Enough Already!
#21
70 seats was, in my opinion a reasonable new line in the sand along with specific language (tail numbers) limiting their numbers. But, clearly the MEC's don't agree with me. After all, its not like they actually polled us or published their emails and phone numbers for input. Or did they?
All I can do now is vote no.
#22
Originally Posted by Sunvox:1295725
Quick word on scope:
It's all about the new ratio limit. 550 rjs are at 112% they quickly get to 120% with only a couple new planes. No one wants more 50 seaters so the company is interested in 70/76 seaters but the only way to add them and not go over the 120% ratio is by retiring 50 seaters which is obviously already happening industry wide as well as at UAL. Then once the company goes over 153 70/76ers the ratio begins to tighten even more unless they buy the 90 seater and fly it with UAL.
It's a major get that no one understands or is explaining properly. IT'S HUGE. The company has every incentive in the world to go out and buy the 90 to rationalize the future growth of the 70 seater it's their only option.
The dude who threw out the 743 number was ignoring the fact that UAX is already close to the capped ratio and can only increase by exchange.
It's all about the new ratio limit. 550 rjs are at 112% they quickly get to 120% with only a couple new planes. No one wants more 50 seaters so the company is interested in 70/76 seaters but the only way to add them and not go over the 120% ratio is by retiring 50 seaters which is obviously already happening industry wide as well as at UAL. Then once the company goes over 153 70/76ers the ratio begins to tighten even more unless they buy the 90 seater and fly it with UAL.
It's a major get that no one understands or is explaining properly. IT'S HUGE. The company has every incentive in the world to go out and buy the 90 to rationalize the future growth of the 70 seater it's their only option.
The dude who threw out the 743 number was ignoring the fact that UAX is already close to the capped ratio and can only increase by exchange.
#23
Pilot Longevity/Seniority is arguably the most contentious and litigated issue in ALPA. CAL sat down with 2 drop dead issues SLI and Scope. Didn't win scope so you bet your bottom dollar they were gonna win something for SLI. Put the '99s ahead of the '08s and you get 4000 angry pilots. Throw the '99s under the bus and you get 300 voting angry pilots. That's politics and it stinks to High Heaven, but IF this TA is voted down you can bet LOA 25 will get worse NOT better. Plus ALPA policy favors Longevity and NOT D.O.H. Again it stinks but that is the Machiavellian reality.
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
From: Corporate Limo Captain
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 0
Many of us find all ALPA talk of drawing a line at 76 seats to be utter BS. DAL and will UAL airframe size concessions will cause the magic line to be discarded as soon as this industry goes back in the crapper. Management are the numbnuts that overloaded on the 50 seaters. Not my error so not my problem. Btw the 190 rates are significantly below JetBlue.
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 0
I'll make it the 2014 numbers for arguments sake even though that assumes JB gets no raise.
Years 1/2/3/4/5
JB FO: 49/64/75/81/85
UAL FO: 66.10/66.10/76.10/77.95/79.80
JB CA : 128/130/132/133/135
UAL CA: 120.64/121.54/122.54/123.53/124.48
Bottom line no real cause to puff our chests out for obtaining a CRJ-900/EMB-190 pay scale.
Years 1/2/3/4/5
JB FO: 49/64/75/81/85
UAL FO: 66.10/66.10/76.10/77.95/79.80
JB CA : 128/130/132/133/135
UAL CA: 120.64/121.54/122.54/123.53/124.48
Bottom line no real cause to puff our chests out for obtaining a CRJ-900/EMB-190 pay scale.
#29
I believe strongly the fight here is with CAL-ALPA right now and NOT management. They put in pay banding comparing a 767 to a 747 while separating a 757-200 from a 757-300, they put in LOA 25, and they (CAL-ALPA) have said publicly they can live with no contract indefinitely because life's pretty good in their eyes with lots of movement and shiny new planes on their side. I'm closing my eyes and pinching my nose and voting yes to the TA, but I'm gonna expect big things in 2017-2019. Nothing in life good comes fast and sadly the political reality of this bargaining process has seriously handicapped the L-UAL pilot group.
Joe Peck
IADFO
#30
I'll make it the 2014 numbers for arguments sake even though that assumes JB gets no raise.
Years 1/2/3/4/5
JB FO: 49/64/75/81/85
UAL FO: 66.10/66.10/76.10/77.95/79.80
JB CA : 128/130/132/133/135
UAL CA: 120.64/121.54/122.54/123.53/124.48
Bottom line no real cause to puff our chests out for obtaining a CRJ-900/EMB-190 pay scale.
Years 1/2/3/4/5
JB FO: 49/64/75/81/85
UAL FO: 66.10/66.10/76.10/77.95/79.80
JB CA : 128/130/132/133/135
UAL CA: 120.64/121.54/122.54/123.53/124.48
Bottom line no real cause to puff our chests out for obtaining a CRJ-900/EMB-190 pay scale.
One snapshot look at 5 year Capt. pay with the whole picture:
UAL $124.48 + 16% B-Fund = $144
versus
$135 with no A or B Fund.
plus profit sharing better as well for UAL.
Last edited by Sunvox; 11-20-2012 at 05:48 AM.


