|
Originally Posted by bkaz
(Post 1131833)
Airline pilots have been paid according to a formula that primarily uses aircraft max gross takeoff weight to determine hourly rate for decades. How is continuing to do the same thing a windfall for anyone? I would argue that the opposite is true.
May need to be a paradigm shift in thinking about how we determine pay. |
Originally Posted by EWRflyr
(Post 1132728)
And how do we address the issue of say the 787 under what you said above? A highly composite, lower weight aircraft which can/will go further possibly carrying the same amount of fuel as the plane is it intended to replace.
May need to be a paradigm shift in thinking about how we determine pay. Are you suggesting that the CAL pilots pay banding propasal is the solution? |
Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot
(Post 1131729)
Many here feel that only the "select few" should be paid well. I can carry just as many (or more) passengers in my B-737ER's in a day, but someone carrying 350 passengers who spends a third of his flight in a bunk or sitting in a f/c seat sleeping, deserves more money? I get to bust my butt changing planes up to four times in a day, briefing just as many flight attendants, and doing a WHOLE LOT MORE WORK for a lot less and this is considered fair? To go even further, the "heavy" pilots are only working two out of their three days, so let's break this down even further. If I fly four legs the first day, three the next, and three the last day, I've flown a total of ten legs. If I'm on the 800/900's for all ten legs, I have flown approximately 1600 passengers (assuming approx 90% load factor) or MORE than DOUBLE what the heavy guys carried (700 or so round trip for them). We also carry a lot of premium passengers but will have over 200 FC seats available or more than double what the heavies will have over the same time frame. We also carry a LOT of mail and cargo, so we make money there too. I just find it interesting that everyone thinks the heavy pilots are the only ones who should make any money when it's the small/mid aircraft that are doing all the work. Besides, everyone can't fly the big boys, so why not make it FAIR for ALL? Maybe we should just say that the more legs you fly, the more you'd make......................then you'd see those heavy pilots scrambling for the smaller aircraft and THEY would be screaming that they do all the work and deserve more money. I also have a hard time seeing an FO whose main responsibility is to assist the captain, making more money than captains on smaller aircraft who are responsible for a whole lot more. JMHO.........................;)
|
Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot
(Post 1131780)
In other words, if we give the "windfall" to the B747 guys, that's okay, but not the other way around. Nothing like "giving" the guys who do the least amount of work, have the most days off, and "have a life" MORE. Sorry, don't buy it. If you want productivity, you have to look beyond the widebodies.................
|
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. I strongly encourage the Juniors on here who have never had an opportunity to read "Flying the Line" to do so. Lacking a historical awareness of how you got what you have is the very reason for continuing the trend today of giving it all up. The pioneers will not forgive you... |
Originally Posted by ualratt
(Post 1133112)
If banding comes around only when companies are in bankruptcy then it doesn't take Craps (of the turd type) skills to realize that in due time you are leaving chips on the table. At CAL it has became a permanent concession and the only pay system that you probably lived under. Your banding system came about from your second bankruptcy...
...UAL from it's bankruptcy, DAL from it's bankruptcy, and now AMR in bankruptcy. The officers of each of these Chapter 11 companies in their time took the money that was left on the table and more, stuffing their pocket super tight. Not too difficult a pattern to recognize is it? I strongly encourage the Juniors on here who have never had an opportunity to read "Flying the Line" to do so. Lacking a historical awareness of how you got what you have is the very reason for continuing the trend today of giving it all up. |
Originally Posted by bkaz
(Post 1132744)
I don't disagree with this statement in reference to the composite airplanes.
Are you suggesting that the CAL pilots pay banding propasal is the solution? First, as I have said, I have no idea what the pay proposal is...period. It could have banding or not. The MEC has been very tight lipped about what the initial JOINT proposal was since we entered JOINT negotiations. I don't know anything about what is in the proposal and what has been discussed at the table other than the vague "little to no movement, non-specifc" updates from the MEC. All I know is the speed bump of pay banding issue was "resolved" between the MECs. I couldn't tell you what that means. Second, I'm not suggesting anything regarding pay banding. The only thing I want is for us to get the greatest monetary value for all pilots out of the company via the contract. There are negotiators and financial people who are best able to determine what that method should be. IF there is pay banding though, I would be FOR a separate category covering the 747 as those will eventually be phased out. I could see the argument that banding it with something else would dilute the earnings of the whale pilots, while having relatively little upside in pay for the remainder of the other pilots in the same band (i.e. if grouped with 777, 787, 767). |
Originally Posted by XHooker
(Post 1133172)
The current CAL pay bands are a result of Contract 97, which was not concessionary. FedEx bands, UPS has pay for FO/Captain, and I believe Alaska has historically banded, though admittedly, their aircraft have been fairly similar in size and mission. None of those companies have ever been in Chapter 11. PBS, on the other hand, is more closely related to bankruptcies (I think NWA is the only company to use it pre-9/11 bankruptcy)
There are legitimate arguments for and against banding, but it seems your history is a little off as well. And since you're in the business of splitting hairs, pardon me for seemingly leaving out such facts as "limited" historical banding, example UAL banded equipment in C2K (pre bankruptcy) with the 767/757, A320/A319, and the B737-300/737-500. However, those are generally limited to varients as the preceding pattern and your example of Alaska Airlines among others illustrates. Still doesn't maximize cockpit pay. Fact is that banding always come into play during concessionary contracts and bankruptcies is a no brainer; that it is a tool used by those who from day one have set out to wage war on our wages and QOL. It's nothing new to this industry. Only the players are different and Jay Pierce recognizes that but right now SLI rules... |
Originally Posted by ualratt
(Post 1133498)
Ah yes, the 97 contract did "modified" an already banded pay scheme that as I said before was introduced during the second bankruptcy in 1990, further lowering the bar with a wide, and narrow body large and small scheme.
Did you actually capture the most pay possible with the new scheme? I hardly think so but the company did because they wanted it. And since you're in the business of splitting hairs, pardon me for seemingly leaving out such facts as "limited" historical banding, example UAL banded equipment in C2K (pre bankruptcy) with the 767/757, A320/A319, and the B737-300/737-500. However, those are generally limited to varients as the preceding pattern and your example of Alaska Airlines among others illustrates. Still doesn't maximize cockpit pay. Fact is that banding always come into play during concessionary contractsand bankruptcies is a no brainer; that it is a tool used by those who from day one have set out to wage war on our wages and QOL. ...right now SLI rules... Look, I'm not necessarily for or against paybanding (or even PBS), but it's not as simple as saying "it's concessionary." There are valid arguments for and against. |
Originally Posted by watching6
(Post 1131716)
No attack here, just explanation! I am on the 777 and I would support higher pay for more seats. Of course, in my case, only the 747 would be higher, but I still wouldn't want to bring them down to the 777 rate. I remember at CAL all positions were paid the same without considerarion for equipment. We were able to get that changed to reflect aircraft size (narrow body vs. wide body, then large narrow body). The historical methodology in the industry, long before UPS and the after BK I for CAL, was the payrate was based on the revenue sharing for the equipment size. The more seats the more the crew cost for carrying that revenue. Anyone else want to weigh in?
rate for FO/CA, with a highly compressed pay scale, topping out at say 6-8 years instead of twelve. Make more money early in your career, a little less later, but with the increased time value of 401k/B-Fund contributions we would have much more for retirement. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:47 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands