we are largely saying the same as far as rates and quality of life trade offs are concerned.

I don’t think it is realistic though to disproportionally increase NBCA rates. The entire rate table is well calibrated within UA and across the industry with DL and AA mostly falling in line.

It would be much easier to differentiate on quality of life items. I’d be less concerned about making it more attractive for NBFO to stay in seat. There are marginal returns. If you are senior in seat the additional QoL items will likely not move the needle for you to stay in seat but they would disproportionately move the needle more for a junior NBCA.

And I’m much less interested in appealing to junior upgrades. The fact that we’re trying to get 1-2 year FOs to upgrade underscores the problem.

Again, the rates are industry standard but they’re not sacrosanct. We could change them if we wanted to, & if the market gives us an opportunity why wouldn’t we? (Heaven forbid we lead on something Delta doesn’t do first.) Unfortunately I don’t see any way you’d get majority support for it here which is too bad because I think we’re missing an opportunity.

That assumes the pie is infinite. A sellable number to boards and shareholders is a more likely a finite range within which the contract's overall value will reasonably fall. Any addition to the pay spread for NBCA will come from somewhere else. That could be a soft-pay QoL item, but it will always be perceived as robbing from the FO scales (and why it would never pass).

I agree with most of this. I think the pie is, as you said, a finite range. Meaning, it is not a set number, but there is a point where it will get too high to be seen as realistic. For the most part, putting more marbles in one dish means taking marbles out of another.

However, when market forces create certain pressures, that range can shift upward (or downward). Look, for example, at how much more money is being talked about in the post-DAL TA environment. We’re now talking about a pie that is roughly triple what it was in TUMI 1 (less than a year ago). That money isn’t coming out of the pockets of any UAL pilot group, it’s being driven up by the reality of the current market.

I believe our current market for NBCA (consistently unfilled seats) justifies an upward shift of the pie- IOW, the free market is demanding a recalibration it hasn’t asked for in the past.

Now, here’s another place we’ll agree. The company would much rather we borrow against ourselves to pay for it. Their every proposal for increasing NBCA pay (which I think they’d like to do) will come at the expense of WBFO, various work rule benefits, etc. This is why it’s critical we have union negotiators we can trust to reject any such offers & keep pressure on the company to instead shift that pie range upward to meet real life market conditions. I believe (hope) we finally have that here at UAL.

Lastly here’s where I agree with what you posted. It’s almost impossible to pull this off without the perception of having robbed Peter to pay Paul, and thus very unlikely to ever pass a vote. I really think there are lots of pilots here who would vote yes to a straight 25% raise, but no on a 25%/30% split with NBCA getting more. IOW, even if they were getting the money they wanted, they would turn it down if it meant getting less than anyone else. This is where the “finite pie” theory hurts us. Rather than “striking while the iron is hot” in targeted areas, we tend to balk at improvements that don’t benefit us directly (e.g., commuter protection for locals, RSV rules for lineholders, etc.) because we feel our bowl must be getting denied marbles to pay for it.

Yep
… filler

This is good analysis. One thing that might be skewed though is how many people might actually vote no to the split. Some senior WBFO’s might want to upgrade to CA. Certainly there are lots on NBFO’s that would like a bigger raise when they go to CA. And finally, how many WBFO’s are there at United? Enough to outvote everyone else because of this specific issue, especially with other soft pay nuggets in a new TA? I just don’t think so.

More likely, such a split proposal doesn’t make it past the NC or the MEC vote, and never gets to us for ratification. I think a split has a pretty decent chance with the membership, but only if it’s clear that the WBFO scale was not negatively impacted by the increase in NBCA rate.

It wouldn’t pass. And let’s say they offered 5% more to captains, on delta rates, that’s about 15 a hour more. 15x85 = 1275. You think that would move the needle to upgrade ? I doubt it since a lot of 2nd year FOs are giving up 120$x74 = 8880 a month not including 401k etc.

M6.5D - left
ONLY in reference to the vote discussion. Not a rumor. Not a suggestion.

Don’t get caught up in hypothetical numbers. The point is there is a number that can fix this problem. Might be a lot higher than 5%; which- I know, I know- is a big, scary number. But two years ago if I had said a first year RJ FO should be making $100, you’d have called me crazy. Markets change.

This! That should be a clue. We are worth way more than we think