HSLD and SoCalGuy,

First, thanks for the welcome. Second, again, I am not advocating a "way". I do however find the UPS pay structure interesting in a positive way.

I think most of us on here could get this issue resolved in fairly short order along with a keg or two.

We have a great opportunity, I hope we can come together as a unified group.

I'm ready to lend support if called upon for the 70 seat issue in IAH and EWR. Now there's something worth standing up for.

As a wise person once told me, "this too shall pass".

 

As a UAL guy I am opposed to the "Premier Pay" for the 400 only because that plane will be gone in the next 7 years and that "Premium Pay" will go with it. At the same time I think that whatever bid you hold you should get paid the same rate regardless which variant you are flying. If you fly the 757/767-200 you should get the same pay. If you fly the 737500 or the -900ER you should get the same pay.

 

I also think that the 767-400 should be classified in the same band as the 777/400.

 

Wow, somebody is applying logic, don't you know you're only supposed to spew vitriol and a skewed sense of reality that only benefits yourself.

But seriously, I couldn't agree more.

 

Hmmm...a 747-400 fully loaded is almost twice as heavy as a 767-400.

 

I'm a big fan of the pay to productivity of the airframe using a formula that considers max gross weight and mach. This approach gives pilots the ability to share in the revenue generation potential of the airframe.

We all know that some airlines don't put as many seats in the tube as others. In fact in the case of a UAL PS branded 757, there are significantly less seats but a much higher yield. Unfortunately, PS serves a niche sector of the market that doesn't represent the entire operation. Should pilots suffer financially for marketing decisions? Said another way, should airline marketing drive pilot pay?

Today the focus on banding is on the -400. However, what if in the next few years UAL buys the A380? The 380 can seat 525 people in a 3-class configuration, or up to 853 in a 1 class configuration. Should a large widebody be paid based on what it can carry, or how marketing decides to configure the interior?

I obviously don't have a problem with separate rates for each different airframe as there is a direct correlation to pilot productivity.

For the proponents of pay banding, what are the benefits to the pilot group for banding pay rates? Also, what's the benefit of de-linking pay to productivity and the negotiating leverage for pay improvement/new rates absent considering productivity? Aside from the obvious jockeying for pole position on the SLI, it seems that banding will have a negative long term effect on pilot pay.

I would add, that if this contract doesn't fix scope at the large and small gauge end of the spectrum, all the energy wasted on wide-body pay will be for naught.

 

I can see it now. New priorities for the JCBA: 1. Compensation, 2. Work rules, 3. Maybe fix Scope

 

Because in the foreseeable future, the growth is in the 787/A350. We negotiate a higher rate for the 747-4 and we wind up with a whole bunch of nothing when it goes away.

The problem is, for most markets, the 747 and A380 are not the most productive/cost effective airframes. The crew in a 3/4 full 747-4 may well be losing money while the full 777 is making it hand over fist. Look at NRT. When I first started flying there, the 747 had an obvious majority of the long haul traffic. Within two years I saw the 777 grow to, in my admittedly unscientific opinion, overtake the Whale. Personally, I think airframes should be banded by the mission (North America/8-12 Hours/12+), that way we won't get screwed by the flavor of the month (decade).

I understand the point about your definition of productivity, but the trend in orders points to us gaining more pay by banding the 747-4.

True, and this is definitely teetering along the line of negotiating in public, but we're just speaking in theory here, right?

 

Sure, in theory of course!

I know section 3 is the LAST section I'm going to look at