|
Originally Posted by BlueAvi8tor
(Post 3746449)
I say we forget the A plan bump this time. Use the extra money for pay rates and signing bonus. We can deal with the A plan later.
No more kicking the can down the road. Fix the A plan, and come up with a solution for the younger guys that they like. It is possible to do both. |
Originally Posted by Nightflyer
(Post 3746455)
No, this type of thinking is exactly how we got here.
No more kicking the can down the road. Fix the A plan, and come up with a solution for the younger guys that they like. It is possible to do both. |
Originally Posted by BlueAvi8tor
(Post 3746449)
I say we forget the A plan bump this time. Use the extra money for pay rates and signing bonus. We can deal with the A plan later.
|
Originally Posted by Nightflyer
(Post 3746455)
Fix the A plan, and come up with a solution for the younger guys that they like. It is possible to do both. |
Originally Posted by NotOldNotYoung
(Post 3746469)
Well…when negotiations began the number 1 priority, fixing retirement, was and still remains our priority. That retirement fix can come in several forms but most would agree that pay rates and signing bonus don’t address retirement in a long term meaningful way. Pay and signing bonus have to come up, but not addressing retirement would completely ignore what the majority of us want.
TA1 went all in on retirement and only got 43% of the vote. A TA that went all in on payrates, retro, and the B plan would get more than 43% of the vote. The demographics of the pilot group have changed since 2015. |
Originally Posted by Westerner
(Post 3746478)
You are sure this is true?
TA1 went all in on retirement and only got 43% of the vote. A TA that went all in on payrates, retro, and the B plan would get more than 43% of the vote. The demographics of the pilot group have changed since 2015. |
Amazon fulfillment centers are in almost all metropolitan areas now as a result of changes in consumer shopping habits. These centers provide "same day" deliveries & have completely upended the status quo that FEDEX & UPS had enjoyed for many decades. A collateral effect is that the value of vacant commercial land has skyrocketed nationwide.
That said, I'm having trouble reconciling employee indispensability irrespective of these changes. HD |
Originally Posted by JustInFacts
(Post 3746269)
First, let's clear this up. I am not against the 757 paying the same rate that it pays at Delta. My questioning is more along the lines of the argument to get that rate. When we go into negotiations, we have to have justification for our asks. The company asks for that. The NMB asks for that. We ask the same of the company. So, as I cautioned, be careful what you ask for, ie, industry standard rates.
You keep saying that we should have industry standard pay rates. That is one of your justifications for 757 pay. Well, industry standard would make our 767's and Airbuses pay the same as the 757. Is that what you want? How do you convince the mediator that we deserve industry standard on the 757 when we agreed to classify that airframe as a NB in 2006, but say that we don't want that to apply to the 767 and Airbus. You said there are multiple solutions to solve this issue, yet haven't presented any solutions. The other argument you make is that if we give up the A plan, then every dollar counts. I think that is a more solid argument, however, it requires giving up the A plan for all new hires. Is that what we want, an increased A plan for current pilots, and some other DC/MBCBP for all new hires in exchange for higher 757 rates? If we get further down the road with the NMB, and get released, these are things we will have the present to the PEB. Things get more dicy after that. The 757 is a NB aircraft. The 767 & A300 are not. They are clearly WB aircraft. 2024 Top of Scale Industry standard rates for each: 757 Capt (AA, DAL & UAL) - $374.36 757 FO (AA, DAL & UAL) - $255.69 767-300 (DAL & UAL) - $374.36 767-400 (DAL & UAL) - $447.24 A300 is not flown by any of the 3 big legacy carriers I'm not an advocate of sunsetting the A plan, but it appears our NC and the company both are (...were). My point, don't ask younger guys (future hires) to buy into sunsetting the A plan, and subsequent elimination of it's "High 5" benefit, and then continue to pay out the 757 at sub-standard, industry standard rates. Pay each aircraft at their true, industry standard rate. In Transparency, Integrity, and Unity (for Everyone), DLax |
Originally Posted by DLax85
(Post 3746552)
Pay each aircraft at their true, industry standard rate.
In Transparency, Integrity, and Unity (for Everyone), DLax Another concern is that industry standard rates will mean nada if guarantees are grossly depressed for half the contract. The NC needs to put the onus on management to "right-size" the crew force. They overhired (which was clear to every line pilot at the time) in order to feed at the covid trough. They need to use some of that windfall to retire their way to the desired force size. I am not interested in having contract gains completely offset by BLG losses. Maybe they should try to negotiate a two year no-furlough, no 4a2b/c clause or similar. |
Originally Posted by DLax85
(Post 3746552)
The 757 is a NB aircraft. The 767 & A300 are not. They are clearly WB aircraft.
2024 Top of Scale Industry standard rates for each: 757 Capt (AA, DAL & UAL) - $374.36 757 FO (AA, DAL & UAL) - $255.69 767-300 (DAL & UAL) - $374.36 767-400 (DAL & UAL) - $447.24 A300 is not flown by any of the 3 big legacy carriers ........ Pay each aircraft at their true, industry standard rate. In Transparency, Integrity, and Unity (for Everyone), DLax Again, be careful how you ask for things because you just might get them. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:33 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands