Paybanding question.
 

747-400. MGTOW 875,000 LBS, 416 PAX
767-400. MGTOW 450,000 LBS, 245 PAX

Why should these two aircraft pay the same? Please, am I missing something?

Both you and J. Pos are in complete agreement. J. said he would be willing to correct the pay banding issue after the SLI is finalized.

You fully understand the situation.

If both airplanes paid the same and at the 747 rate, would pay banding be bad then?

Please do not attack me. However, I believe the whole industry is stuck in a negative paradigm. Your worth is based on what size aircraft you fly! How absolutely ridiculous. Pay a fair, substantially higher than current contract, rate and QOL improves exponentially because you are not forced to "chase the seat" to make a decent living. This model seems to work for UPS.

Last I checked, the responsibilities were the same. I believe this would make Junior/Senior less of an issue, reduce infighting, and allow us to concentrate on the company. However, the down side... Save the airline money; we could ask for this be put toward the pilot contract. Also, less training... Fewer training events... Fewer instructors.

NOW is the TIME! Don't kick the can down the road... Contracts take too long to negotiate.
This is what is putting this country in jeopardy!

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?

Hasn't this already been hatched out and agreed upon by both MEC's?

Given that there are 70+ 777's, a ton of 767's, orders fo 50 787's as well as A350's and given that there are currently about 19 747's with no indication of more on order, why wouldn't we try to lump them together and get the highest rates you can for the majority of the widebodies?

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.........................;)

That's a laugh. How is he going to change a major section of the contract after it's been signed?

I guess carrying 350,000 lbs more fuel is that much more difficult? ;)

Try to think of it this way. Are the responsibilities the same for flying a C-172 as they are for an A-380? Of course not ... neither are they the same for flying a 737 and a 747. Is the productivity the same? Of course not ... neither are they the same for flying a 737 and a 747. Pilots should be paid more based on the productivity they bring to the table. UPS screwed the industry with their same rate philosophy. The Company wants it for the reasons you outlined ... less Instructors ... less training ... which means less pilots. Pay Banding also means that it takes our productivity argument out of the equation for negotiating pay.

Please read the first chapter in "Flying the Line" titled "What's a Pilot Worth?" Pilot's pay increased dramatically because of the higher speeds and greater number of seats when airlines switched from Connies to 707's and DC-8's because of the increased responsibilities and productivity. We all owe the guys back then for their foresight to lock in pay to productivity. Even though our rates have stalled temporarily ... we still need to chuck pay banding and pay by productivity!

I have a question:

Is someone posting here on the negotiating committee or either MEC? Seriously, because unless you are one of those individuals, how do you know what was determined in regard to the pay banding issue? All I have ever heard is that the issue was resolved and they moved forward.

For all I know that could mean no pay banding, could mean pay banding for all categories, or it could mean pay banding for all but the 747 which will have a separate payscale until they exit the fleet. Seriously, "issue resolved" could mean many different things as I haven't heard one iota more regarding this issue. Details of negotiations and specific language is not supposed to be out for public knowledge until a TA is ready for us to view. I couldn't tell you one thing that is in the contract right now because I haven't gotten any of that information from any communication from the MECs, LEC or talking with reps or negotiators.,

Cue the music for the operating room.................:rolleyes:

Excellent post.

Yeah, their pay rates are really "lowering the bar"...

No, that would not be a bad thing. That is not what will happen though. The 767 pilots will receive a windfall at the expense of 747 pilot pay to facilitate a better ISL for the CAL pilots, thus screwing the UAL 747 pilots again.

Luckily, with the mood of the UAL pilots at this point, it is likely that a JCBA that includes pay banding will be voted down by the UAL side.

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.................

Gotta agree with this one! You don't see the UPS guys chasing the pay since they don't need to! What's even funnier is that a friend of mine who's a captain there got DOWNGRADED from the 75 to the MD-11 to the B747! Interesting eh? And he's still making the same amount of money! THAT is how it should be. Some like the longhaul flying and others don't...............so why should we be penalized (monetarily) for the type of flying we do?:confused:

Because, that's the way our ALPA Founding Fathers wanted it!.........Relax, Just stoking your fire :)

It is! After the JCBA and SLI, he's gone. Don't get upset, that's just the numbers and LEC's. Not bashing.

Well said ewr,

I might add, know one wants to address: fewer training cycles, lower quality of life during same, and bigger pie to be spread around to more pilots due to cost savings. NOPE... We are going to do it the way we have always done it. What a bunch crap!

If you think pilots should be paid according to how difficult their job is, then a regional pilot flying eight legs a day should be making more than you. A freight dog flying a piston at night in crappy wx should make more than anyone.

You can get us 250 to 300 and hour for flying ORD-GRR or EWR-SYR in a 737. I'm voting for you! How we going to do it, again? More like paying 135 an hour for flying ORD-NRT or EWR-NRT. Do you really think this has never been looked at before?

Sounds like most of you should have gone to work for UPS.

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.

A pay banding scheme that puts a UAL airframe at the large end and a CAL aircraft at the small end of every proposed band a windfall for the CAL pilots. It is a change from the historical norm(pay by A/C gross weight) that benefits CAL pilots and disadvantages UAL pilots in every band.

You guys can argue all day long that you want pay banding to have an advantage in the ISL. That's fine, you should fight for yourselves, and if you get it because we were unable to counter effectively, so be it. The idea that it's the right thing to do for everyone is hogwash. Your MC has even stated that he wants banding for the ISL, and he would be willing to pay by aircraft after the ISL. Why would he say that if it was really a better deal?

Did you notice that the very first bullet in the recent AMR term sheet passed to APA was a pay banding? They don't want it because they they will have to pay pilots flying smaller A/C a higher rate. They want it because the opposite is true.

Every management in the industry and the CAL pilots want pay banding. I guess I am being unreasonable thinking something is wrong with that. Whatever.

Deleted. Disregard!

Take a look at another ALPA carrier. Delta/NWA. 747and777 are pay banded do your history is not correct. BTW..I have never heard the CAL MC make the pay banding statement. Could you please provide a written source.

Paybanding, come on guys and gals you don't get it at all.

First historically pilot pay was based on gross weight and airspeed. What this did was pay pilots for the increased revenue productivity allowed by the ability to carry more revenue producing weight and get compensated for the reduced cost per asm of the the bigger jets and therefore share in the improved revenue (read cash flows) of the larger capacity. Additionally the airspeed formula recognized a pilot got paid by the hour and now would fly 400 miles instead of 150 miles in and hour.

To put it in an understandable way. A DC3 took possibly up to two day to carry 25 people across the country and the pilots were paid 10 hours to do it. In the 60s Jets came and reduced that to 5 hours and increased the load to 150. So to get paid DC3 wages would be a huge cut in pay for the same work.

Now economically should a multi-leg 737 pilot get paid the same as a 747 one? No. In all measures of economics a 747 will always make more (potential) money than a 737 for the same hour by hour.

But does a 747 pilot have more liability than a 737 (or DC3 for that matter). Of course a 747 pilot does do more damage when it hits the ground than either a 737 or DC3. But how does that count out towards economic risk in a way that can be measured for pay purposes?

Back to pay-banding. Here is what I know, it is a transition to a single pay rate. So if you believe in "pay by seniority" then pay-banding is a start.

As far as Pierce goes in this fight, for LCAL pilots he is "the man!" for the other 2/3s at United airlines, he is our worst nightmare, John Ferg resurrected from retirement.

PS. Personally I don't care any more about the pay rates as long as i get the top pay! ;)

The pay bands would be corrected during the next contract.

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.

Spoken like a true company man....

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!

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.

Of course there will be more pie, but it's still going to need to be sliced up. Every piece of the contract is costed out, paybanding is no different.

What you're doing is taking from the top airplane and giving to the bottom. Is that right? It shouldn't be! 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. Why do you think the company likes the paybanding of 747 at the lower rate of the 777. Now put the 767-400 in the mix and before long we are at 757/737 rates and no where to go but down. Look at the history of paybanding. It's not new and it serves to drive pay down. The only reason we are discussing this is JP wants it for SLI.

Out.

And you really think that $200 million is going in our pockets?

We're screwed.

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.

Have you ever negotiated anything larger than a new car? It comes down to the bottom line. Every single item in a TA has been costed out to the penny. There is a bottom line number that we can extract from the company and it doesn't matter (in their eyes) where those costs come from.

"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.

Paybanding is only an issue for SLI. Trying to take from the top and give to another group or cause is a mistake. We are not socialist!!!!