Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-10-2010, 01:08 PM   #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Flyguppy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: IAH 320 CA
Posts: 190
Default It is not about the 747/777!!!

After talking to my reps, the discord has become much clearer.

The was no such resolution saying the the 747 needs to be the top paying aircraft. The point of the 747/777 banding could be worked out.

What is holding up the issue is that the CAL MEC, in no uncertain terms, has dug in their heels on other parts of the bands. They have done this because they are trying to improve their SLI argument with this JCBA. (Even though they are trying to represent that they are keeping it separate). There was even a quote attributed to very high up in their MEC saying, "This JCBA is 70% about seniority for us, and 30% about the rest of it".

So, what are they digging their heels in on specifically?

- Insisting that the 767-400 be banded with the 777 and 747.

- Insisting that the 737-900 is banded with the 757 and 767-300

- Insisting that the 737-800 is banded by itself, above the A319, A320, and other 737s.



Now, let's talk about who is trying for a "seniority grab" or who's trying to "carve out" the seniority list. It's not about the 747/777 banding issue.

I, personally, do NOT find the above acceptable. How in the world could you make a coherent argument that the 767-400, at 50,000lbs less gross, be banded with the 747/777? Oh, I know. Because it's the second biggest aircraft CAL has next to their relatively small fleet of 777s. Don't want to lose that "career expectation"!! So, why not try to make it a top paying aircraft, no? Same deal for the 737-900....saying it should be banded with a 767-300????

This is what has led to the current impasse. Bring it on.
Flyguppy is offline  
Old 11-10-2010, 01:23 PM   #2  
Need More Callouts
 
757Driver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyguppy View Post
After talking to my reps, the discord has become much clearer.

The was no such resolution saying the the 747 needs to be the top paying aircraft. The point of the 747/777 banding could be worked out.

What is holding up the issue is that the CAL MEC, in no uncertain terms, has dug in their heels on other parts of the bands. They have done this because they are trying to improve their SLI argument with this JCBA. (Even though they are trying to represent that they are keeping it separate). There was even a quote attributed to very high up in their MEC saying, "This JCBA is 70% about seniority for us, and 30% about the rest of it".

So, what are they digging their heels in on specifically?

- Insisting that the 767-400 be banded with the 777 and 747.

- Insisting that the 737-900 is banded with the 757 and 767-300

- Insisting that the 737-800 is banded by itself, above the A319, A320, and other 737s.



Now, let's talk about who is trying for a "seniority grab" or who's trying to "carve out" the seniority list. It's not about the 747/777 banding issue.

I, personally, do NOT find the above acceptable. How in the world could you make a coherent argument that the 767-400, at 50,000lbs less gross, be banded with the 747/777? Oh, I know. Because it's the second biggest aircraft CAL has next to their relatively small fleet of 777s. Don't want to lose that "career expectation"!! So, why not try to make it a top paying aircraft, no? Same deal for the 737-900....saying it should be banded with a 767-300????

This is what has led to the current impasse. Bring it on.
Yeah, Yeah, he said, she said.

Funny how people latch on to everything they hear as gospel. Personally I don't take either side verbatim. If what your saying is true, why did the JCBA bargaining teams from both UAL and CAL AND our MEC agree to a pay proposal while UAL's MEC did not?

Nice try though.
757Driver is offline  
Old 11-10-2010, 01:26 PM   #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Airhoss's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Currently not bumped.
Posts: 4,601
Default

It's beyond belief at this point. I found out about the above issues last week. $hit like this is how ALPA gets kicked off of a property. I'm sitting here barely paying my bills after multiple surplusses and these arrogant jack wagons are trying to pull this infantile crap.

Jay and the boys need to be removed if this how they are going to conduct themselves this ain't just business it's personal and from the very organization that is supposed to be protecting me. MORONS..
Airhoss is offline  
Old 11-10-2010, 01:28 PM   #4  
Line Holder
 
Bph320's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 50
Default

I think all the guppies and A320/319s should pay the same rate period. I also think the 757s/767-200/300 which will all be flown under the same equipment bids should be paid the same as well.. Since the 767-400 is a different bid/ type rating it should pay more. Should it be paid as much as the 777/400? That is up for debate.
Bph320 is offline  
Old 11-10-2010, 01:39 PM   #5  
Recommend Retention
 
LifeNtheFstLne's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Bigfoot
Posts: 1,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bph320 View Post
I think all the guppies and A320/319s should pay the same rate period. I also think the 757s/767-200/300 which will all be flown under the same equipment bids should be paid the same as well.. Since the 767-400 is a different bid/ type rating it should pay more. Should it be paid as much as the 777/400? That is up for debate.
The 767-400 is not a different type rating. But don't ask me how they ever signed off on it being in the same grouping as a 757-200. No comment on the pay banding either. Just pay me.
LifeNtheFstLne is offline  
Old 11-10-2010, 01:44 PM   #6  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Furlough/Gun Driver
Posts: 425
Default

Glad to see that they are staying focused on SCOPE and JV OUTSOURCING.

How about unbanding all aircraft types and be done with it.
dosbo is offline  
Old 11-10-2010, 01:46 PM   #7  
Keep Calm Chive ON
 
SoCalGuy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bph320 View Post
I think all the guppies and A320/319s should pay the same rate period. I also think the 757s/767-200/300 which will all be flown under the same equipment bids should be paid the same as well.. Since the 767-400 is a different bid/ type rating it should pay more. Should it be paid as much as the 777/400? That is up for debate.
Well first of all, the B767-400 is the SAME type as a B757-200/300 or B767-200/300.....It reads B757/767 Type Rating on your certificate....it's NOT different.
Boeing: Boeing 767-400ER Receives Common Type Rating from FAA

CAL flys the B767-400 as a "common fleet"....IE B756 pilots fly ALL B757/767's...period. DAL runs the B767-400 as a "seperate fleet" within their carrier, but the 'type' is no different......I am hoping that the 'ligher' of the above what you ment.

Type Rating....all the same....B757/767.
SoCalGuy is offline  
Old 11-10-2010, 01:46 PM   #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Le Bus
Posts: 382
Default

UFB.

These guys can squabble over the seniority grab and whatch the RJ70 floodgates open.

Please tell me the cons of a CA/FO pay-scale ala UPS. Sounds like a quick fix to a stalemate. Fences on fleet/seat/domicile until you are awarded a vacancy.

THEN the arbitrators can get to work on SLI.

I see no way around these jerks.
SOTeric is offline  
Old 11-10-2010, 01:54 PM   #9  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Flyguppy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: IAH 320 CA
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 757Driver View Post
Yeah, Yeah, he said, she said.

Funny how people latch on to everything they hear as gospel. Personally I don't take either side verbatim. If what your saying is true, why did the JCBA bargaining teams from both UAL and CAL AND our MEC agree to a pay proposal while UAL's MEC did not?

Nice try though.
Nice deflection.

The UAL negotiating committee agreed on it and brought it to the MEC. It was then realized that the CAL MEC has all along decided they wanted to use the JCBA as the BASIS for their SLI arguments, instead of it being separate. They even told the CAL MEC that they would send the proposed bands to the company IF the CAL MEC agreed not to use the JCBA in their SLI arguments. The CAL MEC refused.

Nice try though.
Flyguppy is offline  
Old 11-10-2010, 02:00 PM   #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
UalHvy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyguppy View Post
After talking to my reps, the discord has become much clearer.

The was no such resolution saying the the 747 needs to be the top paying aircraft. The point of the 747/777 banding could be worked out.

What is holding up the issue is that the CAL MEC, in no uncertain terms, has dug in their heels on other parts of the bands. They have done this because they are trying to improve their SLI argument with this JCBA. (Even though they are trying to represent that they are keeping it separate). There was even a quote attributed to very high up in their MEC saying, "This JCBA is 70% about seniority for us, and 30% about the rest of it".

So, what are they digging their heels in on specifically?

- Insisting that the 767-400 be banded with the 777 and 747.

- Insisting that the 737-900 is banded with the 757 and 767-300

- Insisting that the 737-800 is banded by itself, above the A319, A320, and other 737s.



Now, let's talk about who is trying for a "seniority grab" or who's trying to "carve out" the seniority list. It's not about the 747/777 banding issue.

I, personally, do NOT find the above acceptable. How in the world could you make a coherent argument that the 767-400, at 50,000lbs less gross, be banded with the 747/777? Oh, I know. Because it's the second biggest aircraft CAL has next to their relatively small fleet of 777s. Don't want to lose that "career expectation"!! So, why not try to make it a top paying aircraft, no? Same deal for the 737-900....saying it should be banded with a 767-300????

This is what has led to the current impasse. Bring it on.
You are the very 1st one on this board to get it right on what the real issue is. Everyone else has been shooting from the hip and had absolutely no idea. The CAL MEC is trying to affect the SLI through the JCBA. Totally against the way it's supposed to be and agreed upon.
UalHvy is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:18 AM.