vacancy 23-06V2
03-08-2023 | 05:45 PM
#101
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 9
Again, enough money will fix the problem; “enough” being the operative word. A blend of pay & work rule adjustments may very well be the most efficient way to address it; but understand that most work rule improvements actually increase the cost of each pilot- either by allowing him to earn higher credit for the same amount of work (as with increased pay guarantees), or allowing him to do less work for the same amount of pay (as with changes in RSV utilization restrictions). More money doesn’t always mean an explicit increase in pay rates, so I think we’re mostly saying the same thing.
HOWEVER,
Improvements to NB work rules as a primary solution are a little tricky. Because while they would probably make the NB left seat more attractive to current WBFOs, it would simultaneously make staying in the right seat more attractive to current NBFOs. Essentially you run the risk of increasing one drawing pool while potentially reducing another. What you want to do (from a market perspective) is increase the disparity in pay/benefits between NBCA & the (FO) seats people are presently staying in rather than upgrading. The most direct way to do that is to simply increase the rates- so I think there is a strong case to be made for a substantial shift in NBCA pay rates- above contractual changes to pay & work rules that will affect all fleets/seats.
I get that people tend to have some heartache over non-proportional increases, but in reality, these relationships between pay bands that we all hold to are not gospel- they’re nominal. There’s nothing inherent that demands it be so, we just decided at some point over the years that a NBCA gets paid x% more than a WBFO & y% more than a NBFO. As long as we’re not taking money away from anyone (e.g., WBFO getting a lower percentage increase than everyone else) I just don’t know why we wouldn’t capitalize on the market suggesting that some of our pilots should be paid more as a percentage than they currently are.
HOWEVER,
Improvements to NB work rules as a primary solution are a little tricky. Because while they would probably make the NB left seat more attractive to current WBFOs, it would simultaneously make staying in the right seat more attractive to current NBFOs. Essentially you run the risk of increasing one drawing pool while potentially reducing another. What you want to do (from a market perspective) is increase the disparity in pay/benefits between NBCA & the (FO) seats people are presently staying in rather than upgrading. The most direct way to do that is to simply increase the rates- so I think there is a strong case to be made for a substantial shift in NBCA pay rates- above contractual changes to pay & work rules that will affect all fleets/seats.
I get that people tend to have some heartache over non-proportional increases, but in reality, these relationships between pay bands that we all hold to are not gospel- they’re nominal. There’s nothing inherent that demands it be so, we just decided at some point over the years that a NBCA gets paid x% more than a WBFO & y% more than a NBFO. As long as we’re not taking money away from anyone (e.g., WBFO getting a lower percentage increase than everyone else) I just don’t know why we wouldn’t capitalize on the market suggesting that some of our pilots should be paid more as a percentage than they currently are.
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.
03-08-2023 | 06:10 PM
#102
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,448
Likes: 6
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.
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.
03-08-2023 | 06:53 PM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,633
Likes: 209
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.
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).
03-09-2023 | 05:28 AM
#104
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,448
Likes: 6
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).
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.
03-09-2023 | 06:10 AM
#105
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,633
Likes: 209
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.
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.
… filler
03-09-2023 | 07:42 AM
#106
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 532
Likes: 10
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.
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.
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.
03-09-2023 | 08:30 AM
#107
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2021
Posts: 934
Likes: 22
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.
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.
03-09-2023 | 10:00 AM
#108
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 819
Likes: 2
From: 756 left
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.
ONLY in reference to the vote discussion. Not a rumor. Not a suggestion.
03-09-2023 | 11:14 AM
#109
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,448
Likes: 6
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.
03-09-2023 | 11:51 AM
#110
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,202
Likes: 0
From: MEC Chairman, Snack Basket Committee
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
