"The problem rests solely with the UAL MEC and their insistence that the compensation proposal enhance their SLI argument.

To further complicate matters, the UAL MEC has proposed a resolution to the ALPA Executive Council suggesting that the Council mandate that the JCBA cannot be used in the SLI arbitration."



Ok, does anyone else see the contradiction or what am I missing here?

 

Flyguppy, taking all of the SLI/union bickering out of this, here's why I think the pay should be banded... The 747-4 fleet at UAL has an average age of 14 years, not necessarily ready for the boneyard, but not new iron either. There are no more 747-4s being built or on order. There are lots of 787s and A-350s on order. That increased pay for the 747 doesn't materialize out of thin air, it comes from somewhere else in the contract. We negotiate with the company for the size of the pie, we determine ourselves how we want to slice it. If the company parks our highest paying plane, our pie gets smaller. If we get more of the highest paying planes, our pie gets larger. Where do you think the fleet growth will be?

 

No, there is definitely a contradiction here.

The contradiction is that the CAL MEC needs the JCBA compensation to "paint the full picture" to the SLI arbiter.

Therefore, they do not want the much larger 747 to pay more than their largest airplane, the 777. The banding United went to was a concessionary bankruptcy giveback. The CAL MEC does not want that concession to go away.

Nice, huh?

 

I can understand the fact of the age of the 400's. BUT, allowing larger airplanes to be paid the same as smaller? Not good.

Just look at the fact that the CAL 737s are paid at different rates.

I think the unbanding will benefit ALL of us when the next large airplane makes its way onto the property.

 

The CAL side does not want a new negotiated pay rate to unfairly skew a SLI. You keep talking about your concessionary giveback. You cant keep saying "Well, back in the day we were bada$$ and we had a great contract in 01 and that should be what our career expectations should be based on". It doesnt work that way. When the merger was announced or at least became effective defines the starting point for the integration. Continental was past the ammendable date and actively negotiating a contract in some of the most lucrative times in recent history for the industry. Should we say that we expected to get much more return and our 787 pilots would be paid for than 747 guys and they should be inserted at the top of the list? Of course not.

This is about SLI. Repeating over and over again about the CAL NC pushing for a common rate between the 747 and 777 and how that is some sort of personal assualt on you is ridiculous. UAL has always defended their 747 pay and equipment as the holy grail. That is fine. But call a spade a spade. Its about a perceived equity and no windfall to certain parts of the seniority list at specific airlines. If we were going to play that game, we could discuss the greater increase in wages that UAL will receive over the CAL guys with ANY new contract. It isnt helpful. If you dont like it, call your reps and direct your negotiators to quit going along with it.

Nice, huh?

 

I am a UAL guy and I will never break the top 500...so this won't directly affect me.

That said, if there are fences, they won't last forever so "no CAL pilot EVER breaking the top 500" is incorrect. Furthermore, if 777 is a step down (lower band), but is a raise from current rates and gets better work rules, etc...isn't THAT what matters? Can folks not get past being at the TOP vs. just getting a nice improvement to pay and QOL?! I've been furloughed 4.5 years of my career and all this *****ing about the top of the pyramid is SELFISH and GREEDY just like management.

The current system for payrates in passenger airlines is NOT based on "banding." That is a concession to management to lower training costs. To support banding of the 747/777 and not everything else ala UPS is hypocritical. In our current system, we should be striving to get every type of aircraft into a separate category to promote movement and better pay. If the argument for banding makes sense, then it needs to be sold and implemented across the board ala UPS, but until then this is clearly a fight in the weeds in prep for the SLI. I hope our MEC's get on the same page soon!

 

Exactly! If there weren't ulterior motives behind the separate 747 payscales, would we even be having this discussion? Would the UAL MEC go against their own JNC? Would they appeal to National?

UAL 747 pay is less than current CAL 767 pay. And they're almost 20 years old. It's negotiations. It's not personal. Nice try. Move along now folks.

 

So tell me, why does the CAL MEC insist on being able to use the JCBA details for the SLI?

All the while trying to stop UAL from making gains in the JCBA with regards to the pay on the 747?

 

Rocketiii,

I totally understand your (CAL pilots) concerns...they are valid...as are the UAL side...

The simple solution is to have a PAY SNAPSHOT before the merger just like the seniority snapshot for SLI. My understanding from the UAL MEC update yesterday is that they HAVE proposed that the JCBA (including new payrates) should NOT be factored into the SLI process. The CAL MEC update posted above says pretty much the same thing!! Huh?!?! The MEC's say they are fighting for the same thing: that the JCBA be excluded from the SLI! Yay! Quit arguing in public and do it then!

The SLI should look at payrates in effect before the merger, plain and simple. The JCBA should try to get the best possible payrates on every seat. Personally, I think arguing FOR banding only certain types while separating others does not make any sense overall. Either band everything or nothing...at least that should be the goal...

 

I agree. It boils down to this: the only legitimate argument here (i.e. that is NOT prepping for SLI) is whether or not pay banding is good for us pilots.

If one supports banding the 747/777, then why would one not advocate lumping the 767 and 757 in the same band? Wouldn't that raise pay for all the 767/757 pilots? Keep going...why not band everything ala UPS?

It's an old argument, and one that has been mostly won by pilot groups in airlines that we do NOT get banded pay. The banding of 747/777 and 320/737 happened during bankruptcy in a concessionary contract...we want to REVERSE that because it costs us money, period. If you really think banding is better, then let's hear the argument for it ABSENT any SLI/expectations argument. Any tell me why banding is good for certain categories but not across the board.