It is not about the 747/777!!!
11-10-2010, 01:08 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: IAH 320 CA
Posts: 190
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.
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.
11-10-2010, 01:23 PM
#2
Need More Callouts
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by Flyguppy
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.
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.
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.
11-10-2010, 01:26 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,708
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..
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..
11-10-2010, 01:28 PM
#4
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 50
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.
11-10-2010, 01:39 PM
#5
Recommend Retention
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Bigfoot
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by Bph320
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.
11-10-2010, 01:46 PM
#7
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Originally Posted by Bph320
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.
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.
11-10-2010, 01:46 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Le Bus
Posts: 382
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.
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.
11-10-2010, 01:54 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: IAH 320 CA
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by 757Driver
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.
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.
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.
11-10-2010, 02:00 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by Flyguppy
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.
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.
