Vacancy 19-04
11-08-2018, 03:04 PM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: 777 CA
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by JoePatroni
The goal has always been to have the most seats possible at the highest pay rate.
If we were concerned about max people at top rate we’d have a single CA pay scale like UPS.
11-08-2018, 03:37 PM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,825
Originally Posted by UALinIAH
That was never a goal of the UAL I was hired by in the 90’s. It was a BK concession having the 777 banded with the 747. The current contract just meant the top scale was even less by dragging up the 767-400.
If we were concerned about max people at top rate we’d have a single CA pay scale like UPS.
If we were concerned about max people at top rate we’d have a single CA pay scale like UPS.
11-08-2018, 03:42 PM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: 777 CA
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by JoePatroni
Or you could say it was dragged down by the L-UAL 767-300 rates.
11-08-2018, 04:10 PM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,825
Originally Posted by UALinIAH
Not going down that rabbit hole. Everyone on property then knows why the top rate was held back to allow the 767-400 pay rate to match the 747/777. We’re stuck with it now so it doesn’t matter. Just don’t play revisionist theory and make up some story about max people at top rate lol.
11-08-2018, 04:35 PM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2015
Posts: 491
Originally Posted by JoePatroni
The goal has always been to have the most seats possible at the highest pay rate.
Its a cute argument, but we all know why the pay bands ended up the exact way they did.
11-08-2018, 04:41 PM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: 777 CA
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by JoePatroni
Where do you think the twelve year max came from? The 767-400 paid the same as the 777 at CAL, so did the 767-200. What exactly was “held back?” The only thing “holding” anything back was the starting point.
We had a larger pay cut on the 747 to match the 777 during our gun to our head BK agreement. It was a concession. We gave up top end gains on the highest paying fleet because the company data showed it saved them a ton in training events as people don’t lateral as much between fleets that pay the same.
Nevermind.
Sorry for the thread drift.
11-08-2018, 04:42 PM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,825
Originally Posted by O2pilot
So you’re saying we’d be better off with 180 planes paying $330 per hour, instead of 90 787s and 767-400s paying $330 per hour and 90 777s paying $350 per hour because we’d only have 90 planes in the “top pay rates”?
Its a cute argument, but we all know why the pay bands ended up the exact way they did.
Its a cute argument, but we all know why the pay bands ended up the exact way they did.
11-08-2018, 04:54 PM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2015
Posts: 491
Originally Posted by JoePatroni
I’ve heard the “seniority grab” argument ad nauseam but it doesn’t hold water when you look at each pre-merger pay scale. Sorry.
11-08-2018, 04:57 PM
#100
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,825
Originally Posted by O2pilot
CAL had higher rates because of no work rules. When you factored in the economic benefit of the UAL work rules, every piece of equipment at UAL paid more. Arbitrators agreed. Sorry.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
