tailwheel48

The 767-400 has way more in common with the 747/777 grouping than the 757 grouping.

The 767-400 MGTW is 450,000 pounds, just 90,000 pounds lighter than UAL's 777's. The cockpit is almost identical to the 777. The 767-400 is only 8 feet shorter than the triple!

The CAL 777's weigh 110,000 pounds more than the UAL models. In other words, the differences in weight is greater than that between UAL's 777's and CAL 767-400's.

In my view it is more likely that the combined airline, in the future, will more likely operate larger variants of the 777 - the 300 and/or LR's which weigh in around 766,000 pounds (110,000 pounds more than CAL's 777's and 220,000 pounds heavier than UAL's 777's!) - than the 747-400 whose service life is approaching it's last few years.

By all means, if at some point the company orders a super widebody (747-800/A380) then negotiate a new rate!

Conveniently neglected in these discussions are the 25 787's CAL has on firm order, which would have started arriving on property already if Boeing hadn't dropped the ball!

It would seem to me that it would be benefit far more pilots to have the 747/777/787/767-400 banded together at the widebody scale than just a few 747's!

Flyguppy

From your MEC chairman's 11/2 update:

"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. In essence, the UAL MEC wants to restrict the arbitration panel from hearing the whole truth. They want to carve out parts we believe would be necessary for the arbitrators to understand both pilot groups’ full stories. We will, of course, fight for the truth to be told in its unvarnished entirety."



The above exactly refutes what you say I'm "grasping at invisible straws".....

Are you telling me you're reading it different than the CAL MEC wants to use the JCBA to present to the arbitrators????

Flyguppy

UAL was the launch customer for the 777. Therefore, they do have some 777A models that have a MTOG of 545,000.

But, they also have the 777B, which is up to 648,000.

Invalidates your point, to some degree.

Don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

tailwheel48

Well, I think you missed my point which is that 777's range from 545,000 to 765,000 pounds, and the 767-400 is only 90,000 pounds lighter than the A model 777!

Some on this thread are advocating for the 767-400 to be lumped in with the 757 which weighs about 200,000 pounds less than the 767-400. It's obviously closer to the triple in every respect than the 757!

intrepidcv11

You know what fine! Everything you represent above is the truth. Better yet everything that comes from the mouth of CAL MEC is specifically designed to bone every single UAL pilot as hard as possible. Sorry but us scabs have to make up for two decades of inferior earnings. We finally got you lazy greedy UAL b@stards right where we want you...

ualratt

You said it, Jay B said it!! The B747 should be paid more. Now doesn't that prove that yours is an attempt at manipulating JCBA to influence your position with SLI (the same accusation you're making of UALMEC who's objective is to recover a concession). Some at CAL are really not interested in an industry defining document (ALPA vs UAL) but rather use the moment to promote our best quality, self interest (ALPA vs ALPA vs UAL), with another substandard contract.

We must not deny this profession it's real value. It's what we been asking for many years, and as recent as a few months ago we were tooting JCBA as the new standard for the industry. Not a means to better one's seniority. But that few wants to wait another 3+ years after JCBA to do so. Do you really want to wait with the leverage you have at your disposal today?

So Contract 2000 cannot be considered because it's in the past but you can go out with your swell predictions for the future to openly attempt, yes, a seniority grab? A concession is a concession and whether at UAL or CAL, a bonefide attempt must be made to recover it. Food for thought, with the exception of the last 7 years, UAL's smaller B767s paid MORE (to the tune of CA$264.91/FO$180.91) than your larger B767s ever did, and that my friend is the direction of the UALMEC; an INDUSTRY leading contract certainly not to your standards.

JCBA is a collective opportunity, purely about job security, compensation, QOL and retirement, that rewards the challenges and sacrifices we continue to make each day. Only the company needs to study it's effect and to manage its business to account for the fact that it is the cost of the service we provide. That's why Smisek says he is worthy of his compensation package.

intrepidcv11

You are right. In fact when I was in NRT yesterday, I saw 1 400 and 10 777's. We really need to fight hard to save the whale drivers from misfortune! Hopefully the CAL MEC will hurry up and bend over to their needs. I hear some of them might have to retire soon!?!

No I want to listen to whatever the UAL MEC says is my best interest! After all it will hurry up to make the world's best airline!

Well UAL guys are Widebody kings based on what I've heard. So if you all made more flying 76's then it must be right!

I've felt a great sense of kumbaya based on your post What a great future we have with UAL pilots like you as the primary drivers! It takes great talent to f*ck this up gentleman. Based on what has happened so far, both sides need to check their egos!

ualratt

So based on your preceding logic why not just band them to the existing wide body rates. They're only a couple hundred thousand LBS heavier, right?

ualratt

And even greater talent to fix it. You're not sounding any bit as capable at the moment.

LeeFXDWG

757,

This concept of pay equaling career expectations is wrong. The two have nothing to do with one another. Career expectation is related to the status/category pilot "x" had pre-merger at their retirement and to an extent, the progression expected during the time to retirement.

What banding can do is potentially "enhance" one's status/category in the big picture when a board looks at each list's expectations pre-merger.

I can't keep up with all the claims on what the bands are that each is proposing, so I'll use a hypothetical:

Say CAL wants the 767-400 banded with the 747 and 777. By doing so, they've increased their "claim/right" to a percentage of the post SLI positions to preserve those "expectations" to the maximum extent possible. This would also reduce the relative advantage on WB expectations that the average UAL pilot has over CAL pilots based on over a 2 to 1 WB advantage.

In effect, my hypothetical example elevates CAL's expectations in the eyes of the board treating the banded aircraft as "equals" for the purposes of integration and preserving career expectations.

I have no idea if my hypothetical example is the actual issue, or where it lies in the big mix of pay banding being proposed. I will say that the board won't look at aircraft on order in their determination based on past practice and that regardless of how the JCBA looks, will likely utilize "fences" to offset any inequity they deem of import after the list is finalized.

Should be interesting to watch. Sadly, the longer the JCBA takes, the more the newCO will speed on the scope issue.

Frats,
Lee