Contract 2019
06-21-2018 | 09:43 AM
#111
Need More Callouts
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,143
Likes: 0
From: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Why on earth did we settle for this in the first place? Guess CAL did something right for once paying out the 767-200's at a widebody rate defying the rest of the "industry".
06-21-2018 | 10:41 AM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
From: B777 FO
They could do that because the rest of our contract was a joke, zero work rules, dh over to Europe to work it back, 50% dh, although that was temporary,rest seat in coach, just to name a few. Yes maybe we defied the industry standard on 767-200 rates(for 12 airplanes) but the rest of the contract was well below industry standard
Last edited by catIIIc; 06-21-2018 at 11:02 AM.
06-21-2018 | 12:31 PM
#113
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
You were not lied to. 21 of the 35 UA 763's are 25 years or older which is the planned retirement age for mainline jets. The decision to extend their lives was made based on recent circumstances. UA 763s are paid comparably to DAL and AAL, and the 16 764 that are about 17 years old pay the same as 777s.
It has also been almost six years since the contract was signed. You have had ample opportunity to escape the injustice that is the 763.
It has also been almost six years since the contract was signed. You have had ample opportunity to escape the injustice that is the 763.
The plane weighs almost three times more than a 737-800, can fly twice as far, carries more people and a lot more cargo, yet only pays $10 more per hour. Who cares what DAL and AMR pay for theirs. For everyone who escapes it's "injustice", someone else has to fly it.
06-21-2018 | 12:49 PM
#114
Need More Callouts
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,143
Likes: 0
From: Unbridled Enthusiasm
They could do that because the rest of our contract was a joke, zero work rules, dh over to Europe to work it back, 50% dh, although that was temporary,rest seat in coach, just to name a few. Yes maybe we defied the industry standard on 767-200 rates(for 12 airplanes) but the rest of the contract was well below industry standard
06-21-2018 | 01:32 PM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,559
Likes: 0
From: A Nobody
If I remember correctly the CAL contract had the 767-400 at the same pay as 777? The UAL contract had 757 & 767 grouped together at a higher rate that A320 and 727, but less than 777. The historical idea seemed to be pay the two together at a higher rate and more pilots will benefit than having 767 higher and 757 lower.
Also UAL was the kick-off customer in 1981/82 for the first 767. I think it was sold contractually as a size between narrow and wide body, 727/DC8 and DC10/747. We also had multiple pay rates for sizes based on GW; 3 727 rates, multiple DC8, DC10-10, -30, 747... it got a bit confusing, but in it all we never had a pay check screw-up.
Also UAL was the kick-off customer in 1981/82 for the first 767. I think it was sold contractually as a size between narrow and wide body, 727/DC8 and DC10/747. We also had multiple pay rates for sizes based on GW; 3 727 rates, multiple DC8, DC10-10, -30, 747... it got a bit confusing, but in it all we never had a pay check screw-up.
06-21-2018 | 02:52 PM
#119
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,508
Likes: 109
06-21-2018 | 03:14 PM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
From: Captain
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
