UAL's downfall was a result of a permanet shift in industry dynamics that started with deregulation. CAL's downfall occurred much earlier in this shift, resulting in two CH11 filings. The only good to come out of that for CAL was that they were already slimmed down for the post 9-11 / LCC rise era. UAL, having not been through a CH11 "cleansing" yet, obviously was not.

Since you were probably still busy at the time playing with that paddle in college, you don't realize that our careers began at UAL like yours did at CAL (with better contracts though). Rapid movement, left seat in under 3 years if you wanted, widebody F/O after a year on the panel, etc. Some pilots did this, while others like myself said no thanks and stayed senior. However, the reality of the pendulum swinging back the other way put an end to that era.

Despite CAL being in a better position to contend with the industry post 2001, all it ultimately did was buy some time. When the DAL / NWA merger was given the go ahead, the CAL business plan as a stand alone entity was dead. The losses began to mount, and the financing for the aircraft orders was on thin ice. The expectations you had when you were hired were over, just as they were for us seven years before that. Don't forget that in the Spring of 2010 UAL and USair were in deep merger negotiations. Smisek personally called Tilton and intervened to stop it. Why would he have done that if the CAL business plan, and the expectations that you had riding on it, was still realistic?

Which brings us to my RJ comments which were intended to strike a nerve with you. You are correct, it is ridiculous for me to point my finger at a current or former RJ pilot like yourself and blame him / her for how my own career expectations were changed. You were right to call me out on that. How then, in an industry as dynamic as ours, do you justify coming on this forum and accusing someone like me of stealing your job?

Sled,

I agree with you. Those 05-06 hires are holding Captain so far out of seniority they are going to either be on reserve forever or they are going to get bumped by 67T FOs and Captains. I hope it doesn't happen, they personally don't deserve it, but if it does it does.

But in any case they are going to be junior for a LONG time. 50% of all Airbus FOs can hold guppy Captain and 75% of 76T FOs. Not to mention all the 76T Captains that can't hold 777 will have to go somewhere when bumped.

Yes there are new guppies coming online as replacement, but 76T FOs are sitting home getting 70+ hours to not fly and they are going to live that dream until they are forced out, then take their guppy Captain slot. That's in addition to the pilots who will bid those openings, including pilots being bumped out of the 747 FO in LAX, 777 FO in SEA, and other pilots that just bid.

I predict we will see a surplus on the guppy Captain position just like we are seeing on the other fleets. Won't be every domicile, but LAX and DEN (maybe even ORD) are prime candidates.

This is the type of thinking that drives large corporations to bankruptcy. When you blame external factors for your own shortcoming you are leading yourself down the path of further degradation.

Take another look at the 1990's (perhaps you were playing with paddles, but I was working in the industry). United, Delta, and American (but particularly United) outgrew the market. The rapid advancement that the UAL pilots experienced at that time was the result of poor management. CAL also grew in this period, but nowhere near the extent of UAL. When the economy turned, CAL was is a much better position because they did not overextend in the late 90's. UAL got bit.

Rather than blaming deregulation, take a real look at what went on back then. As much disdain as I have for management, I am relieved that they are not recklessly growing the airline.

I'm acknowledging, not blaming external events such as degregulation. None of the major carriers adapted well to the changes that began with deregulation. Fortunately, the first waves of low cost competitors in the 80s and 90s were poorly managed (People Express, Valujet) and fell apart. The mid to late 90s saw a surge in revenue that fell off dramatically after the tech bust and 9/11. That, along with much improved LCC competition (with help this time from Internet ticket searches) doomed the old business models once and for all. CAL went into this environment with the lowest legacy cost structure by far. Hardly surprising after a second CH11 in the early 90s, which undoubtedly contributed to CAL's more measured growth afterward.

The rate on the 747/777 is based on the Delta rate. It would never be greater than the Delta rate, 67% agreed to work for 8.5% less than a Delta pilot to begin with. If you compare the Delta 2013 rate to the UAL 2014 it is exactly the same, $254.74. So that is the starting point (do you really think UAL would agree to fly the aircraft for a higher pay rate than the Delta rate?).

We should all be happy that we brought more aircraft into the jumbo pay category. If you look closely at the pay rates (DAL 2013 vs UAL 2014) it becomes clear how the deck chars were shuffled. The rates below are the 12 year CA rates.

We gave a premium to the 787 in the amount of $10.12/hour and the
767-400 had a premium of $14.12. One important note is that we also gave a nice premium to the A320 to the tune of $7.74/hour compared to Delta.

Now where did this extra pay come from? Simply put, if you are flying a 757-200 today, we collectively kicked you in the nuts. The 757-200 pays $8.19/hour LESS than Delta. We also make less when we fly a 737-700 ($7.82). All the other aircraft rates are within $.50-.$76 of one another. One note, the blended rate of a combined 756/76T base would be $211.68 vs $213.22 at Delta.

On a cost basis, it is a wash. The premium to the 787 would impact 91 CA's, the 767-400 about 105 pilots but the A320 premium would increase the earnings of about 610 CA's (stovepipe method). :) On the down side, 720 757-200 CA's & 214 737-700 pilots will make almost $8000 less than their peers at Delta.

If the 767-400 and 787 were paid a premium for SLI reasons, why did we give a premium to the A320?

You answered you own question. All about yes votes.

They didn't.

L-UAL historically paid A-320 more than guppy. As a matter of fact the guppy was historically the lowest paying airplane, followed by the 727 then the Airbus.

Pilots at United used to upgrade to Airbus Captain from guppy or 727 because of the pay raise. Just look at the current seniority of Airbus Captains compared to guppy Captains. They are senior because they bid into airplanes that were paying more than the guppy.

The CAL NC would have NEVER agreed to paying the Airbus more than the 737 which it should have been paid.

The entire SLI case the CAL side brought was based on pay rates per airplane, and W-2 earnings per pilot. They needed to maintain that myth that they brought these superior paying aircraft to the deal and that would have been refuted with the UAL traditional pay scales.

Good thing it didn't work, and the arbitrators rightly and unanimously agreed that 747s and 777 are Jumbo. 767s and 757s are mid body, and the Airbus and Guppy were narrowbody. They didn't count the 25 787s CAL has on order nor the 35 A-350s and 40 787s UAL had on order.

Now that we are stuck with stupid pay banding it looks like it is here to stay.

That must be the CAL Legacy Pride the black guys have trouble quantifying.... :rolleyes:

Why should an Airbus pay more than a 737? Less seats=less revenue equates to more pay?

I'd love to hear the logic on that.

When you say the A320 paid more at UAL than a guppy you are comparing an A320 to a 737-300/500. Today we are comparing an A320 to a super guppy, the 737-800 and the super duper guppy 737-900. I really don't mind that the the A320 pays the same as the 737-800. If the rates are the same it keeps people from bidding to a new airplane to chase a few dollars.

Why should the Airbus pay more than the guppy? Now I am confused. You hate that the 767-400 & 787 pay wide body pay because they are not of the same size (and maybe and SLI maneuver). But it is OK to leapfrog the 737 in pay because it is the mighty Airbus. Just for reference an A320 seats 137, 800-154 seats and 900-167 seats.

Delta has some crazy formula based on the aircraft seating capacity, stage length and speed to come up with their pay rates. Delta has a more gradual scale of change as aircraft size decreases. If we just photocopied the Delta agreement everyone would be happy.