates that pay the same as a 747. Ours can have reduced rates to pay for retirement, scope, and QOL. It’s a unique negotiation.
It’s just a discussion. Just wanted to hear opinions about the advantages and disadvantages.
Also, there’s no need to be churlish. I shouldn’t have to fight the urge to be a jerk when responding. It’s unnecessary. We’re on the same team.
As far as the aircraft size and pay rate increase, it’s pretty common for the pay to increase with size. This happened all the time before pay banding. Even regionals have an increase in pay from the CRJ-200 to the CRJ-900 despite the weight only being 30k pounds different. Heck, the legacies have a pay bump from the 320 to 321 and variants of the 737 and A220. I think tying the 757 to the 767 was a vestige of being dual qualified on that type. Since we don’t do that anymore, I think splitting the 757 and 767 rates is reasonable.
As far as your Airbus argument, does that make logical sense to you? On one end, you’re arguing for pattern bargaining off size of aircraft (777 pays equal to other fleet 777), and the other you’re arguing against it (757 pays more than Airbus larger size and despite AA having Airbus rate equal to 757). Oh, you didn’t know that? Nobody is surprised. You didn’t know we had industry leading pay of our last CBA either
.Look, each CBA is unique to each carrier. AA doesn’t have A300s. They’re not going to invest in an increase. Same as Delta for 777s. SWA will have much higher 737 rates than the legacies. UPS has an 757 rates that pay the same as a 747. Ours can have reduced rates to pay for retirement, scope, and QOL. It’s a unique negotiation.
It’s just a discussion. Just wanted to hear opinions about the advantages and disadvantages.
Also, there’s no need to be churlish. I shouldn’t have to fight the urge to be a jerk when responding. It’s unnecessary. We’re on the same team.
Yes, you put that out there for discussion, and I provided my opinion using your numbers. If you have been paying attention to my posts, I have been saying all along that we have two pay rates, WB and NB. Others have tried to confuse the matter by comparing our rates with aircraft specific rates If you think that leading the industry in pay rates for 2 out of 127 months is a victory, well this TA has leading 2 year WB FO pay. So I guess this TA is a victory using that as a standard. If you thought my previous post was rude, or mean spirited, I apologize. Maybe fight that jerk urge a little harder next time.
#23
Pretty much...I don't have any expectation that you agree....but you managed to encapsulate my position pretty well without disparaging me.....I appreciate that....seriously.
#24
#25
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 846
Likes: 86
Yes, you put that out there for discussion, and I provided my opinion using your numbers. If you have been paying attention to my posts, I have been saying all along that we have two pay rates, WB and NB. Others have tried to confuse the matter by comparing our rates with aircraft specific rates If you think that leading the industry in pay rates for 2 out of 127 months is a victory, well this TA has leading 2 year WB FO pay. So I guess this TA is a victory using that as a standard. If you thought my previous post was rude, or mean spirited, I apologize. Maybe fight that jerk urge a little harder next time.
Right now, Delta is industry leading. If United came in and topped them by 5%, would anyone say that Delta put forth a trash TA? No. Moving the ball forward is all anyone is trying to do. And for whatever reason, you were trying to trivialize that.
Im fine with a two tiered system, but if it’s costing us too much political capital or we are being dragged down to the lower pay bands, I think an alternative direction is worth exploring.
#26
Banned
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
okay, so there is strong, and we’ll put them on the right, and in no way does this represent a political statement, or maybe it does. and then we have the weak, and we’ll put them on the left. further left, we have weak b!tches. further still, we have weak a$$ b!tches, and just a tad bit further than this we have you. hope this cleared it up for you. anymore questions please submit a dart.
#27
okay, so there is strong, and we’ll put them on the right, and in no way does this represent a political statement, or maybe it does. and then we have the weak, and we’ll put them on the left. further left, we have weak b!tches. further still, we have weak a$$ b!tches, and just a tad bit further than this we have you. hope this cleared it up for you. anymore questions please submit a dart.
This is the kind of business acumen, risk mitigation, and social savvy that will surely garner enough support to quickly get a new TA.
And one more time.....so that everyone in the back row can hear as I detect some ambivalence in your attitude
#28
Banned
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
okay, I appreciate you getting the fact that I’m just f—cking with you. numb nutz.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post




