![]() |
Originally Posted by CALFO
(Post 1131971)
Next contract?
1. Whomever is saying this will probably be retired by the time another contract get completed. 2. The 747's will be long gone by then as well. I really don't understand the heartache with pay banding. We are negotiating a number (not a contract). Whatever that final number (overall cost of the contract is) is what we'll get. Paybanding saves the company money, reduces the cost of the contract, and allows room for gains in other areas of the contract. |
Originally Posted by CALFO
(Post 1131971)
Next contract?
1. Whomever is saying this will probably be retired by the time another contract get completed. 2. The 747's will be long gone by then as well. I really don't understand the heartache with pay banding. We are negotiating a number (not a contract). Whatever that final number (overall cost of the contract is) is what we'll get. Paybanding saves the company money, reduces the cost of the contract, and allows room for gains in other areas of the contract. |
Originally Posted by catan
(Post 1132002)
Spoken like a true company man....
These are made up numbers, but say, for instnce, the cost of the contract is $1 billion dollars and the cost of not paybanding is $200 million, I would rather that $200 million go towards another section of the contract (such as pay rates) that will actually do us some good. If the company wants it, let them have it, just make sure we are compensated in other ways. Out. |
Originally Posted by watching6
(Post 1132007)
Back to splitting the pie? B.S. Bring more pie to the table. I don't care about saving them money; I care about making me more money. I don't care about reducing the cost of the contract; I care about getting more from the contract. I want gains in other areas too! So you see, they need more pie!
|
Originally Posted by CALFO
(Post 1132021)
Spoken like someone who doesn't like to see the big picture or can't comprehend what it means.
These are made up numbers, but say, for instnce, the cost of the contract is $1 billion dollars and the cost of not paybanding is $200 million, I would rather that $200 million go towards another section of the contract (such as pay rates) that will actually do us some good. If the company wants it, let them have it, just make sure we are compensated in other ways. Out. Out. |
Originally Posted by CALFO
(Post 1132021)
Spoken like someone who doesn't like to see the big picture or can't comprehend what it means.
These are made up numbers, but say, for instnce, the cost of the contract is $1 billion dollars and the cost of not paybanding is $200 million, I would rather that $200 million go towards another section of the contract (such as pay rates) that will actually do us some good. If the company wants it, let them have it, just make sure we are compensated in other ways. Out. We're screwed. |
Originally Posted by catan
(Post 1132050)
What you want is the 747 Capt making as much as possible, not because of trickle down, but as a driving force for rates on all fleets and seats.
|
Originally Posted by SOTeric
(Post 1132053)
And you really think that $200 million is going in our pockets?
We're screwed. |
"The pay bands would be corrected during the next contract."
This statement is a joke, right? Here's another thing I know: Nothing is "corrected" in the next contract. Why? Because each contract brings a challenge of its on and to think "pay-banding" will be "corrected" is one of the most ignorant things one could say, let alone think. So if you want and like "pay-banding" then its OK, if not don't vote for it. You guys make things so hard, sometimes. |
Originally Posted by CALFO
(Post 1132057)
So what happens if the 747 is phased out over the next few years? How does that help us with 777 / 767 rates being that we had spent untold hours arguing to the company that a 747 should pay higher than a 777? It will be a driving force, alright, but driving the rates into the ground.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:44 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands