UAL/DAL Contract 2K/Southwest Pay Comparison
07-07-2011, 05:42 AM
#21
Gets Rolled on the Reg.
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 274
Originally Posted by Lambourne
Is there a box on the ballot for "loud and clear"? Come on man you are going to give yourself a coronary. Let the JNC do its job. If you don't like the deal vote NO. If it fails and we move to a strike then so be it. But pumping yourself up on a web forum is juvenile.
Here is my question to you. If the contract is signed and passed by a majority and it doesn't meet your own personal threshold for greatness, are you willing to walk away? If you say you are not going to hold to your guns walk to walk if the majority doesn't agree with you, then please step away from the keyboard.
Here is my question to you. If the contract is signed and passed by a majority and it doesn't meet your own personal threshold for greatness, are you willing to walk away? If you say you are not going to hold to your guns walk to walk if the majority doesn't agree with you, then please step away from the keyboard.
Sorry, won't stoop to your bait. Obviously this is about what we'll
each vote for and stand for if the vote leads to a strike. It has
nothing to do with what we'll do after the vote is yes, employment wise.
07-07-2011, 06:01 AM
#22
Gets Rolled on the Reg.
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 274
An interesting viewpoint over on the Delta thread, along the same lines from a different angle.
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
I like that Sailing. No complaints. But I don't think comparing min guarantee is flawed, it's just math right off APC provided tables. But if you're about 2004 pay restoration then throw this whole SWA thing and let's go!
2004 pay restoration beats the living snot out of both SWA pay and the 15% increase plus COLA year to year that some seem to be gravitating towards. I mean we're getting reports of guys who'll take 15 or 20% on time increase and sell scope out to 100 seats in exchange.
But you know, if we get SWA pay for the DC9 as in 717 = DC9, and add $20-$30 more per hour for being handsome debonair Delta pilots a majority of whom funded their respective airlines recoveries, you're back to 2004 pay across the board.
So how about SWA + [$30/hr] but at least using SWA pay allows one to frame the argument around something tangible.
I believe these are 2004 numbers?
2004 pay restoration beats the living snot out of both SWA pay and the 15% increase plus COLA year to year that some seem to be gravitating towards. I mean we're getting reports of guys who'll take 15 or 20% on time increase and sell scope out to 100 seats in exchange.
But you know, if we get SWA pay for the DC9 as in 717 = DC9, and add $20-$30 more per hour for being handsome debonair Delta pilots a majority of whom funded their respective airlines recoveries, you're back to 2004 pay across the board.
So how about SWA + [$30/hr] but at least using SWA pay allows one to frame the argument around something tangible.
I believe these are 2004 numbers?
07-07-2011, 06:10 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Originally Posted by Lambourne
I would love to see a big raise. However, to even believe that ALPA would be negotiating on C2K rates from the UAL contract is absurd.
In my opinion that will be the last big win ALPA ever achieves. .
In my opinion that will be the last big win ALPA ever achieves. .
For this contract to pass, it will probably have to be a "big win."
07-07-2011, 07:15 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: B777 Capt
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
So "asking" for C2K rates is absurd? If that is absurd, I would love to hear your opinion on the company asking for 250 94 seat rj's.
For this contract to pass, it will probably have to be a "big win."
For this contract to pass, it will probably have to be a "big win."
What I think is missing from the debate about the company proposal and what ALPAites fail to realize is this: that was an opening proposal by the company. It was their dream sheet. This is negotiations. The problem we have at UAL is the majority of the pilot group has only been through one real contract negotiation and that was C2K. We have had ESOP and BK contracts but the only true contract many ever saw was c2k. That contract was a blip on the radar screen and it did not make financial sense. It was hush money to allow US Air merger.
07-07-2011, 09:23 AM
#25
(retired)
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: Old, retired, healthy, debt-free, liquid
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by Lambourne
...What I think is missing from the debate about the company proposal and what ALPAites fail to realize is this: that was an opening proposal by the company. It was their dream sheet...
However, with Flight and Duty Time coming out in the August/September timeframe, posting a 9 month old opener helps UAL prepare and determine where a counter needs to be. Although "slapped" by the NMB for violating the "gag" prohibition, there is minimal risk to UAL of pilot release because of the relatively short time in mediation to date. The NMB is also "sympathetic" to the notion that active counters in the financial sections are difficult to cost without firm F&DT. Things have been glacially slow in these sections for that reason.
Papered CPO doors are certainly the most visible and "exciting" aspect of the exercise for many line pilots. However, when taken in the context of 12,000 pilots total, it is but one component of a multi-faceted litmus test. Do not be fooled. The public release of the UAL opener is choreographed and serves a purpose. UAL is not so naive as to think that pilots would agree with their financial opener. The net reaction on many fronts, not just CPO doors, will tell them where they have to move and counter when F&DT is finalized in August/September.
Knowledgeable individuals are expecting a "rising pace" of proposal exchange from September through the end of the year. The time spent in mediation to date will only help the pace.
It also doesn't matter whether it is ALPA, APA, SWAPA, etc., going through the RLA negotiation process with pilots is like running a marathon with a herd of cats. Anything that helps the pilots stay engaged is a plus, even if choreographed for other reasons.
Last edited by Old UCAL CA; 07-07-2011 at 10:48 AM.
07-07-2011, 09:49 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by Old UCAL CA
I tend to agree with you on this point...it was 9-month-ago "dream sheet" no less.
However, with Flight and Duty Time coming out in the August/September timeframe, posting a 9 month old opener helps UAL prepare and determine where a counter needs to be. Although "slapped" by the NMB for violating the "gag" prohibition, there is minimal risk to UAL of pilot release because of the relatively short time in mediation to date. The NMB is also "sympathetic" to the notion that active counters in the financial sections are difficult to cost without firm F&DT. Things have been glacially slow in these sections for that reason.
Papered CPO doors are certainly the most visible and "exciting" aspect of the exercise for many line pilots. However, when taken in the context of 12,000 pilots total, it is but one component of a multi-faceted litmus test. Do not be fooled. The public release of the UAL opener is choreographed and serves a purpose. UAL is not so naive to think that pilots would agree with their financial opener. The net reaction on many fronts, not just CPO doors, will tell them where they have to move when F&DT is finalized in August/September.
Knowledgeable individuals are expecting a "rising pace" of proposal activity from September through the end of the year. The time spent in mediation to date will only help the pace.
It also doesn't matter whether it is ALPA, APA, SWAPA, etc., going through the RLA negotiation process with pilots is like running a marathon with a herd of cats. Anything that helps the pilots stay engaged is a plus, even if choreographed for other reasons.
However, with Flight and Duty Time coming out in the August/September timeframe, posting a 9 month old opener helps UAL prepare and determine where a counter needs to be. Although "slapped" by the NMB for violating the "gag" prohibition, there is minimal risk to UAL of pilot release because of the relatively short time in mediation to date. The NMB is also "sympathetic" to the notion that active counters in the financial sections are difficult to cost without firm F&DT. Things have been glacially slow in these sections for that reason.
Papered CPO doors are certainly the most visible and "exciting" aspect of the exercise for many line pilots. However, when taken in the context of 12,000 pilots total, it is but one component of a multi-faceted litmus test. Do not be fooled. The public release of the UAL opener is choreographed and serves a purpose. UAL is not so naive to think that pilots would agree with their financial opener. The net reaction on many fronts, not just CPO doors, will tell them where they have to move when F&DT is finalized in August/September.
Knowledgeable individuals are expecting a "rising pace" of proposal activity from September through the end of the year. The time spent in mediation to date will only help the pace.
It also doesn't matter whether it is ALPA, APA, SWAPA, etc., going through the RLA negotiation process with pilots is like running a marathon with a herd of cats. Anything that helps the pilots stay engaged is a plus, even if choreographed for other reasons.
I agree...
Management is sending this out as psych-warfare. They're saying,"Look, this is where we started and look how far we've compromised with this TA...we are working together to make a happy family!"
They can suck it! We are professional pilots! FUPM!
Last edited by WarEagle28; 07-07-2011 at 10:06 AM.
07-07-2011, 10:43 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
!257:
Thanks for the thoughts on how much the group should hold out for. I have my desires also, but I will leave it up to the JNC and MEC to hand us a contract they believe we should vote for. I don't want one of those, "here is the Company's best offer, vote NO for us."
If it isn't worth the vote then let the mediation play out and the cooling off period begin. At the end self help begins.
As that time approaches be prepared to watch the Company prepare for a strike. This will include the pre-qualification of Captains, the leasing of airplanes to outfits who will fly our Company's routes and the hiring of replacements. They will also be sneaky and attempt to outsource more flying. Oh I'm sorry that is already happening.
Thanks for the thoughts on how much the group should hold out for. I have my desires also, but I will leave it up to the JNC and MEC to hand us a contract they believe we should vote for. I don't want one of those, "here is the Company's best offer, vote NO for us."
If it isn't worth the vote then let the mediation play out and the cooling off period begin. At the end self help begins.
As that time approaches be prepared to watch the Company prepare for a strike. This will include the pre-qualification of Captains, the leasing of airplanes to outfits who will fly our Company's routes and the hiring of replacements. They will also be sneaky and attempt to outsource more flying. Oh I'm sorry that is already happening.
07-07-2011, 12:12 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Originally Posted by Lambourne
I am absolutely 100% against the company proposal of 94 seat jets. If you read my post in other topics I believe scope is the number one issue. Big pay rates do no one any good if we all move back a seat with integration and further scope relief.
Originally Posted by Lambourne
What I think is missing from the debate about the company proposal and what ALPAites fail to realize is this: that was an opening proposal by the company. It was their dream sheet. This is negotiations. The problem we have at UAL is the majority of the pilot group has only been through one real contract negotiation and that was C2K. We have had ESOP and BK contracts but the only true contract many ever saw was c2k. That contract was a blip on the radar screen and it did not make financial sense. It was hush money to allow US Air merger.
As a side note, those blip on the screen C2K rates have been gutted by 31.2% since 2000 solely due to inflation.
07-07-2011, 08:14 PM
#29
Gets Rolled on the Reg.
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 274
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
So it is acceptable for the company to make ridiculous requests in their opening proposal since it is their dream sheet opening section 6 negotiations, but it is absurd for ALPA to breathe C2K rates? It seems you are affording the company the ability to shift the center point of negotiations towards their wishes.
As a side note, those blip on the screen C2K rates have been gutted by 31.2% since 2000 solely due to inflation.
As a side note, those blip on the screen C2K rates have been gutted by 31.2% since 2000 solely due to inflation.
Here is another comparison from what the Delta guys are currently looking at.
W2 equality with Southwest with our 70hr. guarantee v. their 78hr. guarantee.
And how the fleets compare proportionally if you equalize the W2 on similar equipment.
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
So SWA gets 78 hour min guarantee and we have 70. We want W2 parity. Okay, take their posted hourly rates and multiply by 78, that's their monthly min, now divide it out by 70 which is ours.
For reference, contract 2000 rates for 2004:
For reference, contract 2000 rates for 2004:
07-08-2011, 03:29 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: B777 Capt
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
So it is acceptable for the company to make ridiculous requests in their opening proposal since it is their dream sheet opening section 6 negotiations, but it is absurd for ALPA to breathe C2K rates? It seems you are affording the company the ability to shift the center point of negotiations towards their wishes.
As a side note, those blip on the screen C2K rates have been gutted by 31.2% since 2000 solely due to inflation.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
