The other problem with pay banding is the decreased training cycles, which means fewer pilots.

Make sure you do the math on this REALLY carefully. You might like the idea of pay banding, but it could delay your upgrade several years or drop you into the next lowest "band" because of the increased efficiency.

Nu

So when the 747's are retired as fast as Jeff can get them off the property, you guys want to make less flying it's replacement. Is that what you are saying?

Pay banding is for the "me, I want it all and I want now" generation who have no idea of the history of ALPA and what our predecessors fought for.

I will not argue the fact that it may increase the number of training cycles but your math on the number of pilot simply isn't supported by the data. If you compare the published data on pilots per aircraft for an airline like DAL that does not have pay banding to CAL that does, you find it is much more dependent on the type of flying being done. CAL had more pilots per aircraft than DAL. United roughly the same.

Please explain? I am not arguing I am just trying to figure out what you mean by it? I assume you mean I have been here longer so my 747 needs to be paid higher than your 777 simply because it weighs more. I would think it would benefit ALPA and its member more to have the 777, A350, 787 and 747 all making wide body pay so that if the company suddenly parks a fleet of 747's (which it will as soon as it can), the top group doesnt suddenly all take a pay cut. I just fail to see the logic in paying a 747 lets say $8 more than a 777 now so you can take an $8 paycut when it's replaced.

Ahem. Missing something?

Oh yeah, forget about Guam. Congressman Hank Johnson says it could tip over. You're on borrowed time my friend.

Sorry , no offense intended to any of the GUM folks. I just didn't include it because I figured that there wasn't any GUM flying in play when it came to shifting around flying at the Mainland domiciles. Hopefully GUM will grow massively on its own, but I don't think that will have a dramtic affect on the size of the other domiciles.

However, the desire to balance the staffing within the Mainland (to optimize schedules and minimize hotels) may result in the loss of positions at some domiciles over the coming months/years and the gain at others.

Based on what the current staffing shows it looks like that would be:

a loss of 737 positions at IAH and EWR and a gain of 320positions
a gain of 737 positoins at ORD
a gain of 737 positions at DEN and a loss of 320 positions
a gain of both 737 and 320 positions at SFO
a small gain of 737 positions at LAX and a small loss of 320 positions
a potential need of a 737 base in DCA/IAD
a potential (albeit small one) for an A320 base in CLE, but also the potential for loss of some 737 positions

Again, hopefully GUM will grow tremendously on its own and that will be a benefit to us all.

We have a base in Guam? :eek:

:D

This is something I never understood. The UAL guys say the 757 should be paid more than the 737. The company already told you they are replacing the 757 with the 737, so you would like to give yourself a pay cut.

I just don't get it.