Yes, NB FO is harder. But, the career is end-loaded and not front loaded. A junior (more recent hire/new hire) FO is likely in the NB FO's seat. He/she isn't going to make 777 CA's pay. 777 CA is by far and away the easiest job there is. So, making that comparison is un-wise. Captains, in all seats are paid to be the accountable - responsible party and paid to make decisions. A junior NB FO isn't being paid for his/her work-load management. They are there to learn and be mentored and assist the Captain, and, big picture, wait their turn to transition to bigger equipment and be ready for upgrade when the balloon goes up.

Everything is a choice. No one is putting a gun to our heads to enter the career, but now what we are here, we are here. No sense in allowing the company to abuse the financial contribution our 767-300 heavy pilots make to the profitability of this company. Further, there are more risks to mitigate on the 767 mission and it's allot tougher schedule.

True, if you expend capital in one area, you do it at the expense of something else. That's exactly my point. No sense in the NC ignoring the obvious. It's time to treat this fleet with the respect that it deserves and should command by our negotiators. This time around I will not be silent. I trusted the NC last 2 times. Sure, some areas of the cba are great, but the trade-offs made just don't square up as "fair play" to the 767-300 pilots.

I want the company to know we are going after 767 300 pay. I don't have a problem telling them that up front and I want our negotiators to share in and drive this opinion home and drive results for these pilots.

There will always be pilots on these planes as long as they are needed by the company. We've got rates for the A350 and the A380, but we don't have any pilots on those jets. Because there are no jets. As long as we have ALPA members actually flying real jets on the real property at the real airline, making a real contribution to our bottom line, and flying really hard back side of the clock trips on a global mission, we should pay them in real money for the real job they are doing, not the hypothetical job that they are not doing.

I think the choice is this: Do we, as ALPA members continue to tolerate our MEC's and NC's choice in ignoring these pilots legitimate concerns and negotiating goals? I thought it was an inverted ALPA pyramid with the membership on top. If that's really the case, then lets roll and tell the MEC and the NC that enough is enough. I happily and gladly support my union, but it's like this: Unless your wheel squeaks no grease will be applied. Unless your union knows your wheel is squeaking, no grease will be offered. I recall a whole lot of formerly furloughed pilots complaining to ALPA that they wanted retro this and retro that. Ok, they got some grease. Fine, pass the grease and pass the love.

Every ALPA contract I have had seems to be negotiated for narrow body pilots because that's where the majority of the votes lie. That's not a bad strategy, but it is my experience that all WB pilots were once NB pilots. We should simply appreciate the contribution of the 767 pilots, treat them like the heavy jet pilots they are, and negotiate for the natural progression of the pilot group and the profession.

 

I'll likely never fly the 76-300 again so I don't really have a dog in this fight but...

All this crap about banding is just that. Lets get back to pay for productivity, not company convenience and training mitigation issues. Those are management problems, not ours. Decision 83 worked well for a long time and is what got our pay rates up to where they are. Of course if they want to pay us more than that in order to offset their training costs and lost productivity while we're in training than that's fine. A favor done is a favor earned, right?

And even though it doesn't affect ME, ("bidding the 767-300 is a choice") I'd really like to see the disparity addressed and eliminated in the next contract.

 

I don't disagree that the 767-300 crews deserve a higher rate. I joined this debate because some suggested that the 767-400 should be unbanded from the widebody rate which I felt was absurd based on the airplanes capacity, stage length and the historical precedent of WB pay at Continental.

The capacity for the widebodies are as follows (not including cattle car configurations):

767-300 - 183 Pax
787-8 - 219 Pax
767-400 - 242 Pax
787-9 - 252 Pax
777-200 - 267 Pax

Delta does separate their 767-400 and 787 into a slightly different payrate which is about $20 lower than for the others. I think United pilots have done well having more planes included at the higher rate. We have a separate rate for the A380 if it ever shows up (Unlikely in my view).

Again, the 767-300 does deserve a higher rate.

And, interestingly, the Continental NC attempted to have the 757-300 included as a widebody when we first received them just based on their passenger capacity (213 Pax - more than the 767-300)

 

Incorrect. Our 767-300s are 214 seats. Also the 777-300 is 366 seats and it pays the same. Makes NO sense at all except defending the reasoning behind why we insisted on those payrates for those specific airplanes.

 

I don't fly the 767-300 but according to employee res, they have 183 seats, at least in the Atlantic configuration. There may be other configurations, maybe you could educate us.

The 777-300 wasn't even contemplated by the company when the last contract was negotiated. American have them and pay them the same as the -200.

One could argue that they deserve a separate pay scale, but the company has to look at the competitors payrates.

 

You’re looking at the last remaining 3 class UAL planes. The two class Bus/Econ have 214.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...R/default.aspx

 

The current remodeled/converted 2 class 767’s seat 214. The Polaris remodel will seat 214. The three class 767’s have 183. A few of those left.

The 777-200, when it gets its Polaris remodel, will go 10 across in coach bringing its seats into the 290 range. The Cattle car 777-200A’s seat 364. UAL has had domestic cattle cars for Hawaii for as long as I can remember. DC-10’s, rope start 747’s, the 767 52k version, and now the 777.

We don’t control the seating configuration. Should a PS 757 (in its original configuration)have paid less then a 319/737-700 then? Which is why decision 83 should come back into play.

 

I think we're making progress.

I am feeling like folks are in agreement that the 767-300 pay is too low.

I recently flew a full boat 214 plus 2 laps to S. America. 216 total SOB's. Take off weight was a tad over 400K.

ATC called us heavy; it was a 10 hour all-nighter. I think that qualifies as both global and widebody.

 

I have always thought the 75/76 should pay the same rate and be higher instead of the current chosen few (which is decided arbitrarily by the company) getting more pay flying the same aircraft type. If people are dead set on keeping it higher and keeping the rest of the fleet type at depressed rates, then separate out the fleet like DAL. Pay the same rate to all pilots in the same awarded positions. That’s always been my stance on the subject. Feel the same about the Guppy, the bus, etc.

 

) Longevity pay. No weight pay. Don't have to chase the airplane for the money.
) Stop ALPA's Pattern Bargaining tradition.
) Take Scope out of the equation. We will fly all the airplanes that have Turbojet Engines that have our name on them.
) No Reserve Lines. Everyone is a line holder. Reserve pairings pay 5 hours per day minimum. Free Hotel near airport if you need it on reserve. Unlimited trades.
) Retirement deposited quarterly to your own account. The maximum IRS limit from your first day on the job. No percentage BS.
) Vacation Day, Training Day, Sick Day, Holidays pay 5 hours.
) No training or aircraft freezes.

This contract would be limited to 12 pages and would never need an Attorney to write it or Arbitrate it. Union dues to 1%.

Sorry for Dreaming, it will never happen!