Yes, I have seen the formula and I'm sure your reps could share it with you. If they don't have it handy, they can contact the Economic and Financial Analysis Department. Also, Yes to the productivity formula being applied in C2000. I'll have to look back through some old contracts, but I remember seeing it, in a side letter perhaps, in contract '92.

I won't attempt to repeat the formula from memory, but the basis is that pilot pay is linked to the productivity/revenue generation ability of the airframe. The more payload the aircraft can lift, and the faster it can get it to destination, the more productive the manpower is operating the jet.

Finally, the basis of weight in the formula is max payload, which is certainly a huge contributor to profit potential. A whale can carry 120,000lbs of cargo along with 397 passengers up top and get them there at mach .88 or better. The 787 may be greener, but it won't have near the lift or speed of the -400.

 

Under the current concessionary CAL contract it would be a non-issue.

747 and 777 pay the same Widebody rate.

Much like the concessionary UAL contract.

 

I'm no expert on "the formula", but that won't keep me from talking about it (it is the internet after all). "The formula" probably dates back to a time when the newest airframes were also faster, larger, and capable of generating much more revenue in a wide variety of markets. Particularly going recip props to jets. For example, going from the DC-7 to the DC-8 was a game changer, and, excluding short haul, feeder markets, the airlines haven't looked back. What we're seeing now is the newest, most efficient airframes are smaller than The Whale. Why put negotiating capital into a segment where there's no growth for the foreseeable future? The fact is nobody in ALPA strictly applies "the formula" anymore, preferring to use "pay bands".

I'll say it again. This is all about the SLI on both sides, and IMHO, I'd bet (though admittedly not a lot) 747-4 pay won't be a player in the arbitrators decision, one way or another. IOW, we're potentially holding up the JCBA process over something that probably (IMO) won't matter. I just don't think it makes sense to attach the highest pay to a shrinking fleet.

 

Pay banding is a little off between UAL and CAL across the full spectrum of airplanes. UAL has 400 and 777, CAL has 777 and 767, UAL has 767 and 757, CAL has 757 and big 737s, UAL has 319 and 320, CAL has small 737s. Apparently, the only banding problem being addressed as a roadblock is the wide bodies. How did the JNC work out the rest?

 

Seriously, call your rep (or any rep) about this. They will give you the facts.

I honestly don't know why, but I haven't seen all of it in writing so I'm reluctant to put what I was told in writing.

 

Since you brought it up. If the 767-200/757s are a common type rating / bid should pay be the same? Same goes for the 737 fleet. You cannot make an argument for keeping the 747 and 777 banded together pay wise and then try to justify splitting the 737s and the 75/76 to different pay bands. I feel that if the 747/777 are banded together then the 767-200/757 should be banded together and all the guppies should be banded together with the A320/319s. The 767-400 should be in the wide body band as well.

 

We're saying the same thing. My point is the way UAL and CAL band aircraft together for pay is different all the way down the list. The 900 for example, (to address your assertion that all 37s are the same) is a 180 seat aircraft, just like the 57 so doesn't seem right to put it with a 110 seat 737-500. Also, the bus falls in the middle of the full range of CAL 37 fleet.

 

First time posting here guys/gals. Just want to throw my 2 cents in for what it's worth.

I'm not trying to state the obvious but the seating capacity can change as evident in the "Ted" configuration of 156 seats on an A320. (Yes, I know, Ted is dead) Seat pitch with "economy plus" seating removes a few rows also. Look at some configurations in other countries.

So, if we tie pay to only the number of seats, potentially open up a can of worms for future negotiations. How about our "P.S" service? I don't have he numbers, but this 757 seating configuration has less seats than most 757's, yet the yields may be greater than any similar airframe. Should this be paid a lower rate?

Max taxi weight of an A320 is 170K and an A319 is 167K. The 737-900/ER is somewhere around 185-187K isn't it? Don't the 737-900 's have to leave empty seats on occasion going to Hawaii? Will they be paid less on those legs?

How about the CAL 767-200's with 160ish seats? A320 /737 rates for them or will we pay that aircraft based on gross weight or "type"?

I am not advocating any methodology, I'll leave that to the union. Pick one methodology and apply it across the fleet.

 

All good points & welcome to the fray!

What I hear you saying is that the airframe manufacturer and the FAA will certify the max gross weight of an airframe, and the airline will dictate by market how many seats to put in the tube.

Seems like a no-brainer to tie pay to the maximum certified instead of what airline marketing thinks the market will yield. In other words, don't allow the airline to present a moving target to labor with respect to pay.

 

As HSLD pointed out, "Good" Point.

Why guess on a way, just do what has been proven. One only has to look but so far, and UPS has shown 'that' way.....and it 'appears' to work just fine.

....especially the $numbers$